Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8211

Bill Overview

Title: To require the return of amounts loaned under the Paycheck Protection Program of the Small Business Administration used for illegal activities, and for other purposes.

Description: This bill requires the Small Business Administration to ensure that any loan amounts under the Paycheck Protection Program that are used for an illegal activity are returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Sponsors: Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK-2]

Target Audience

Population: Business Entities Using PPP Funds for Illegal Activities

Estimated Size: 10000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Restaurant Owner (Chicago, IL)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I understand the need for oversight, but the funds helped keep our doors open even if not every dollar was spent perfectly.
  • Returning funds now would mean taking out a new loan just to cover that cost.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

Tech Startup Manager (Austin, TX)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We used those funds to stay operational and pivot in uncertain times, not on shady dealings.
  • The policy seems fair if it helps reinforce responsible use of public funds.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 9 9

Retired Auditor (Miami, FL)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • A return policy is necessary to safeguard taxpayer money.
  • My role involves advising on the best practices for recovery without crippling businesses.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Freelance Designer (New York, NY)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I wasn't involved in the financial side, but tightening policies might offer a sense of fairness amidst uncertainties.
  • As an employee, I would expect the company's transparency.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 9 9

Entertainment Producer (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I understand the aim, and it doesn't look good on my part, but circumstances were dire.
  • The policy seems a necessary step but may lead to unexpected hardships for some businesses.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 3 5
Year 2 4 5
Year 3 5 6
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 6 7

Healthcare Administrator (Houston, TX)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Our practice adhered strictly to policy—oversight is welcomed for transparency.
  • I support policies that clamp down on malpractice as they uphold faith in these programs.

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 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Non-profit Coordinator (Seattle, WA)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The intent was always community-centered despite financial ambiguities.
  • This policy underscores the necessity of clarity in such financial assistance.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Retail Store Manager (Denver, CO)

Age: 36 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Our store used these funds properly, and policies like this further ensure public trust.
  • Most small stores like ours were very cautious given the repercussions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Construction Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)

Age: 47 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Complexity in fund management during crisis times meant difficult decisions.
  • This policy is an unfortunate necessity but could spell financial stress if not handled with firm understanding.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

Academic Researcher (Boston, MA)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will be useful for framing future public funding measures.
  • It's important such policies do not become overly punitive and turn away future program participation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $50000000)

Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $40000000)

Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)

Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)

Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)

Year 100: $500000 (Low: $250000, High: $1000000)

Key Considerations