Bill Overview
Title: Improving Government for America's Taxpayers Act
Description: This bill requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO), in its annual report to Congress, to consolidate matters for congressional consideration into one report, organized by policy topic, and to identify congressional oversight actions that can help agencies implement unimplemented priority recommendations. The GAO is also required to publish the above information and publish any known costs of unimplemented priority recommendations.
Sponsors: Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals impacted by improved government efficiency and accountability
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill focuses on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and its reporting methods to Congress.
- The changes are procedural and related to governmental operations and accountability measures.
- The general taxpayer population is indirectly impacted by ensuring more efficient governance and potential cost savings.
- As GAO is a U.S. governmental body, the primary population affected would be U.S.-based.
Reasoning
- A key consideration here is that while the policy focuses on improving government reporting and efficiency, its direct tangible effects on individual wellbeing may be limited. The indirect benefits from more efficient government operations could lead to better use of taxpayer dollars, but such benefits are diffuse and may not be immediately felt by individuals.
- The budget constraints ($2,000,000 in year 1 and $20,000,000 over 10 years) indicate that large-scale direct impacts are unlikely. The changes are procedural and related to improving government efficiency rather than immediate direct human services.
- The interviews will focus on various individuals from different backgrounds to provide a comprehensive view of the potential indirect impacts. These individuals include taxpayers, government employees, small business owners, and others who may have varying perspectives on government efficiency.
Simulated Interviews
Government Auditor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is essential for ensuring accountability in government operations. More organized and published data can help improve oversight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More efficient government could reduce waste in taxpayer dollars. However, I doubt I'll see an immediate impact on my business.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (California)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see efforts to save taxpayer money, but I doubt it will impact my daily life.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Tax Attorney (Chicago)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is positive for addressing oversight issues. Improved accountability can enhance trust.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Public Policy Professor (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhancing government efficiency is always beneficial, but translating procedural improvements to real-life impacts takes time.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Teacher (Florida)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good that they are focusing on efficiency. While it's unlikely to affect my day-to-day life as a teacher, it might free up resources in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Freelance Writer (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transparency is critical for democracy. This policy has potential, but isn't a quick fix to current inefficiencies.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Engineer (Georgia)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I approve of measures aimed at transparency, but I am skeptical about their long-term effectiveness.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Non-Profit Manager (Colorado)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Centralizing information improves advocacy and helps in pushing for changes. This is a step in the right direction.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Farmer (Idaho)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I doubt this policy will make any difference to my life or my farm, but if it saves tax dollars, I'm all for it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's primary focus is on improving procedural efficiency, which may not require significant additional funding.
- Long-term savings are plausible if recommendations lead to corrective actions within agencies.
- Potential political and interagency cooperation to implement changes recommended by the GAO may affect the total impact.