Bill Overview
Title: Military Consumer Protection Task Force Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense to establish an Interagency Task Force on Financial Fraud targeting members of the Armed Forces and veterans to identify and examine current and developing methods of financial fraud targeting members of the Armed Forces, veterans, and military families and issue recommendations to prevent and combat such fraud.
Sponsors: Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8]
Target Audience
Population: Members of the Armed Forces, veterans, and military families
Estimated Size: 65000000
- The bill targets the prevention and combating of financial fraud specifically aimed at the military community.
- The bill directly mentions members of the Armed Forces, veterans, and military families.
- Each of these groups is vulnerable to various financial fraud schemes due to the specific nature of military duty and circumstances that affect veterans and their families.
- The bill's impact will thus extend to individuals currently serving in the military, those who have served (veterans), and their family members.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically targets military personnel, veterans, and their families, groups that are often targeted by financial frauds due to frequent relocations, deployments, and perceived stable income.
- Given the scale of 65,000,000 potential beneficiaries, the program is relatively low cost per individual.
- The impact is most pronounced on those directly affected by fraud yet provides peace of mind and preventive benefits to all within the target group.
- Each simulated interview will capture the sentiments from different layers within this population - active service members, veterans, family members, those unaffected by financial fraud, and those who have previously been victims.
Simulated Interviews
Active Duty Navy Officer (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Since I'm often deployed, I fear for my family's safety with financial matters. It provides some peace of mind knowing there might be a better safeguard against this.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Veteran (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having been scammed before, this is a step in the right direction. But I still feel cautious.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Veteran (Chicago, IL)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see measures for protection, though I've personally never been affected.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Spouse of Active Duty Army member (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being the one handling finances, it's reassuring to have this kind of oversight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Veteran (San Diego, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is necessary to protect our community's financial health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Current Army Member (El Paso, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are crucial to maintaining trust and security for my family at home.
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 | 6 |
New Army Recruit (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good first impression seeing this level of care, especially as I'm just starting out.
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 | 5 |
Spouse of Veteran (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A recent scam hurt us financially. This task force is a ray of hope.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Civilian Contractor (Veteran)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Never been on my radar, but it's positive for the community.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Widow of a Veteran (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the focus on keeping us from being taken advantage of, especially at my age.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $10500000 (Low: $8500000, High: $12500000)
Year 5: $10500000 (Low: $8500000, High: $12500000)
Year 10: $11000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $13000000)
Year 100: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $14000000)
Key Considerations
- Coordination among multiple government agencies is crucial for the success of the Task Force.
- The scope and depth of fraud preventative measures adopted will significantly influence cost and effectiveness.
- The impact on families’ financial health is an essential metric for gauging success.
- Ensuring continuous funding and policy support for the task force is necessary for sustained success.