Bill Overview
Title: Streamline Pentagon Budgeting Act of 2022
Description: This bill repeals reporting requirements related to the unfunded priorities of the (1) armed force or forces or combatant command, and (2) the Missile Defense Agency.
Sponsors: Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals engaged in military budgeting and oversight, and those affected or interested in military spending accountability
Estimated Size: 100000
- The bill addresses changes in reporting requirements related to certain aspects of the Pentagon's budgeting process.
- The stakeholders directly involved include military planners, budget analysts, and officials within the Department of Defense.
- Another impacted group includes members of Congress who rely on these reports to evaluate defense spending priorities and make budgetary decisions.
- Indirectly, the general public, particularly those interested in government transparency and spending, may be affected due to changes in available information.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects military planners, budget analysts, and officials within the Department of Defense by changing reporting requirements which could potentially streamline or complicate their work.
- Indirectly, members of Congress who rely on these reports for budgetary decisions are impacted, though their subjective well-being may not be deeply affected in most cases.
- The general public may experience slight effects related to government transparency and accountability, potentially influencing public opinion and trust.
Simulated Interviews
Military Budget Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change could potentially reduce redundancy in reports, allowing focus on more strategic tasks.
- Though it may limit some transparency, it might increase efficiency if executed well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Non-profit Defense Spending Researcher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The repeal seems like a step back for transparency in military spending.
- Concerns revolve around limited access to information.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Congressional Staffer (Houston, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change might require finding new methods for gathering critical information.
- Could make congressional oversight more complex.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Defense Budget Officer (Arlington, VA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing unnecessary reports can be beneficial if critical transparency is maintained.
- It's crucial to balance efficiency with oversight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Defense Policy Enthusiast (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a loss for public accountability as fewer reports mean less insight.
- There might be benefits for efficiency unbeknownst to the public.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Academic in Public Policy (New York, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Public oversight should not be diminished through policy changes.
- A side effect might be less public trust if they feel misinformed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Missile Defense Agency Engineer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fewer report requirements might streamline project initiation processes.
- Concerned about potential gaps in funding oversight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Journalist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The public might not get the full scope of defense spending changes.
- Could lead to less informed public discussions.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Public Administration Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing certain reports could hinder academic research on defense spending.
- The policy could increase efficiency; however, oversight must not suffer.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Military Officer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While some aspects of reporting seem bureaucratic, they play a role in maintaining transparency.
- Removing reports may create efficiency but at a possible cost of comprehensive oversight.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The primary consideration is understanding the full implications of removing these reports in terms of Congressional oversight and military accountability.
- Potential inefficiencies or challenges could arise if alternative information avenues are sought by stakeholders hindered by the lack of direct reports.
- Monitoring the impact on defense budgeting transparency and decision-making processes should be assessed over the proposed duration.