Bill Overview
Title: Presidential Budget Accountability Act
Description: This bill restricts the use of federal funds for presidential travel 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 travel expenses of the President during the period beginning on the first Tuesday of February of that year and ending on the date the budget is submitted.
Sponsors: Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]
Target Audience
Population: President of the United States
Estimated Size: 1
- The bill targets the President of the United States and indirectly impacts officials and staff involved in presidential travel.
- The restriction on federal funding for travel is contingent upon the submission of the federal budget to Congress.
- The intent of the bill is to ensure timely submission of the federal budget by the President.
- Directly, the affected population is only the President. Indirectly, the staff and services involved in presidential travel could be impacted if funds are restricted.
Reasoning
- The primary direct target of this policy is the President of the United States, with an indirect impact on officials and staff involved in presidential travel arrangements. Given the narrow scope, very few people are directly affected.
- The budget for implementing the policy is minimal in the first year ($50,000) and moderately larger over ten years ($500,000), implying no direct costs to the general population.
- Wellbeing impacts are expected to be negligible for the general population unless they are part of the presidential travel team, in which case the impact is likely indirect and low.
- The President's motivation to submit the budget on time may prevent the policy's enactment, leading to no observable effects on individuals' wellbeing scores.
- The indirect effect on the staff associated with travel may involve minimal financial or professional inconvenience, given the small budget amounts allocated for the policy's execution over a decade.
Simulated Interviews
President of the United States (Washington D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.1 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy puts additional pressure on me to ensure the budget is submitted punctually. It is a reasonable accountability measure, although it does add stress.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Chief of Staff to the President (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.2 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While it's important for transparency and accountability, this policy adds complexity to my role, especially during busy fiscal periods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Air Force Pilot (Camp Springs, MD)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.1 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could temporarily affect my work schedule, depending on the President's budget submission. However, it should not have a significant long-term impact.
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 |
Political Analyst (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as a tool for ensuring government accountability. Although I am not directly impacted, it may influence political operations I analyze.
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 |
Travel Analyst (Denver, CO)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my work focus on efficiency and accountability in spending. It's a good measure, but it won't directly affect me personally.
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 |
Political Staffer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support measures that ensure timely fiscal reporting to Congress. This policy is a step towards greater accountability, although it does not directly impact my role.
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 |
Retired Government Employee (Seattle, WA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a former government employee, I appreciate any policy that promotes timely and responsible governance. While it's interesting, it does not affect me directly.
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 |
Journalist (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a strong accountability mechanism, and it gives me material for my reporting. However, it doesn’t affect my personal wellbeing.
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 |
Political Consultant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 51 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this can affect campaign strategies depending on presidential decisions. It does not affect me directly, but I watch its implications closely.
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 |
Government Accountability Office Employee (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a policy that enhances my work in accountability. It’s helpful for a more timely oversight process, but doesn’t personally impact my wellbeing.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $100000)
Year 2: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $100000)
Year 3: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $100000)
Year 5: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $100000)
Year 10: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $100000)
Year 100: $50000 (Low: $25000, High: $100000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation and enforcement will require adjustments in current administrative and congressional procedures.
- Potential resistance or pushback from executive branch regarding enforcement.
- Limited direct financial impact yet symbolic importance towards accountability in governance.
- Potential indirect effects on perceptions of government efficiency and responsiveness.