Budget Process Committee

[Purple State]

Y'all sound like you're having fun here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Y'all sound like you're having fun here.

No, but why don't you round up that welsh GM of yours and I will show you what fun is.

[Marokai Backbeat]

hmm need to think on it. I think you should incorporate some more Historical facts about Atlasia. For instance there was involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan but that was finished by 2005 I think. A veterans would do nicely here!!!


As for taxes, have you used the rates established last year in the "Fiscal Responsibility Act"?

I also think expenditures are rathey low and the deficit would be larger, in the relm of $700 to $1.1 Trilion dollars. I said less meaning somewahere like 20 to 30 percent less not 70%.

Exactly my question, Yank. Still being relatively new to Atlasia (and Atlasia organizing its legislative history more akin to oral tradition than codification) I'm quite unsure as to what historically Atlasia has done that (again noting emphasis) needs to change these numbers. Please feel free to suggest what adjustments you feel are needed to adhere to Atlasian history, because I sure can't.

Incidentally, why would the deficit be that much higher if Atlasia avoided the worst of the recession and (presumably) didn't pass as extensive a stimulus program (if any)? I'm open to suggestions here. Although I want to keep numbers as close as possible to a real world scenario to start, I kinda like the idea of a really high deficit to give those sad sack b#$tards in the Senate a real challenge.

Oh, wait....

Since when is a $1.4 Trillion dollar stimulus not "extensive". I am sorry, when did you get active here again?

I don't recall our stimulus being that large, and Lief and I were the principal authors. I don't even think we topped a trillion dollars on it. (According to the totals in the Wiki) What made the stimulus so effective though was us eliminating most of the stupid tax breaks in the real-life stimulus.

For Badger, here are the links to our previous recovery Act: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/2009_Atlasian_Relief_and_Recovery_Act

The debate thread over the stimulus is here. It was fun, Yankee can attest.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=98994.0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe we estimated during the debate over the National Health Care Act that it was deficit neutral. I don't remember being exactly pleased over all the frenzied efforts to cover every penny, but I do remember that costs were dealt with, so I don't really think it adds to the deficit much, if any, in the long term. We also eliminated Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP, if I recall, to transfer the costs to that one single program designed for everyone.

For Badger, the wiki link to that: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_National_Healthcare_Act

And the very, very fun debate thread over it. Another thing that Yankee (and Vepres if he happens to pop in) can agree was a treat.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=99368.0

Exactly my question, Yank. Still being relatively new to Atlasia (and Atlasia organizing its legislative history more akin to oral tradition than codification) I'm quite unsure as to what historically Atlasia has done that (again noting emphasis) needs to change these numbers. Please feel free to suggest what adjustments you feel are needed to adhere to Atlasian history, because I sure can't.

Here's a wiki link to the act on taxes that I wrote soon before I left the Senate: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Fiscal_Responsibility_Act

Here's the senate debate thread (Vepres put up an amusing fight in this one): https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=105642.0

Here's Purple State's evaluation of the Act when he was GM assessing the revenue from it:

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Fiscal Responsibility Bill: This legislation, sponsored by Senator Marokai Blue (JCP), seeks to streamline and restructure Atlasian income tax brackets.

The current bill would create new brackets for individual's income above $367,700, $1 million and $2.5 million, respectively. This would equate with a tax rate increase for the higher brackets and a tax rate decrease for the lowest brackets, with most rates remaining the same.

Previous estimates by the Office of the GM calculated between $250 billion and $600 billion in gained revenue as a result of these changes. Given the overall nature of marginal income tax, as well as the relative revenue gained through individual, rather than corporate, income taxes, the office is now prepared to predict a total revenue in-flow of $500 billion as a result of the new taxation brackets.

This would greatly help in reducing the budget deficit over the coming years. In conjunction with eventual spending cuts and other tax reforms, the Atlasian budget could reach neutrality in two years and bring the debt to zero shortly after a ten year time horizon.

Hope I helped shed some light for you, badger.

[Badger]

hmm need to think on it. I think you should incorporate some more Historical facts about Atlasia. For instance there was involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan but that was finished by 2005 I think. A veterans would do nicely here!!!


As for taxes, have you used the rates established last year in the "Fiscal Responsibility Act"?

