Bill Overview
Title: Taiwan Protection and National Resilience Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense to submit a report identifying goods and services from the United States that China relies upon and U.S. military procurement practices that are reliant on trade with China. The bill also requires the Department of the Treasury to submit a sanctions strategy that could, in response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan (1) limit China's ability to acquire petroleum and military materiel, (2) diminish the ability of the Chinese industrial base to replenish defense articles, and (3) inhibit China's ability to evade sanctions.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide affected by China-US-Taiwan trade and economic relations
Estimated Size: 33500000
- The bill focuses on the defense and economic relations between the United States, China, and Taiwan.
- It involves determining the dependency of China on US goods and services, which implicates cross-border trade impacting citizens involved in these industries.
- China is a major global economy, with significant trade relations with multiple countries, thus the impact of sanctions can affect industries worldwide.
- Taiwan is mentioned directly as a focus of protection, implying direct exposure to impacts on wellbeing if tensions escalate.
- Sanctions on China could ripple out to industries in the US and other countries relying on Chinese imports and exports.
Reasoning
- The policy targets defense and economic relations between the US, China, and Taiwan, primarily affecting people in industries involved in these trades.
- While the budget is moderate, the potential impact is indirect through economic shifts caused by sanctions and changes in military procurement.
- Predictions of wellbeing impacts consider the current trade dependencies and potential changes if tensions surrounding Taiwan escalate.
- Effects on the general US population might be minor unless they are in affected industries. We focus on these industries while also including people who have no direct ties to gauge broader societal reactions.
Simulated Interviews
Software engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about job security if trade tensions increase.
- Thinks the policy might lead to diversification of supply chains, which could be positive in the long run but challenging in the short term due to potential layoffs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Oil industry analyst (Houston, TX)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees potential for market instability if sanctions affect petroleum trade.
- Believes there could be increased demand for US oil products, which could benefit local economy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Tech entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about supply chain disruptions on semiconductor availability.
- Hopeful that strengthening Taiwan relations could secure supply chains.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Auto industry worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees potential job risks if trade tensions increase.
- Believes the policy could encourage domestic production.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Supply chain manager (Austin, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Prepared for increased operational costs due to sanctions.
- Sees potential for supply diversification as both a challenge and an opportunity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Government policy advisor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Understands the need for strategic trade policies to ensure national security.
- Believes the policy is essential but acknowledges risks to certain industries.
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 |
Financial analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees potential for short-term market disruptions.
- Long-term benefits if US manages to reduce over-reliance on China.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Fashion designer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about rising costs due to tariffs.
- Willing to explore alternative sourcing options to mitigate risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Defense contractor (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Positive about increased opportunities in US defense contracts.
- Concerned about bureaucracy slowing down implementations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
University professor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 36 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees the policy as a significant strategic move by the US.
- Believes impacts on trade are necessary discussions in an academic setting.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Key Considerations
- The immediate costs are outweighed by potential long-term savings from deterrence.
- The economic deterrence may not materialize due to diplomatic shifts or economic resilience on China's part.
- Impact on global economic relations and supply chains should be closely monitored.