Bill Overview
Title: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2023
Description: This bill provides FY2023 appropriations to the Department of Defense (DOD) for military activities. (The bill excludes military construction, military family housing, civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, and nuclear warheads, which are all considered in other appropriations bills.) Within the DOD budget, the bill provides appropriations for Military Personnel; Operation and Maintenance; Procurement; Research, Development, Test and Evaluation; and Revolving and Management Funds. The bill provides appropriations for Other Department of Defense Programs, including the Defense Health Program, Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, and the Office of the Inspector General. In addition, the bill provides appropriations for Related Agencies, including (1) the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund, and (2) the Intelligence Community Management Account. The bill also sets forth requirements and restrictions for using funds provided by this and other appropriations acts.
Sponsors: Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4]
Target Audience
Population: People associated with the Department of Defense's activities and operations
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The DOD budget impacts all active duty military personnel, which includes branches like the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Space Force.
- Families of military personnel will be indirectly affected as the budget influences their living conditions, support services, and available benefits.
- Military contractors and industries related to defense procurement and research may be affected in terms of contracts and funding.
- The Defense Health Program influences the healthcare of military personnel and their families.
- Programs for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Drug Interdiction, and Counter-Drug Activities affect those involved in these operations and their related communities.
- The operation of the Office of the Inspector General and related intelligence community programs has a broader impact on national security and oversight activities.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes military personnel and their families, defense industry workers, and personnel involved in specific DOD programs. The policy impacts everyone's life differently based on their direct or indirect association with DOD programs.
- Given the budget and scope of DOD's influence, we expect a range of impacts. Some individuals will see no change, while others will experience moderate to high effects, especially if their livelihood depends directly on military funding and operations.
- Cantril wellbeing scores will vary as some programs receive funding boosts, potentially leading to better service outcomes for military personnel and families. Simultaneously, overall financial stability and future security influence long-term outlooks for some beneficiaries.
- This analysis includes people not directly connected to the DOD but potentially impacted by changes in national security and economic circumstances stemming from large defense allocations.
Simulated Interviews
Active Duty Army (Virginia)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased DOD budget might improve our operational capabilities and bolster morale by showing investment in our resources.
- Concerns about how much is spent on procurement versus personnel welfare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Defense Contractor Engineer (California)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A larger budget should mean more contracts, possibly leading to job stability and growth in our sector.
- Worried about potential over-spending in areas that don't benefit our projects directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Military Family Member (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this means improvements in base housing and local facilities.
- We never see enough of the budget reaching us in significant ways.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Defense Policy Analyst (District of Columbia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An increased budget provides an opportunity for reviewing current inefficiencies and reallocating resources to emerging threats.
- Concerned about accountability and strategic focus with such a large budget.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Logistics Coordinator (Florida)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increases will likely maintain or improve efficiency in supply chains we manage.
- Increased operational budgets might not translate to better logistics if not managed well.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Nurse (North Carolina)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Defense Health Program funding is crucial for maintaining and improving care facilities for soldiers and their families.
- Cautiously optimistic about potential increases in necessary equipment and staff hiring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen fluctuations based on troop rotations; a larger budget might stabilize or increase the local population.
- Uncertain if wider budget policies will sustain the economic influence of the base nearby.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
National Guard Reserve (Arizona)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hoping budget increases might affect educational benefits or reserve pay improvements.
- Skeptical of how quickly budget changes trickle down to reserves.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Software Developer (Georgia)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The budget increase should lead to more projects and job security especially in cyber defense initiatives.
- Worried about competitive contracts and whether our company will benefit directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Public School Teacher (Ohio)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Budget increases could mean more support for military families, impacting school resources positively.
- Unsure how directly the military budget affects our district funding levels though.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $750000000000 (Low: $740000000000, High: $760000000000)
Year 2: $750000000000 (Low: $740000000000, High: $760000000000)
Year 3: $750000000000 (Low: $740000000000, High: $760000000000)
Year 5: $750000000000 (Low: $740000000000, High: $760000000000)
Year 10: $750000000000 (Low: $740000000000, High: $760000000000)
Year 100: $750000000000 (Low: $740000000000, High: $760000000000)
Key Considerations
- The impact of inflation on defense procurement and personnel costs.
- Geopolitical risks requiring rapid adjustment in military allocations.
- Efficiency of appropriations utilization in meeting strategic and operational goals.
- Potential for technological advancements driven by increased R&D funding.