I also think expenditures are rathey low and the deficit would be larger, in the relm of $700 to $1.1 Trilion dollars. I said less meaning somewahere like 20 to 30 percent less not 70%.

Exactly my question, Yank. Still being relatively new to Atlasia (and Atlasia organizing its legislative history more akin to oral tradition than codification) I'm quite unsure as to what historically Atlasia has done that (again noting emphasis) needs to change these numbers. Please feel free to suggest what adjustments you feel are needed to adhere to Atlasian history, because I sure can't.

Incidentally, why would the deficit be that much higher if Atlasia avoided the worst of the recession and (presumably) didn't pass as extensive a stimulus program (if any)? I'm open to suggestions here. Although I want to keep numbers as close as possible to a real world scenario to start, I kinda like the idea of a really high deficit to give those sad sack b#$tards in the Senate a real challenge.

Oh, wait....

Since when is a $1.4 Trillion dollar stimulus not "extensive". I am sorry, when did you get active here again?

I don't recall our stimulus being that large, and Lief and I were the principal authors. I don't even think we topped a trillion dollars on it. (According to the totals in the Wiki) What made the stimulus so effective though was us eliminating most of the stupid tax breaks in the real-life stimulus.

For Badger, here are the links to our previous recovery Act: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/2009_Atlasian_Relief_and_Recovery_Act

The debate thread over the stimulus is here. It was fun, Yankee can attest.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=98994.0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe we estimated during the debate over the National Health Care Act that it was deficit neutral. I don't remember being exactly pleased over all the frenzied efforts to cover every penny, but I do remember that costs were dealt with, so I don't really think it adds to the deficit much, if any, in the long term. We also eliminated Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP, if I recall, to transfer the costs to that one single program designed for everyone.

For Badger, the wiki link to that: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_National_Healthcare_Act

And the very, very fun debate thread over it. Another thing that Yankee (and Vepres if he happens to pop in) can agree was a treat.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=99368.0

Exactly my question, Yank. Still being relatively new to Atlasia (and Atlasia organizing its legislative history more akin to oral tradition than codification) I'm quite unsure as to what historically Atlasia has done that (again noting emphasis) needs to change these numbers. Please feel free to suggest what adjustments you feel are needed to adhere to Atlasian history, because I sure can't.

Here's a wiki link to the act on taxes that I wrote soon before I left the Senate: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Fiscal_Responsibility_Act

Here's the senate debate thread (Vepres put up an amusing fight in this one): https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=105642.0

Here's Purple State's evaluation of the Act when he was GM assessing the revenue from it:

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Fiscal Responsibility Bill: This legislation, sponsored by Senator Marokai Blue (JCP), seeks to streamline and restructure Atlasian income tax brackets.

The current bill would create new brackets for individual's income above $367,700, $1 million and $2.5 million, respectively. This would equate with a tax rate increase for the higher brackets and a tax rate decrease for the lowest brackets, with most rates remaining the same.

Previous estimates by the Office of the GM calculated between $250 billion and $600 billion in gained revenue as a result of these changes. Given the overall nature of marginal income tax, as well as the relative revenue gained through individual, rather than corporate, income taxes, the office is now prepared to predict a total revenue in-flow of $500 billion as a result of the new taxation brackets.

This would greatly help in reducing the budget deficit over the coming years. In conjunction with eventual spending cuts and other tax reforms, the Atlasian budget could reach neutrality in two years and bring the debt to zero shortly after a ten year time horizon.

Hope I helped shed some light for you, badger.

Well "helped" is relative---you've been very helpful indeed in educating me on some major relevent spending and taxing changes from barely a year ago, but not helpful at all in my hope to duck working major revisions to the proposed starting changes. But seriously, thank you. These are all major and recent changes that can't be ignored in formulating a "this is where we are now" starting budget.

Yank: Please note my use of the words "presumably" and "AS extensive" regarding the Atlasian stimulus bill passed. Until Blue's preceding post I was uncertain of the details, or even existence, of any such measure passed. To answer your question, I first registered to vote in Atlasia in June of last year, and primarily focused on the Mideast Assembly's doings rather than the Senate's for the first couple months.

