Bill Overview
Title: Controlling America’s Perilous Spending Act
Description: This bill establishes annual discretionary spending limits for FY2023-FY2032. The bill also establishes a budget point of order that may be raised against legislation that prevents a sequestration order from taking effect, such as legislation that suspends or waives an order. (Sequestration is a process of automatic, usually across-the-board spending reductions under which budgetary resources are permanently cancelled to enforce specific budget policy goals.)
Sponsors: Rep. Arrington, Jodey C. [R-TX-19]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide impacted by US economic policy changes
Estimated Size: 332000000
- Discretionary spending limits affect a wide range of public services and sectors. This includes healthcare, education, defense, transportation, and infrastructure development.
- Individuals who rely on government programs funded by discretionary spending will be impacted. This includes people who depend on public healthcare programs, education funding, and housing assistance.
- If sequestration leads to spending cuts, government employees, contractors, and service providers who rely on federal funding could see job impacts.
- General economic impact may occur if decreased government spending reduces overall economic activity, affecting consumers and businesses.
Reasoning
- Taking into consideration the wide range of services and sectors affected by the discretionary spending limits imposed by the policy, people from various demographics will experience different impacts.
- Government employees and individuals relying on public-sector services or funding are likely to experience more direct impacts.
- The limited budget of the policy compared to the vast population potentially impacted suggests that only key or high-needs areas might receive adequate support, highlighting the importance of simulating varying individual scenarios.
Simulated Interviews
Public School Teacher (Detroit, MI)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the spending cuts affect education funding, class sizes could increase and resources might become scarce.
- I worry about the quality of education for my children if our schools lose funding due to this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 6 |
Defense Contractor (Arlington, VA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cuts to defense could threaten my job security, affecting many of my colleagues too.
- I prefer stable government spending to keep the defense industry strong and reliable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Research Scientist in Public Health (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potential cuts to public health funding could halt important projects aimed at improving local health outcomes.
- This policy poses a risk to innovation and progress within public health research if funding is reduced.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Retired Army Veteran (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a veteran, I'm concerned that spending limits might affect VA services which many of us rely on.
- Security and feasibility of these benefits are crucial for my well-being.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The broader economic impact from reduced federal spending could affect consumer spending habits.
- My business thrives on a stable local economy, so national budget cuts are worrying.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Construction Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cuts to infrastructure spending could mean fewer jobs and projects, directly impacting my livelihood.
- I fear for long-term employment stability in construction if the funding decreases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Healthcare Administrator (Orlando, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reductions in healthcare-related funding could reduce our capability to serve the community efficiently.
- I worry about access to necessary care for underserved populations if our budget is cut.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Tech Entrepreneur (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect direct impacts from federal spending cuts on my startup due to its independent funding structure.
- I am, however, concerned about the general economic landscape and its effects on entrepreneurial ventures.
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 | 8 |
Social Worker (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that spending cuts could reduce our ability to provide essential services to vulnerable families.
- These funds are crucial for maintaining programs that support child welfare and family stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
College Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal budget cuts could impact my ability to continue receiving financial aid, which is crucial for completing my education.
- I'm concerned about the potential rise in student loan interest rates if federal support lessens.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Year 3: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Year 5: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Year 10: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- Impacts on public services and government programs due to spending limits.
- Potential reactions of financial markets to tighter fiscal policies.
- Need for monitoring the economic impacts of reduced government expenditure.