Bill Overview
Title: No Taxpayer Dollars for Russian Oligarchs Act
Description: This bill prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds for the maintenance of civilian vehicles (1) seized in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, (2) seized by Task Force KlepoCapture, or (3) that belong to sanctioned Russian oligarchs or officials. The bill also makes certain rules of federal criminal procedure non-applicable in such seizures.
Sponsors: Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-9]
Target Audience
Population: Sanctioned Russian Oligarchs and Officials
Estimated Size: 335000000
- The bill targets federal spending related to seized property owned by Russian oligarchs, which implies its primary focus is on financial management within the U.S. government.
- It indirectly affects Russian oligarchs because it addresses the management of assets seized from them due to sanctions.
- The broader implications of the bill affect U.S. taxpayers by ensuring that their money is not spent on maintaining seized vehicles owned by sanctioned individuals.
Reasoning
- The policy affects a very specific demographic in terms of direct impact—namely, the teams handling asset seizures and management. However, given the limitation of the budget and the nature of the policy, the broader demographic essentially experiences the effect at a taxpayer level, wherein federal funds management is indirectly impacted.
- Given the modest budget related to federal asset management and the wide base of American taxpayers, most people's personal wellbeing won't be directly or significantly shifted by this policy in their daily lives.
- We expect negligible direct economic impact on the average citizen, but a potential increase in trust and financial responsibility perception toward government which affects long-term trust-based wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Government Auditor (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems to be an efficient step toward reinforcing tax spend accountability.
- While it does not change workload immediately, it aligns with our mission of ensuring proper fund allocation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Finance Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Economically, this policy is a taxpayer safeguard.
- There's little immediate impact on personal finances, but it boosts confidence in governance.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Austin, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy does not alter my business or personal life substantially.
- I appreciate any measure that keeps government budgets lean.
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 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Unlikely to change anything in my day-to-day, but governmental procedure precision is always welcome.
- I value transparency in tax spending.
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 | 8 | 8 |
Retired Auto Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm happy to see taxpayer funds more observed.
- It offers a peace of mind knowing the government spending scrutinizes unnecessary expenses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
University Professor (Houston, TX)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It sends a good practice signal regarding fiscal responsibility.
- Though direct impact on citizens is minimal, it's a good ethical policy.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Environmental Activist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy helps in holding government accountable, a matter I endorse fully.
- Financial accountability in policy reflects broader responsibility values.
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 | 6 | 5 |
Freelance Writer (Miami, FL)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It portrays a positive outlook of taxpayer accountability.
- Direct personal impact is unclear, but it seems a responsible step.
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 |
Graduate Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see it as a positive reinforcement of efficient spending.
- Direct financial aid policies affect me more significantly, but it's nice to see positive fiscal efforts.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Legal Advisor (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This aligns with my expectations for sanction implementations.
- Being involved in legal facets, it improves my confidence in sanctions enforcement.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $900000 (Low: $400000, High: $1900000)
Year 3: $850000 (Low: $300000, High: $1800000)
Year 5: $750000 (Low: $200000, High: $1700000)
Year 10: $600000 (Low: $100000, High: $1500000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The primary fiscal consideration is the redirected federal spending saved from maintenance costs.
- Enforcement of non-expenditure rules needs to be effective to realize the proposed savings.
- Long-term operational costs for Task Force KlepoCapture need continuous review to ensure net savings.