Bill Overview
Title: People Over Pentagon Act of 2022
Description: This bill reduces the amount authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense in FY2023 by $100 billion.
Sponsors: Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-13]
Target Audience
Population: individuals globally impacted by reduction in US defense spending
Estimated Size: 4000000
- The bill proposes a $100 billion reduction in the Department of Defense budget.
- A significant portion of this budget is allocated to personnel salaries, benefits, and related expenses of military personnel and civilians working in defense sector.
- Military contractors and industries related to defense manufacturing will be indirectly affected by this budget reduction.
- Reductions in military spending can potentially impact global security operations which the US is involved in.
- Civilians employed by companies that heavily rely on defense contracts might experience job insecurity or loss.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a budget reduction in defense spending, with potential impacts on those directly employed by the Department of Defense and businesses reliant on defense contracts. However, it assumes that funding will be reallocated to other sectors that might increase wellbeing through social services, healthcare, or education, yet these reallocations are not specified in the policy details.
- A reduction of $100 billion may cause economic downturns in regions heavily reliant on defense industries, potentially increasing unemployment temporarily.
- The breadth of impact varies significantly; some individuals and communities may not feel any direct effects, especially in areas where the economy is less dependent on defense.
- Consideration has been given to include a range of individuals, some directly impacted by job changes and others with more indirect consequences.
- The wellbeing scores reflect potential economic and psychological impact variations based on job stability, income security, and perceived future opportunities.
Simulated Interviews
Engineer (Virginia)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about potential layoffs or reduced contracts at work.
- The timing is bad with my recent financial commitments, like mortgage and student loans.
- I hope the reallocated funds can provide some community support or job transition programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Software Developer (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could drive innovation to diversify our client base beyond defense.
- Long-term, I'd like to see more tech companies like ours pursue public good projects.
- Immediate concern is about job stability for my team.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Military Personnel (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that budget cuts might affect our operational resources.
- Personal concern about the impact on spouses and families reliant on military jobs.
- Hopefully, strategic cuts won't diminish our capabilities or benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A significant cut in defense budget can lead to realignment of priorities.
- It's my job to find efficiencies, but drastic reductions might cut into necessary capabilities.
- Personally, the policy is a challenge but also an opportunity to innovate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Teacher (Alabama)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Living in a military town means everyone is tied to the base one way or another.
- Cuts could mean fewer students and less funding for community programs.
- Still, if it redirects money to education, it could be beneficial long-term.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Factory Worker (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reduction in military spending will probably lead to reduced contracts for our plant.
- It might force local manufacturers to diversify but could also lead to job losses.
- Union is already discussing contingency measures just in case.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Military Recruiter (Maryland)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If fewer funds mean a shrinking military, recruiting will be tougher.
- Our community is heavily military; changes affect not just service members but everyone.
- I understand the need to balance priorities but hope it's not at the cost of readiness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Nurse (Florida)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A reduction could mean fewer families in town, affecting local healthcare demand.
- If funding reallocates towards healthcare, it could mean better resources for us.
- Community wellbeing is the biggest concern if military-dependent businesses suffer.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired (Georgia)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who worked in the industry, I see the need for diversification of funding.
- Worried about pension and investments that are tied to military contractors.
- Hoping cuts push innovation and growth in other sectors.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Entrepreneur (Colorado)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as a potential opening for alternative energy funding.
- Cuts in defense should ideally mean more investment elsewhere, hopefully in sectors like ours.
- Economic stability and job creation in new fields should be a priority.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000000 (Low: $99000000000, High: $101000000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The immediate reduction could affect military readiness and global strategic operations.
- Possible loss of jobs in defense and related sectors due to cuts in funding.
- Economic impact on states with significant defense contractor presence.
- Potential reallocation of redirected funds can mitigate negative impacts on GDP and employment.
- Long-term impacts on military technological advancements and procurement strategies.