Bill Overview
Title: A bill to clarify the jurisdiction of the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill provides funds for the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery for each of FY2022-FY2025. The amounts provided by the bill are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO) and the Senate PAYGO rule. (This excludes the budget effects from being counted for the purposes of enforcing the PAYGO rules.)
Sponsors: Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by the pandemic
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill relates to pandemic recovery, indicating that it may have implications on those affected by the pandemic, which includes a significant portion of the global population.
- While it primarily focuses on financial oversight, the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery's actions could indirectly impact individuals and businesses that received pandemic aid.
- The legislation affects oversight bodies and institutions, which indirectly influences how pandemic recovery funds are monitored and spent, potentially affecting recipients of these funds.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on the oversight of pandemic recovery funds, meaning it may not have a direct impact on self-reported wellbeing unless there are significant secondary effects on financial transparency, efficiency, and potentially recoupment of misused funds.
- Given the broad reach of the pandemic's impact, a wide range of people might have opinions or indirect effects from the better management of pandemic funds, though the degree of impact will likely vary.
- The policy aims for financial oversight, which can improve how funds are managed, potentially leading to better outcomes for those who needed such aid most, including small businesses, healthcare providers, and individuals who relied on pandemic assistance programs.
Simulated Interviews
Small Business Owner (Austin, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy ensures that funds are used appropriately and might prevent fraud.
- Better oversight could mean more support for small businesses like mine in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Freelance Artist (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this helps get support to where it’s needed, but I don’t know if it will affect me directly.
- Oversight is important, but I also worry about the bureaucracy slowing things down.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Retired Teacher (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy ensures proper use of funding which could stabilize the economy.
- It’s vital that recovery funds continue to support those who need them without misuse.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College Student (New York, New York)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might help if it ensures financial help where it counts, but will it affect students?
- Financial prudence with funds could mean more stable support systems for us in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Automotive Plant Worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the oversight means more fair distribution of funds, it will be helpful.
- I’ve seen what insufficient management of funds can do. This could help address such issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Healthcare Worker (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring funds are properly managed could mean better resources for healthcare in the future.
- I hope the oversight ensures that the funds reach frontline workers and the improvements stick.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Developer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think better oversight is needed for transparency and security.
- This legislation might not affect me directly, but ensuring proper fund usage benefits the economy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Restaurant Manager (Miami, Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved financial transparency could mean more support for businesses like mine.
- I hope it decreases misuse of funds, allowing those in real need to get help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Energy Sector Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopeful that oversight of funds will stabilize aid systems for workers like me.
- It's crucial for funds to reach their intended targets to avoid future economic downturns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired Civil Servant (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m glad they’re scrutinizing fund use, ensuring my grandchildren have a stable economy.
- It hopefully means a focus on economic recovery without neglecting future generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 3: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Allocations as emergency requirements mean they are not bound by standard budgetary limitations, which could affect overall federal budget planning.
- The role of the Special Inspector General could indirectly impact economic recovery through enhanced oversight, accountability, and potential deterrence of fraud or misuse of funds.
- The defined time period for funding (FY2022-FY2025) indicates a need for evaluation of ongoing necessity and outcomes beyond this timeframe.