Bill Overview
Title: Budgetary Quid Pro Quo Act
Description: This bill generally prohibits Congress from considering legislation that authorizes appropriations for a program unless the legislation also includes a provision that reduces an authorization of appropriations for the program or another program by at least the same amount. The bill also requires the Government Publishing Office to establish and maintain an online portal through which members of the public may access information about authorizations of appropriations, including (1) specified details about laws enacted during a Congress that authorize appropriations, and (2) a statement of the total amount of funds authorized to be appropriated during a Congress.
Sponsors: Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19]
Target Audience
Population: People benefiting from government-funded programs
Estimated Size: 156000000
- The bill will impact individuals working directly with or benefiting from government-funded programs due to changes in how funds are appropriated.
- The restriction on appropriations may affect government programs relating to healthcare, education, and other public services that rely heavily on federal funding.
- If funding is not adjusted or mitigated properly, individuals receiving aid or services from governmental programs could experience changes in benefits.
- The online portal requirement will likely impact citizens interested in transparency and accountability in the government's budgetary process, enhancing public interaction with budget legislation.
Reasoning
- The Budgetary Quid Pro Quo Act will primarily affect people associated with government-funded programs, including employees, beneficiaries, and stakeholders of these programs.
- Given the restriction on budgetary appropriations, there will likely be an impact on public services such as healthcare, education, and social services that are partially or wholly government-funded.
- The policy might prompt improved efficiency in program funding and management; however, there is also a risk of service reduction if funding reallocations are not well-managed.
- An online portal for budget transparency might increase public engagement with government spending practices and reduce frustration among citizens looking for accountability.
- To understand the broader population impact within the defined $115,000,000 USD budget across 10 years, we consider a diverse range of individuals for simulation. This includes both direct beneficiaries of government programs and citizens interested in governmental accountability.
Simulated Interviews
Retired healthcare worker (New York City, NY)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a Medicare beneficiary, any changes to funding could directly affect my health services.
- The online portal sounds useful, but I worry about potential cuts to necessary services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Software developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I don't directly benefit from government programs, the transparency portal is a good step.
- I'm curious to see how efficiently programs can operate under budget restraints.
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 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Public school teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about potential cuts to educational funding which could affect my students.
- Better transparency might help understanding where funds go.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Healthcare administrator (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned that reallocations could strain our resources even more.
- Public access to budget info could increase advocacy efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Small business owner (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical this will lead to real accountability.
- The impact might not be directly visible to small businesses but could trickle down.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
College student (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could restrict financial aid, limiting access to education for people like me.
- I support transparency but fear it may lead to more cuts in education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Single parent and social worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned reduced funding could impact the SNAP program.
- Transparency in funding is good, but it needs to save essential services first.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Factory worker nearing retirement (Detroit, MI)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about any alterations to social security funding.
- Ensuring program efficiency is key, but not at the expense of my retirement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
Nonprofit director (Miami, FL)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal grant funding is crucial for our programs; reallocations could limit our reach.
- The transparency aspect may help us advocate for better funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Freelance artist (Denver, CO)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Affordable Care Act subsidies are vital for me, and I'm nervous about potential funding shifts.
- Access to budget information is good, but it should protect crucial services.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- How effectively can Congress identify and eliminate inefficient programs?
- Will there be increased difficulty or delay in passing necessary appropriations due to the offset requirement leading to potential negative impacts on program beneficiaries?
- What will be the public reaction to required reductions in existing programs to fund new or expanded ones?