Bill Overview
Title: Presidential Allowance Modernization Act of 2022
Description: This bill replaces provisions governing the compensation provided to a former President. Each former President shall receive from the United States (1) an annuity of $200,000 per year for the remainder of his or her life, and (2) a monetary allowance of $200,000 per year. Such allowance shall be reduced by the amount the former President's earned income exceeds $400,000. These monetary amounts are subject to a cost-of-living increase. The bill increases and provides for cost-of-living adjustments to the monetary allowance for surviving spouses of former Presidents.
Sponsors: Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
Target Audience
Population: Former Presidents of the United States and their surviving spouses
Estimated Size: 8
- Former Presidents of the United States, currently limited to around 5 individuals, are directly impacted as they will have their annuities and allowances adjusted.
- The spouses of deceased former Presidents, currently numbering 1-2, will see changes to the allowances they receive.
- The bill only affects former Presidents and their spouses, a highly specific group.
Reasoning
- Given the policy's focus on a very limited group of individuals (former Presidents and their spouses), the targeted population is incredibly small. This kind of policy has little to no direct effect on the general population of the U.S., except possibly as a taxpayer concern regarding use of federal funds.
- The policy's financial impact is regulated by a budget of $2,200,000 in the first year, which comfortably covers an estimated maximum of five former Presidents and one or two spouses.
- As the policy applies strictly to former Presidents and their surviving spouses, its direct impact on Cantril Wellbeing scores nationwide is negligible. However, perceived fairness or resource allocation might indirectly influence public opinion or well-being.
Simulated Interviews
Retired (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a former President, this policy seems to streamline our post-presidency benefits. I appreciate the adjustment for inflation.
- I already have significant income from speeches and business deals, so the cutback for earnings over $400,000 isn't ideal but understandable.
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 |
Former Professor (California)
Age: 78 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am grateful for the adjustments in allowances. Managing charities has been challenging with inflation, and this will aid in covering some costs.
- The policy's reduction feature isn't much of a concern since my income is not near the threshold.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Author (New York)
Age: 72 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new policy eases some of the financial worries as it accounts for inflation, which means more predictability for budgeting.
- I'm relieved that the monetary allowance helps sustain my nonprofit work, this is greatly appreciated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Politician (Florida)
Age: 75 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The allowance supports my public service legacy while balancing with my commercial successes.
- It's good to know that there's consideration for cost-of-living adjustments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Blogger (Georgia)
Age: 95 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 10
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- At this stage in life, this policy provides a reassurance of support, allowing focus on more expansive humanitarian activities.
- I'm less affected by the reduction clause, but glad it's a factor for those who might need it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 10 | 10 |
| Year 2 | 10 | 10 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Philanthropist (Washington D.C.)
Age: 81 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This adjustment provides peace of mind, balancing expenses between personal and philanthropic endeavors.
- Appreciating the thoughtfulness of the policy even if I don't hit the higher income threshold.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Consultant (Chicago)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Essentially, this just provides more flexibility and less concern about inflation impacts on my post-presidential life.
- Earnings over $400,000 do come into play, but that's a fair system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Public Speaker (Arkansas)
Age: 76 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fully support the annuity and allowances since they allow us to continue contributing to public service after our terms.
- The income reduction clause is acceptable given the public's resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired (Maine)
Age: 82 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy means continued support during my retirement which is comforting given the previous years' uncertainties.
- Though I'm not affected by the reduction due to limited extra income.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Lecturer (Missouri)
Age: 74 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as stabilizing, ensuring former administrations can focus on public contributions without being overly concerned about personal finance.
- I'm alright with the income factor reflecting personal efforts beyond the presidency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2200000 (Low: $2000000, High: $2500000)
Year 2: $2250000 (Low: $2040000, High: $2550000)
Year 3: $2295000 (Low: $2080800, High: $2601000)
Year 5: $2385000 (Low: $2163240, High: $2706000)
Year 10: $2610000 (Low: $2362240, High: $2967840)
Year 100: $5520000 (Low: $4997280, High: $6270000)
Key Considerations
- The small target group (former presidents and spouses) limits the financial impact relative to broader provisions affecting large populations.
- Income-based reduction in the allowance may decrease the estimated aggregate cost.
- Cost-of-living adjustments will likely lead to increases in costs over time.
- Inflation effects to consider in future cost projections, related to COLA implementations.