Bill Overview
Title: PAYSTUB Act
Description: This bill restricts the use of federal funds for the salaries or expenses of political employees if the President's budget is not submitted to Congress by the first Monday in February as required by law. Specifically, if the President's budget is not submitted to Congress on or before the first Monday in February of a year, federal funds may not be used for the salary or expenses of any political employee during the period beginning on the first Tuesday of February of that year and ending on the date the budget is submitted. On the earliest possible date after the President's budget is submitted, political employees whose salaries or expenses were not paid during a period in which the President's budget had not yet been submitted must be paid for that period.
Sponsors: Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]
Target Audience
Population: Political employees of the United States federal government
Estimated Size: 3000
- The bill specifies that it restricts federal funds for salaries or expenses of political employees if the President's budget is submitted late.
- Political employees include those appointed by the President, typically encompassing a few thousand individuals working across various departments and agencies.
- The impact of withheld salaries would directly affect the personal finances of these political employees.
- Globally, the direct impact is minimal because this legislation pertains exclusively to political employees in the United States federal government.
- Therefore, the global estimate encompasses only the number of individuals potentially affected directly by these employment conditions.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts a relatively narrow group of people—political employees in the federal government, who are typically high-ranking public officials appointed by the President.
- This subset includes Cabinet members, agency directors, and other high-level officials, totalling approximately 3,000 individuals nationwide.
- The financial impact on these employees might be significant because it involves withholding their salaries until the federal budget is submitted.
- Since this policy is quite niche, the general U.S. population remains largely unaffected both directly and indirectly, barring emotional reactions related to perceptions of government efficiency.
- The overall budget limitation for this policy implementation is primarily geared towards the logistical and administrative costs of enforcement rather than direct wellbeing benefits.
- Wellbeing impacts are assessed over time, considering both immediate financial stress caused by withheld salaries and potential morale boosts from improved regulatory accountability.
Simulated Interviews
Agency Director (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy motivates us to adhere to deadlines, ensuring accountability, which is crucial.
- However, the stress of potentially losing salary temporarily is concerning.
- It reflects a broader push for governmental efficiency, which I support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 10 |
Political Staff Advisor (New York, NY)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My family relies on my stable income, so the risk of salary delay is quite stressful.
- I see the policy intent, but it's the wrong method to enforce accountability.
- Workers shouldn't be caught in the political crossfire.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Policy Analyst (Austin, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I appreciate timely budgets, withholding pay harms mid-level staff the most.
- Our family budget can't absorb financial uncertainty well.
- This policy could inadvertently demotivate public servants.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Retired Senior Federal Employee (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not directly affected but interested in how it reflects on government responsibility.
- I think the policy creates unnecessary stress among political workers who are pivotal to federal functionality.
- Respect for deadlines should come from professionalism, not threats of withholding salaries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Junior Policy Advisor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy does not address core budget issues but adds personal risk to staff.
- My situation is vulnerable; prolonged non-payment could mean debt or default.
- I am proud to work in government, but policies like this can make it difficult.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Political Communications Director (San Diego, CA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who suffers direct consequences, this policy feels like misdirected accountability.
- I fear losing talented staff who will leave due to the risk involved in our salaries.
- I hope the policy pushes for more streamlined processes, but it's causing current distress.
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 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 10 |
Senior Federal Agency Consultant (Boston, MA)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though I am indirectly affected, I see this policy as crucial for demonstrating accountability.
- I hope this inspires more timely governance actions, despite some inevitable setbacks initially.
- Effective implementation could lead to systemic improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Federal Department Head (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Accountability is important, but this approach feels blunt and unfairly escalatory.
- At higher stress times, cynical political moves demoralize staff quickly.
- There needs to be smarter, creatively positive enforcement mechanisms.
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 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Technology Policy Coordinator (Denver, CO)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The idea of forced accountability can seem good, but the execution harms individuals.
- It presupposes that individuals have control over larger systemic delays.
- We need more collaborative solutions to government efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Deputy Department Head (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- On a principle level, I understand the intention, yet disagree with placing financial burdens on staff personally.
- Some of our dedicated staff may leave due to these perceived risks.
- Accountability measures should respect professional dignity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Key Considerations
- Policy enforces accountability by financially penalizing political appointments due to budgetary delays.
- The financial constraint is temporary, as back payment is required post budget submission, restoring salaries retroactively.
- Administrative costs involved in pausing and resuming salary payments may create additional logistic burden with no long-term savings.
- The bill only affects a small, specific group within the federal government and does not impact the broader economy.