Reduce Exacerbated Inflation Negatively Impacting the Nation Act This bill requires the Office of Management and Budget and the Council of Economic Advisers to provide an inflation estimate for each executive order that is projected to cause an annual gross budgetary effect of at least $1 billion. The estimate must determine whether the executive order will have no significant impact on inflation, a quantifiable inflationary impact on the Consumer Price Index, or a significant impact on inflation that cannot be quantified at the time the estimate is prepared. The requirement does not apply to executive orders that (1) provide for emergency assistance or relief at the request of any state or local government or an official of the government, or (2) are necessary for national security or the ratification or implementation of international treaty obligations.
If enacted, HB 347 would require that for any major executive order, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers must develop an inflationary impact statement. This includes assessing whether the order has no significant impact, a quantifiable impact, or an indeterminate but likely significant impact on inflation. This requirement does not apply to orders related to emergency assistance, national security, or international treaty obligations. Such accountability could influence future executive decisions and compel more cautious fiscal planning by the federal government.
House Bill 347, titled the 'Reduce Exacerbated Inflation Negatively Impacting the Nation Act', mandates the Executive Office of the President to provide inflation estimates for executive orders that would significantly impact the gross budget. The bill focuses on executive orders with an expected annual budgetary effect of at least $1 billion and aims to promote transparency in regards to how government directives may contribute to inflation. This effort seeks to address public concerns about rising costs and their potential contributors within executive actions.
The sentiment surrounding HB 347 appears to be primarily focused on accountability and fiscal responsibility. Supporters may argue that the requirements set forth in the bill enhance government transparency and provide the public with necessary information on the economic ramifications of executive actions. In contrast, critics may express concerns that additional bureaucratic measures could stifle timely governmental response, particularly in emergencies, or question the practicality of implementing such requirements efficiently.
The main contention surrounding this bill is the potential for executive order constraints in the face of urgent governmental needs. While the intention of ensuring accountability is valued, some legislators argue it might hinder swift action in necessary situations, particularly in crises where executive orders are critical. The debate highlights the balance between necessary oversight of government actions and the functional need for prompt executive responses under varying circumstances.