Bill Overview
Title: Welfare Reform Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to establish a program to convey certain federal land to individuals who permanently waive eligibility for certain welfare programs. The BLM shall have final discretion as to the allocation of land to such individuals but must provide them with a means to express their preference for available land, including whether the land will be used for residential or agricultural purposes. The bill prohibits the sale of the land for a 10-year period.
Sponsors: Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1]
Target Audience
Population: People eligible for certain welfare programs who may choose to exchange benefits for land under the Welfare Reform Act of 2022
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The bill targets individuals eligible for certain welfare programs since it offers land in exchange for waiving welfare benefits.
- Eligible individuals may include low-income families, unemployed individuals, and those receiving government assistance for housing, food, or healthcare.
- The provision is optional, so it will only impact individuals who choose to participate in the program.
- The land allocation program by the Bureau of Land Management is a U.S. federal initiative, so it impacts individuals within the United States.
- Potential beneficiaries are primarily those interested in a long-term investment in land for residential or agricultural use.
- The bill restricts the sale of the land for 10 years, potentially limiting financial liquidity for participants, thus impacting their economic planning.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes individuals who are currently on certain welfare programs.
- The policy is optional, thus only some individuals will choose to participate, particularly those interested in long-term land ownership.
- Key considerations include how appealing land ownership is compared to ongoing welfare benefits, and the attractiveness of the land provided.
- Restrictions on selling the land may affect individuals' willingness to participate due to potential liquidity concerns.
- Budget constraints mean that not all eligible individuals may be able to participate, prioritizing land allocation based on specific criteria set by BLM.
- This policy is likely to impact those in rural or semi-rural areas more positively due to greater interest in agricultural or residential land use.
Simulated Interviews
Unemployed (Rural Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I like the idea of having our own land, but I'm worried about giving up benefits.
- It might be hard for me to work the land on my own, especially with young kids.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Construction Worker (Suburban Ohio)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The land would be a great opportunity for my family.
- I'm concerned about losing housing support in exchange.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Student (Urban New York)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not interested in land; I need to focus on my studies and city life.
- Without the program, I wouldn't trade my benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With extra land, I could really increase my farm's productivity.
- I don't use welfare benefits as much, so it's a good trade for me.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Stay-at-home mom (Semi-rural Kansas)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Trading benefits for land sounds risky but could be rewarding long-term.
- I'm unsure if we can afford to maintain more land right now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Urban California)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Managing land at my age isn't appealing, I prefer stability from my benefits.
- This policy doesn't seem beneficial to me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Freelancer (Rural Alabama)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am drawn to the idea of living off-grid and owning land.
- Giving up benefits is a big decision but I feel it might be worth it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retail Worker (Urban Illinois)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I prefer living in the city; land outside isn't suitable for me.
- The land offer doesn't compensate my need for city jobs and lifestyle.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Teacher's Assistant (Suburban Georgia)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Owning a piece of land may help our family secure a future.
- But managing the land might take time away from my job.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Homemaker (Rural Wyoming)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be our chance to start a small farm.
- We'd need to carefully consider losing our current welfare support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $145000000 (Low: $115000000, High: $175000000)
Year 3: $140000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $170000000)
Year 5: $135000000 (Low: $105000000, High: $165000000)
Year 10: $125000000 (Low: $95000000, High: $155000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $125000000)
Key Considerations
- The success of the program hinges on individual interest in land versus welfare benefits.
- BLM's capacity to efficiently manage and allocate land resources is crucial.
- Potential environmental concerns and sustainability of land and resource use need evaluation.