Bill Overview
Title: Lone Star Reimbursement Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense to provide approximately $1.43 billion to the state of Texas as reimbursement for the costs of Operation Lone Star incurred in FY2021 and FY2022. (Operation Lone Star is a border security operation initiated and carried out by the state of Texas.)
Sponsors: Rep. Fallon, Pat [R-TX-4]
Target Audience
Population: People in Texas influenced by state budget allocations
Estimated Size: 26000000
- The bill aims to have financial implications, specifically a reimbursement, for the state of Texas.
- This will affect the local governments within Texas as well as state-level decision-makers who operate budgets, especially those related to border security.
- The funds from the reimbursement could affect various sectors in Texas due to the reallocation or availability of funds.
- Individuals involved in Operation Lone Star, including security personnel, contractors, and other staff, could be financially impacted as state resources might have been directed towards their wages or operational costs.
- The residents of Texas could indirectly benefit if these funds are redistributed towards public services or infrastructure.
- Border security efforts in Texas impact migrants and asylum seekers attempting to enter from Mexico and any involved border communities.
- Indirectly, if the operation impacts border crossings or immigration patterns, rippling effects could touch broader U.S. communities, especially those concerned with immigration.
Reasoning
- Operation Lone Star's reimbursement will directly impact Texas's state budget by replenishing funds used in the border security operation.
- Groups that could see direct effects include state officials making budget decisions, those involved in Operation Lone Star, and communities at the border.
- Texas's general population might experience indirect effects if the reimbursement allows the state to allocate funds to other areas.
- Individuals residing near the border could be more directly impacted by changes in security policy and operations.
- Overall, the policy's effects will be more pronounced within Texas, while the rest of the U.S. might feel only indirect consequences related to broader immigration and budgetary policy discussions.
Simulated Interviews
State budget analyst (Austin, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This reimbursement is crucial for us to balance our budget post large expenditures.
- With these funds, we can focus on other pressing needs in the state, like education or healthcare.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Public school teacher (Houston, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the state reallocates funds towards education, we might finally see improved resources.
- I'm worried about continued focus and funding on border security over other community needs.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Border security officer (El Paso, Texas)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reimbursement could stabilize our operational budget, possibly leading to better equipment and job security.
- I'm concerned about border security and the perception of our efforts.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Immigration lawyer (San Antonio, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried this reimbursement might signal further investment in border policing rather than in community support.
- I hope these funds aren't used to further intense border enforcement.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Construction contractor (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If more funds go to infrastructure, we'll potentially see new contracts and projects.
- I'm unsure how this reimbursement will directly impact my business besides potential budget shifts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired, former public administrator (Lubbock, Texas)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reallocating funds to services like healthcare could significantly impact my daily life and community.
- I remember when state funds were redirected to urgent needs, showing the power of such budget changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Policy researcher (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am interested in seeing how the reimbursement influences Texas's political stance on border security.
- It could have implications for future federal and state relationships around border policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
College student (Austin, Texas)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The movement of large funds like this can have trickle-down effects on education and public sectors, which interests me.
- I'm more concerned about how these funds might impact broader social policies in Texas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Financial analyst (New York, New York)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm interested in how this reimbursement will affect Texas's fiscal responsibility and security-related spending.
- This may serve as a precedent for other states seeking federal reimbursements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Nurse (Brownsville, Texas)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With the right allocation, health services in border areas could be strengthened.
- I'm hopeful but cautious about whether these funds will truly be redirected to aid border towns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1430000000 (Low: $1430000000, High: $1430000000)
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 payment is a fixed, one-time transfer with no future cost or savings anticipated past the year of expenditure.
- Reimbursement may lead to state decisions affecting local or regional economies, contingent upon fund redistribution.
- Potential political impacts on future federal-state funding dynamics, especially regarding border security policies.