SROS Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Zinke, Ryan K. [R-MT-1]
ID: Z000018
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose its true intentions.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The SROS Act (Strengthening Resources for our Schools Act) claims to support school resource officers by exempting their retirement income from gross income. How noble. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to curry favor with law enforcement unions and veterans' groups while providing a tax break that will mostly benefit affluent retirees.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude retirement income received by individuals who retired from service as law enforcement officers or members of the Armed Forces and subsequently serve as school resource officers. It also requires law enforcement agencies to report information about these individuals to the Secretary of the Treasury.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary beneficiaries of this bill are retired law enforcement officers and veterans who take up employment as school resource officers. However, the real stakeholders are the politicians who sponsored this bill, including Reps. Zinke, Davis, and Fitzpatrick, who will likely receive campaign contributions and endorsements from law enforcement unions.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic example of "feel-good" legislation that sounds good on paper but has minimal practical impact. The tax break will mostly benefit affluent retirees who don't need it, while the reporting requirements will create administrative burdens for law enforcement agencies. Meanwhile, the underlying issue of school safety remains unaddressed.
**Diagnosis:** This bill suffers from a severe case of " Legislative Theater-itis," where politicians prioritize appearances over substance to appease special interest groups. The symptoms include:
* A narrow focus on a specific group (retired law enforcement officers and veterans) rather than addressing broader issues. * A lack of meaningful reforms or investments in school safety. * A reliance on tax breaks as a solution, which will primarily benefit affluent individuals.
**Prognosis:** This bill will likely pass with bipartisan support, as politicians from both parties will want to be seen as supporting law enforcement and veterans. However, its impact will be negligible, and the underlying issues of school safety and inequality will remain unaddressed.
In conclusion, the SROS Act is a prime example of legislative malpractice, where politicians prioritize their own interests over meaningful policy solutions. It's time to call out this farce for what it is: a cynical attempt to buy votes and endorsements from special interest groups.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
No campaign finance data available for Rep. Zinke, Ryan K. [R-MT-1]
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 348 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise materials, private school tuition, transportation and more—accounts modeled after the accounts in Arizona, Florida, West Virginia, and seven other states. l Members of Congress should design the same account system for students in active-duty military families, including students attending schools that receive funding under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).18 Heritage Foundation research found that if even 10 percent of the students eli- gible for accounts under such a proposal transferred from an assigned school to an education savings account, the change for the sending district would be 0.1 percent of that school district’s K–12 budget. Even in heavily impacted districts (districts with a large number of students receiving Impact Aid), the budgetary effect would be less than 2 percent. Yet these children would then have the chance to receive a customized education that meets their unique needs. As with state ESA programs, families who are homeschooling are distinct in statute from families who use an ESA to customize an education at home. Furthermore, research from the Claremont Institute used documents pro- vided by a whistleblower demonstrating how educators at Department of Defense schools around the world are using radical gender theory and critical race theory in their lessons. This instructional material discards biology in favor of political indoctrination and applies critical race theory’s core tenets advocating for more racial discrimination. Such ideas are highly unpopular among parents, accord- ing to nationally representative surveys, and the course material attempts to indoctrinate students with radical ideas about race and the ambiguous concept of “gender.” Finally, schools on tribal lands and under the auspices of the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) are among the worst-performing public schools in the country. Research from Rep. Burgess Owens’ office reports that the graduation rate for BIE students is 53 percent, lower than the average for Native American students in public schools around the country, and nearly 30 percentage points lower than the national average for all students. In 2015, Arizona lawmakers expanded the state’s education savings account program to include children living on tribal lands, and by 2021, nearly 400 Native American children were using the accounts. l Federal officials should design a federal education savings account option for all children attending BIE schools. The next Administration should make the K–12 systems under federal juris- diction examples of quality learning opportunities and education freedom. — 349 — Department of Education Washington should convert some of the lowest-performing public school systems in the country into areas defined by choices, creating rigorous learning options for all children and from all backgrounds, income levels, and ethnicities. Expand Education Choice Through Portability of Existing Federal Funds Setting education policy on the right track long term would require sunsetting the U.S. Department of Education altogether. Doing so would not result in fewer resources and less assistance for children with special needs or from low-income families. Rather, closing the federal behemoth would better target existing taxpayer resources already set aside for these students by shifting oversight responsibilities to federal and state agencies that have more expertise in helping these populations. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the federal law gov- erning taxpayer spending on K–12 students with special needs. The law stipulates that students have a right to a “free and appropriate education,” and 95 percent of children with special needs attend assigned public schools. The education is not always appropriate, however: Special education is fraught with legal battles. Some argue that the education of children with special needs is the most litigated area of K–12 education. Thus, despite a nearly 50-year-old federal law that sees regular revision and reauthorization and approximately $13.5 billion per year in federal taxpayer spending, parents still struggle to establish intervention plans for their students with public school district officials regarding the physical and educational requirements for their children with special needs. State-level education options often exclusively serve children with special needs for these very reasons. Florida, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina, and North Carolina, to name a few states, all have education savings accounts or K–12 private school scholarship options for children with special needs. l Federal lawmakers should move IDEA oversight and implementation to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. l Officials should then consider revising IDEA to require that a child’s portion of the federal taxpayer spending under the law be made available to families so parents can choose how and where a child learns. l IDEA already allows families to choose a private school under certain conditions, but federal officials should update the law so that families can use their child’s IDEA spending for textbooks, education therapies, personal tutors, and other learning expenses, similar to the way in which parents use education savings accounts in states such as Arizona and Florida. These micro-education savings accounts
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.