Bill Overview
Title: A bill to create a point of order against legislation making nondefense discretionary appropriations that would increase the deficit during a period of high inflation.
Description: This bill establishes a point of order that prohibits considering legislation in the Senate that provides nondefense discretionary appropriations and would increase the deficit when inflation is at least 3%. The point of order may be waived or suspended by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senate.
Sponsors: Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on nondefense discretionary programming
Estimated Size: 250000000
- The bill targets the control of nondefense discretionary spending during periods of high inflation.
- Nondefense discretionary budgets include funding for education, transportation, health, and other domestic programs.
- Individuals relying on federally funded programs might face reduced support if new spending is restricted.
- Government contractors who provide services or goods for nondefense purposes could be impacted by limited funding.
- General public could be indirectly affected by changes in government services and infrastructure projects.
Reasoning
- The proposed policy could have limited direct effects on individuals who aren't directly dependent on government-funded programs, leading us to include a mix of those directly and indirectly affected.
- Given the policy restricts new discretionary spending during inflation periods exceeding 3%, it will primarily impact programs and individuals relying on potential new funding rather than existing established programs.
- The lower-income population, students, healthcare recipients, transportation services benefactors, and contractors associated with nondefense projects will be more prominently impacted.
- Given the vast number of people served by these programs, a large portion of the population will indirectly feel the presence of this policy.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that if inflation rises and this policy restricts funding further, it could limit resources my school needs.
- The policy could make it harder to get new program funding, affecting student services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Public Transit Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might result in delays or cuts to public transit projects if inflation rates go up.
- I'm concerned about potential job security issues if funding dries up.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could impact contracts tied to government educational funding.
- I'm concerned about the stability of future orders and growth constraints.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is reasonable for controlling deficit but I hope it doesn’t hurt health programs.
- Reduced funding might delay improvements necessary for decent healthcare services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Student (Dallas, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that this will mean fewer opportunities for financial assistance when I need it.
- Budget cuts due to inflation could hurt upcoming students needing financial support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Healthcare Worker (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Restriction on new spending would mean less expansion in healthcare services, which could lead to patient care issues.
- This could lead to increased workloads if no new resources are allocated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Tech Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry this policy might slow down tech advancements linked to infrastructure projects due to funding restrictions.
- Fewer government projects could mean less work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
NGO Worker (Miami, FL)
Age: 49 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potential funding restrictions could reduce our capacity to serve the community.
- Inflation control measures are necessary, but they should not impact essential social services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Construction Worker (Denver, CO)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Slowed funding could mean fewer projects and job opportunities in the infrastructure sector.
- It could stabilize the economy, but might impact job security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Research Scientist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear project-specific federal grants could dry up if inflation control measures are enacted.
- The policy feels like it threatens future opportunities in research funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill provides a mechanism to control inflation by limiting federal deficit spending during periods of high inflation.
- It could lead to reduced funding availability for essential nondefense programs, potentially impacting millions of Americans.
- The enforcement of this point of order requires robust monitoring mechanisms and a clear definition of inflation thresholds.
- A two-thirds vote to waive the point of order indicates significant legislative flexibility but also introduces complexity in its implementation and potential political challenges.
- While it provides fiscal discipline incentives, it may complicate responses to emergent issues requiring increased spending.