Bill Overview
Title: Military Family Protection from Debt Act
Description: This bill expands eligibility for certain debt protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to the dependents of members of the Armed Forces.
Sponsors: Rep. Kim, Andy [D-NJ-3]
Target Audience
Population: Dependents of active duty members of the Armed Forces
Estimated Size: 3300000
- The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) provides financial protections for active duty service members, including protections from eviction, foreclosure, and repossession, among other things.
- The amendment in this bill specifically extends these protections to the dependents of service members, which includes spouses, children, and possibly other legal dependents.
- A significant percentage of active duty military personnel have dependents, with the Department of Defense reporting that many service members are married and have children.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a specific group within the population - the dependents of active duty military personnel.
- Given the budget constraints, it is unlikely the policy can fully support all 3.3 million potential beneficiaries at once.
- The policy's impact will be more concentrated among those already experiencing financial distress.
- The simulated interviews will reflect varied experiences based on different economic situations and support needs.
- I will include interviews with people who represent both high-impact and low-impact scenarios.
Simulated Interviews
Homemaker (San Diego, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would greatly help my family because it gives us the peace of mind that our debts won't overwhelm us if my husband is deployed again.
- I believe that the protections should have always included us, the dependents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The extra protections would definitely reduce stress, especially since gigs come and go.
- Our credit card bills have been a worry during deployments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
School Teacher (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a relief to know that my children and I would be protected from eviction if anything happened to my spouse during service.
- Our biggest concern is the mortgage. This policy addresses our critical fears.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Nurse (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This would keep us safe from financial ruin due to multiple relocations, which are not unheard of in the military world.
- Protection from sudden financial changes is so crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Part-time Retail Worker (Fort Hood, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've managed our debts carefully, so this policy doesn't change much for us right now.
- Still, it's comforting to know protections exist if circumstances change.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
IT Specialist (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems more relevant for younger families, but having similar protections when my spouse was active would have made life less stressful.
- It's good that others will have this reassurance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
College Student (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Since I manage my finances tightly, this doesn't impact me directly now. However, it's nice knowing help is there if suddenly needed.
- My peers welcome changes like this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Freelancer (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the policy included some form of debt relief, it would be more beneficial.
- It's good for families worried about foreclosure or repossession but doesn't help us in our situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Retail Manager (Clarksville, TN)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these are more for families with mortgages or car leases, not renters like us.
- Overall, it's a good move for general military family well-being.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Surf Instructor (Honolulu, HI)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our financial situation is stable, so the policy won't affect us directly.
- For those dealing with debts, this policy is very beneficial, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $83000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $86000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $92000000)
Year 10: $65000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $103000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $270000000)
Key Considerations
- Expansion of SCRA protections requires administrative investment and potentially more legal oversight.
- Potential fluctuations in housing and consumer credit markets due to reduced debt pressures on military families.
- Economic security for military families can support military effectiveness and morale.