Bill Overview
Title: PRICE Act
Description: This bill establishes a point of order that prohibits the Senate from considering legislation that would cause a net increase in outlays unless the Congressional Budget Office certifies that inflation is below 3%. The point of order may be waived by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senate.
Sponsors: Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
Target Audience
Population: People globally dealing with inflation impacts
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The PRICE Act would impact individuals by influencing the Senate's ability to pass legislation that increases government spending.
- Inflation affects all consumers as it alters the purchasing power of money, impacting people's ability to buy goods and services.
- High inflation can impact businesses by increasing costs and unpredictability, leading to potential changes in employment and wage levels.
- The act specifically prevents legislation that would increase expenditures unless inflation is low, potentially leading to slower government response in times of economic need.
Reasoning
- The PRICE Act is designed to control inflation by limiting government spending unless inflation rates are low. This could affect people differently based on their reliance on government programs or their sensitivity to inflation.
- High inflation can impact individuals' ability to afford basic necessities. The PRICE Act might stabilize this situation in the long term, but could hinder immediate economic relief efforts.
- Business owners might see changes in employment costs and consumer spending patterns, affecting their operations and profitability.
- Low-income individuals and families who rely more heavily on government assistance programs may experience a negative impact if spending is restricted under higher inflation conditions.
- Individuals living in high-cost areas or with fixed incomes may experience changes in their financial security and perceived well-being due to inflation rates impacting the cost of living.
Simulated Interviews
Restaurant Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about inflation because if prices go up, the cost to run my restaurant will also rise, affecting my ability to pay employees more.
- If government spending is restricted, it might hurt local businesses like mine that rely on people having spending cash.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Public School Teacher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think controlling inflation is important, but I worry about potential cuts to public education if spending is restricted too much.
- Balancing inflation and necessary government spending seems crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that spending cuts might affect Medicare and Social Security, but I also don't want my savings to lose value due to high inflation.
- I hope this policy helps strike a balance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Software Developer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not very worried about day-to-day inflation as my job offers reasonable salary hikes, but I do think about long-term investment values.
- This policy might help stabilize things if it works.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Small Business Owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If government spending affects loans or small business funds, it could get tricky for us.
- Inflation control seems important; however, maintaining support for small businesses is necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Nurse (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Higher inflation makes it tougher to manage basic needs. I'd be worried if government spending was cut, especially around healthcare.
- The hope is this leads to a stable economy in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Logistics Coordinator (Dallas, TX)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Gas prices are my main concern with inflation. If policy leads to stable energy prices, I'd be supportive.
- It's crucial for spending cuts not to slow down business growth opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Inflation eating into my pension is scary. Policy that controls this is comforting as long as it doesn't lead to cuts in essential services for seniors.
- Balancing is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Freelancer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Inflation affects rent and cost of living heavily here. I'm worried about higher costs if the policy doesn't handle inflation effectively.
- There needs to be room for emergency fixes in spending plans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Barista (Portland, OR)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The rising cost of living makes saving hard. I'm skeptical about how much such policies actually help.
- Support for education and job creation is equally needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $62000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $44000000, High: $64000000)
Year 5: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $90000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $240000000)
Key Considerations
- The act's effectiveness depends on accurate inflation forecasting and measurement.
- Delays in legislation during critical times (economic downturns) could have unintended economic costs.
- Potential challenges in the Senate to reach a three-fifths vote to waive the order during necessary spending periods.