Bill Overview
Title: No Pensions for Lying Bureaucrats Act
Description: This bill bars federal employees convicted of making false statements while employed by the federal government from receiving certain federal retirement benefits.
Sponsors: Rep. Carl, Jerry L. [R-AL-1]
Target Audience
Population: Current and future federal employees
Estimated Size: 5000
- The bill specifically targets federal employees, so the global estimate is comprised of people working in the federal government.
- A small percentage of these employees may engage in activities that could lead to convictions for making false statements.
- Federal employees are part of the global population, but the eligibility and impact are primarily concerning American employees.
Reasoning
- The policy is designed to deter federal employees from engaging in deceitful behaviors by threatening the loss of retirement benefits.
- The budget constraint implies limited scope and support for the policy's verification and enforcement phases, especially within the first year.
- The global estimate suggests a relatively small target group of 10,000 people, including current and prospective federal employees who might be at risk of being affected by this bill.
- Since the policy applies only upon conviction for specific falsehoods, its immediate effect might be limited, but its deterrence effect could be broader.
- Impact on well-being might primarily be seen in employees working in sensitive positions where the risk of false statements and their consequences are higher.
Simulated Interviews
Federal employee - Senior Policy Advisor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems reasonable as it discourages dishonesty, which is detrimental to our work.
- I'm worried it could lead to a culture of fear, negatively affecting honest employees.
- This adds stress about my plans for retirement if someone accuses me unfairly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Federal employee - IT Specialist (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy targets those who harm our system with lies.
- My role is clear-cut, but it adds a new layer of complexity that could worry younger employees.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Federal employee - Junior Analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 19/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The emphasis on honesty is good, but it feels like further pressure for new employees.
- It might deter skilled people from joining federal positions due to fear of unintentional errors being punished.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Retired Federal Employee (New York, NY)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't affect me now directly, but it makes me concerned about the pensions of my colleagues.
- I'm supportive of maintaining integrity, yet worried about the fairness in its application.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Federal employee - Administrative Officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although I think it's crucial to have integrity, this act increases anxiety over future proof requirements for honesty.
- Might encourage whistleblowing but could also lead to false allegations as career sabotage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Federal employee - HR Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy emphasizes ethical practices, aligning with our department's goals.
- Could complicate procedures when evaluating employee conduct, yet largely welcomed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Federal employee - Field Agent (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the necessity for such a policy, but it will likely add challenges when filing reports under stress.
- Worried about the implications of minor mistakes being misinterpreted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Federal employee - Junior Environmental Scientist (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned because this policy may create an intimidating atmosphere among new hires.
- Further clarity on what constitutes a 'false statement' would be helpful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Federal employee - Legal Advisor (Boston, MA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fully support this policy, as it underscores the importance of honesty in government work.
- It could, however, raise concerns over the subjectivity in judging 'falsehoods' in complex legal scenarios.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Federal employee - Communications Specialist (Miami, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Effective deterrent against dishonesty, but the fear of repercussions from simple errors could suppress openness.
- Transparency in enforcement will be key to maintaining morale.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Year 2: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Year 3: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Year 5: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Year 10: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Year 100: $500000 (Low: $300000, High: $700000)
Key Considerations
- The actual number of individuals affected by this policy could vary significantly based on future legal actions.
- There may be legal challenges to the policy that could affect implementation costs.
- Savings depend on long-term enforcement and adherence to this policy by federal agencies.