Bill Overview
Title: Bring our Small Businesses Back Act
Description: This bill provides grants for local governments to fund existing consumer voucher matching programs, under which funds contributed by individuals are matched by the local government to assist small businesses affected by COVID-19.
Sponsors: Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-10]
Target Audience
Population: Small businesses affected by COVID-19
Estimated Size: 8000000
- The bill is aimed at small businesses affected by COVID-19, which includes a large portion of small businesses globally. Estimates suggest there are about 400 million small businesses worldwide.
- The bill involves consumer voucher programs, so it impacts consumers who use these vouchers, individuals contributing to them, and local governments implementing these programs.
- The scale of impact would also depend on the reach of the local governments implementing this bill and the number of businesses participating in the voucher programs.
- Assuming conservative engagement, if 1% of small businesses globally are affected, that's about 4 million small businesses.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to support small businesses through consumer voucher matching programs subsidized by local governments.
- This might have a varied impact depending on the business’s reliance on local consumer spending and the engagement of consumers.
- Considering the scale and budget constraints, not all businesses will benefit immediately, and the impact will depend on local implementation efficiency.
- Businesses not directly benefiting from such vouchers may show no direct change in wellbeing scores.
- Consumers may see an increase in their ability to support local businesses, which can indirectly improve community satisfaction and support networks.
- Local government efficiency and reach play a crucial role in maximizing policy effectiveness.
Simulated Interviews
Coffee shop owner (Austin, TX)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Optimistic about the additional support this act can provide.
- Worried about the administrative burden of applying for such programs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Craft store owner (Buffalo, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Relieved to see some governmental focus on small businesses.
- Afraid the funding might not reach her due to the high number of applicants.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Tech startup co-founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Believes the policy is targeted at traditional retail, not tech.
- Expects minimal impact on their business.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Restaurant owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes the vouchers attract more customers.
- Concerned about equitable distribution among businesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Automotive parts dealer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expects slight benefits if consumer confidence increases.
- Wants more direct support for supply chain issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Boutique hotel owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Skeptical about the reach of the program.
- Hoping for tourism rebound supported by government incentive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Independent bookstore owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Encouraged by potential foot traffic increase.
- Worried about competition for the same resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Music venue owner (Nashville, TN)
Age: 57 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cautiously optimistic but recognizes the competition for funds.
- Would like to see more support aimed specifically at the live music industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 2 |
Farm stand owner (Rural Kansas)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Views the policy positively if it boosts local farmers' markets.
- Not heavily reliant on the intervention as he managed to maintain loyal customers.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
University student (Madison, WI)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited to see local businesses recovering which enhances student life.
- Plans to contribute to voucher programs if financially feasible.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 2: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 3: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 5: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 10: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Key Considerations
- The program's effectiveness hinges on the participation rate of local governments and small businesses.
- The amount of consumer spending directly influenced by these vouchers largely determines the economic impact.
- The administrative burden on local governments could be significant, possibly affecting efficiency.