Bill Overview
Title: A bill to authorize the confiscation of assets of the Russian Federation and the use of such assets to offset costs to the United States of assistance to Ukraine.
Description: This bill requires the President to seize Russian government funds that are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The confiscated funds must be deposited in the Treasury to offset the costs of FY2022 emergency supplemental appropriations that were provided for assistance in Ukraine.
Sponsors: Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]
Target Audience
Population: People financially affected by international policy changes due to conflict between Russia and Ukraine
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill affects Russian government funds held in U.S. jurisdiction, not private Russian individuals directly.
- The impact is financial and affects the government's ability to use its funds under U.S. control.
- The decision might indirectly affect U.S. taxpayers since it offsets costs already incurred by the U.S. government.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects government funds and has an indirect impact on the U.S. population.
- The most direct impact could be a financial one on taxpayers, potentially reducing future tax burdens due to offsetting expenses.
- This policy may shift the perception of U.S. government spending and its effects on international relations.
- People employed in sectors connected with international finance and foreign policy might have more insight about this policy's implications.
Simulated Interviews
Tax Advisor (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is a smart move as it helps reduce fiscal burdens on taxpayers due to the costs incurred from aiding Ukraine.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems neutral from an investment perspective but positive for defense and foreign aid sectors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Public School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel that this policy is beneficial by ensuring U.S. funds are appropriated where needed without increasing taxpayer burden.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy highlights interesting geopolitical strategies. It's a move of fiscal and diplomatic significance.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired Military (Miami, FL)
Age: 49 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seizing these funds seems like a strong national security strategy, indirectly benefiting citizens.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
International Trade Lawyer (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a strategic move, but the legal ramifications need careful handling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems quite peripheral to my personal finances or work, though interesting in how international finance is impacted.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired Accountant (Detroit, MI)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This measure reassures me; it feels like a prudent fiscal policy step to manage public funds.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Dallas, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's potentially beneficial if it helps stabilize international market conditions and future economic policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
University Professor (Seattle, WA)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a fascinating study in resource reallocation and its diplomatic implications.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $50000000)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The legal proceedings and international ramifications of seizing foreign government funds under U.S. jurisdiction.
- Determining the exact amount of Russian assets available and accessible within U.S. jurisdiction.
- Possible international legal challenges or retaliations that can arise as a result of enforcement.
- Ensuring alignment with international allies in terms of asset seizure strategies.
- The policy serves as a precedent for future similar conflicts and its implications for international relations.