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 8%. 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 impacted by U.S. nondefense discretionary appropriations
Estimated Size: 335000000
- Nondefense discretionary spending covers a wide range of areas including education, health, housing, and public safety that directly affect the general public.
- All U.S. residents are potentially impacted by changes in federal appropriations as these can lead to changes in funding for services and programs that they may use.
- The legislation aims to restrict spending increases during periods of high inflation, which is a macroeconomic condition with broad effects on the entire economy and, indirectly, all individuals.
- Inflation affects economic stability and purchasing power, while deficit spending can influence interest rates and long-term economic growth, impacting employment and income levels.
- Any changes in federal spending related to these categories could specifically impact those individuals dependent on federally funded programs and services.
Reasoning
- This policy is designed to restrict nondefense discretionary spending increases during times of high inflation, potentially affecting services across various sectors such as education, healthcare, and housing.
- Given the diverse nature of the population, impacts will vary greatly depending on individual reliance on federal programs impacted by such fiscal austerity measures.
- Although a large population may be broadly affected, the depth of impact varies based on one's direct engagement with federally funded services.
- In crafting simulations, I am mindful of representing individuals both heavily reliant on such programs and those with negligible direct dependence.
- The proposed legislation, being rooted in fiscal discipline during inflationary times, indirectly targets economic stabilization but may also lead to reduced access to certain public services.
- This policy is a point-of-order provision, meaning it influences Senate procedure, illustrating the balance between legislative process and fiscal responsibility, which can have nuanced public understanding and impact.
- I include perspectives from people across socioeconomic backgrounds to reflect different levels of service dependence and absorption of indirect inflationary impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Public School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that restricting spending will harm educational programs.
- Inflation is already making it tough for schools to manage budgets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Construction Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I depend on public work projects for steady income.
- This policy might reduce the number of projects and affect my job security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Freelance Writer (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal programs are vital in rural areas like mine.
- Cutting back on spending when we need it could harm progress on projects like rural internet.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Retired Nurse (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm retired and on a fixed income, inflation is tough.
- I'm worried a cut in nondefense spending might affect my access to healthcare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think controlling inflation is crucial for businesses like mine.
- Government spending cuts might help stabilize prices and interest rates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Graduate Student (New York City, NY)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Education funding is essential, especially in high inflation.
- This policy limits available resources for students like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Tech Industry Professional (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about inflation but not too affected by spending cuts.
- Tech industry thrives with a stable economy, so it sounds beneficial.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Social Worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Programs I work with rely on federal funding.
- I'm worried this policy will make it harder to support those in need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
University Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My research depends on federal funding.
- Restricting grants could hinder innovation and progress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Working in Insurance (Madison, WI)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm supportive of fiscal discipline especially during inflation.
- It seems like a necessary step to ensure economic stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The point of order is contingent on inflation being at least 8%, which integrates an economic trigger into the legislative process.
- The requirement of a two-thirds vote for waiver provides a significant procedural hurdle, impacting the likelihood of its application and subsequent impact on appropriations.
- Projected savings highly depend on legislative behavior and actual economic conditions, including the response of the Senate to this procedural constraint.