Bill Overview
Title: Defense Budget Transparency Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires research and specified action related to pass-through budgeting for military departments. Pass-through budgeting refers to the practice by which certain funds allocated for a military department are subject to the authority of other departments and agencies of the federal government but are included in the overall budget of the military department despite the department's lack of authority over the funds. Specifically, the bill requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to seek to enter a contract with an independent research organization to conduct a study on the effects of pass-through budgeting on the Department of the Air Force and other DOD organizations and elements. For each fiscal year beginning with FY2024, the budget justification materials submitted in support of the DOD budget must include separate line items for each military department to clearly identify any amounts requested that are subject to pass-through budgeting.
Sponsors: Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals whose governments will benefit from transparent US defense spending
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The bill affects the U.S. Department of Defense and its budgeting practices.
- The clarification of budget allocations impacts transparency and oversight, affecting the management within DOD and military departments.
- The bill could indirectly affect all American taxpayers as it involves federal budget allocations.
- The effectiveness of military spending can impact national security policy and military personnel.
Reasoning
- The Defense Budget Transparency Act of 2022 primarily affects military departments, particularly in terms of budget transparency and oversight. This may indirectly influence all taxpayers as it involves federal budgeting and may lead to more efficient spending.
- To simulate the impact on different individuals, we'll include military personnel who are directly affected by budget changes, taxpayers who might experience changes in perceptions of governmental efficiency, and those working indirectly in government fiscal responsibilities.
- Given the minimal direct influence on individual day-to-day wellbeing, we should anticipate that any measurable changes would likely be subtle and distributive across a broader societal context rather than immediate or pronounced for individuals.
Simulated Interviews
Civil Servant - Financial Analyst (Dayton, Ohio)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act will make my job easier by clearly showing budget allocations, leading to better efficiency in financial reporting.
- I anticipate less confusion in budget revisions and a clearer understanding of departmental funds usage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Air Force Officer (San Antonio, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Greater budget transparency should mean more clear and fair resource allocation.
- I'm hopeful it addresses funding bottlenecks in my department.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
University Professor in Public Administration (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 46 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a step in the right direction towards transparency which can have long-term societal benefits.
- Better accountability could improve public trust in defense spending.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Policy Advisor (Arlington, Virginia)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should enhance clarity in policy-making by distinguishing funding flows, reducing inefficiencies.
- Expectations are high for strategic military and economic policy planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired School Teacher (Peoria, Illinois)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a taxpayer, I want my money to be used efficiently. Transparency is essential.
- While not directly impacting my daily life, it's reassuring to know there could be more fiscal responsibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Data Analyst for Government Accountability Office (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having clear line items will tremendously help in data examination and trend analysis.
- It will likely streamline my work and support deeper analysis of defense allocations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Construction Worker (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see how this affects my daily life, but I hope government funds are used wisely.
- Indirectly, I support transparency if it means more money goes where needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Military Spouse (Fort Bragg, North Carolina)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm always concerned about how budget decisions affect military benefits and housing.
- This policy could lead to better financial management which might trickle down to family support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Defense Contractor (Tacoma, Washington)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transparency could clarify contracting opportunities, potentially increasing or altering the landscape.
- It's a stabilizing move for understanding budget flows in contract planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Legislative Assistant (Washington D.C.)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect this will complement our advocacy for better funds management.
- Policy clarity here gives us more precise tools for legislative evaluation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $13000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $18000000)
Year 3: $12000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $13000000)
Year 10: $9000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $11000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Uncertainty about the specific cost and savings due to varying implementation strategies across military departments.
- Potential resistance or challenges in altering existing budgetary processes.
- Effectiveness of improved transparency depends on subsequent policy actions taken based on the enhanced clarity.