Bill Overview
Title: National Regulatory Budget Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the establishment of a national regulatory budget to limit the costs of federal regulations. It also establishes (1) procedures for enforcing the regulatory budget, (2) the Office of Regulatory Analysis within the executive branch, and (3) a Regulatory Analysis Advisory Board.
Sponsors: Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals employed in and affected by industries under US regulation
Estimated Size: 330000000
- Regulatory budgets affect federal agencies, impacting their ability to implement regulations.
- Many industries are regulated by federal agencies, so businesses and industries that are currently subject to significant federal regulations will be impacted.
- Consumers may experience indirect effects, as changes in industry regulations may affect product availability, prices, and quality.
- By potentially limiting regulatory costs, there could be an impact on environmental standards, worker protections, and consumer safety.
- Employees working in regulatory compliance roles may be directly impacted by changes in enforcement and analysis procedures.
Reasoning
- The policy's impact will vary based on how heavily an individual's industry is regulated and how much their job relies on regulatory processes.
- Regulatory changes may lead to cost savings for businesses initially, which could increase their flexibility or profitability. However, long-term effects could include changes to products or services quality, workforce shifts, or environmental impacts.
- Some industries may experience significant cost reductions due to a streamlined regulatory process, potentially benefiting from increased operational efficiency.
- There is a chance that easing regulations could result in negative externalities such as decreased safety standards or environmental protections, which may affect wellbeing scores over time.
- The policy will have less impact on individuals and industries that are currently less regulated or have already optimized their compliance processes.
- Public perception of the regulatory act may influence perceived wellbeing, with some seeing it as beneficial cost-cutting, while others may worry about reduced protections.
Simulated Interviews
Compliance Officer in Finance (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome any reduction in regulatory complexity, as it could potentially reduce our workload and make compliance easier.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Tech Startup Founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected by heavy regulations, so this policy doesn't change much for my business.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Oil and Gas Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Less regulation might increase job security, but I'm worried about environmental and safety implications.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might compromise environmental standards, which concerns me as a scientist.
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 | 4 | 6 |
Retired Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 62 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy will affect me directly, but I'm concerned about long-term impacts on society.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Healthcare Administrator (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Healthcare regulations are crucial, but if simplified, it could lower administrative burdens.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned this policy might roll back important environmental protections.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Denver, CO)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any reduction in unnecessary bureaucratic barriers could benefit small businesses like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Truck Driver (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy makes regulation clearer and less onerous, it could be a win for drivers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Legal Expert in Consumer Safety (Boston, MA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's a risk that reducing regulatory oversight could lower consumer safety standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $750000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 2: $950000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 3: $900000000 (Low: $650000000, High: $1150000000)
Year 5: $850000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $1100000000)
Year 10: $800000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $1050000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $800000000)
Key Considerations
- The success of the policy heavily depends on the efficient establishment and operation of the Office of Regulatory Analysis and its collaboration with the Regulatory Analysis Advisory Board.
- There is a need to balance deregulation with adequate protection for consumers, workers, and the environment.
- Consideration must be given to the transition costs as federal agencies adjust to the new regulatory budget framework.