Obviously there's a BIG disagreement over the Atlasian National Healthcare Act's cost, between Yank's recollection of 1.5 Trillion (over how many years, btw? per year??) and Blue's of it being essentially revenue neutral. Can anyone find the link to a contemporary estimation of costs, if any, without my searching 22 pages of Senate debate? We obviously need to gain more facts here before even holding a worthwhile debate.

Regardless, it's obviously crucial we seriously need input from our present GM and Committee Chair as to the budgetary impact of these 3 acts and change the current budget template accordingly.

This is a good start though. These are exactly the kind of obvious and inescapable previous enactments that can't be ignored in figuring out the state of the current budget? Any others?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Oh well, whats $600 Billion dollars between friends. I seem to recall us passing multiple bills which could be considered "Simulative" in nature, without a means of funding them. Especially mine dealing with credit lines and business loans in August/Septemberish. So somewhere between $1.0 Trillion and 1.1 Trillion dollars. Its still either equal to or greater then the US stimulus in RL.


What I was referring to about the Health Care bill costs was a conversation between me and PS, the exact words escaped me but it should be somewhere in his old "discussion" thread for the GM's news paper. I think it was something like implementation occuring before the collecting of the additional revenue would add to the deficit in the immediate term which has more then likely lapsed by now. Maybe the President' has a better memory of the events. I am downloading Adobe Reader right now and digging through threads would likely slow that download down.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

hmm need to think on it. I think you should incorporate some more Historical facts about Atlasia. For instance there was involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan but that was finished by 2005 I think. A veterans would do nicely here!!!


As for taxes, have you used the rates established last year in the "Fiscal Responsibility Act"?

I also think expenditures are rathey low and the deficit would be larger, in the relm of $700 to $1.1 Trilion dollars. I said less meaning somewahere like 20 to 30 percent less not 70%.

Exactly my question, Yank. Still being relatively new to Atlasia (and Atlasia organizing its legislative history more akin to oral tradition than codification) I'm quite unsure as to what historically Atlasia has done that (again noting emphasis) needs to change these numbers. Please feel free to suggest what adjustments you feel are needed to adhere to Atlasian history, because I sure can't.

Incidentally, why would the deficit be that much higher if Atlasia avoided the worst of the recession and (presumably) didn't pass as extensive a stimulus program (if any)? I'm open to suggestions here. Although I want to keep numbers as close as possible to a real world scenario to start, I kinda like the idea of a really high deficit to give those sad sack b#$tards in the Senate a real challenge.

Oh, wait....

Since when is a $1.4 Trillion dollar stimulus not "extensive". I am sorry, when did you get active here again?

I don't recall our stimulus being that large, and Lief and I were the principal authors. I don't even think we topped a trillion dollars on it. (According to the totals in the Wiki) What made the stimulus so effective though was us eliminating most of the stupid tax breaks in the real-life stimulus.

For Badger, here are the links to our previous recovery Act: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/2009_Atlasian_Relief_and_Recovery_Act

The debate thread over the stimulus is here. It was fun, Yankee can attest.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=98994.0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe we estimated during the debate over the National Health Care Act that it was deficit neutral. I don't remember being exactly pleased over all the frenzied efforts to cover every penny, but I do remember that costs were dealt with, so I don't really think it adds to the deficit much, if any, in the long term. We also eliminated Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP, if I recall, to transfer the costs to that one single program designed for everyone.

For Badger, the wiki link to that: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_National_Healthcare_Act

And the very, very fun debate thread over it. Another thing that Yankee (and Vepres if he happens to pop in) can agree was a treat.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=99368.0

Exactly my question, Yank. Still being relatively new to Atlasia (and Atlasia organizing its legislative history more akin to oral tradition than codification) I'm quite unsure as to what historically Atlasia has done that (again noting emphasis) needs to change these numbers. Please feel free to suggest what adjustments you feel are needed to adhere to Atlasian history, because I sure can't.

Here's a wiki link to the act on taxes that I wrote soon before I left the Senate: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Fiscal_Responsibility_Act

Here's the senate debate thread (Vepres put up an amusing fight in this one): https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=105642.0

Here's Purple State's evaluation of the Act when he was GM assessing the revenue from it:

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Fiscal Responsibility Bill: This legislation, sponsored by Senator Marokai Blue (JCP), seeks to streamline and restructure Atlasian income tax brackets.

The current bill would create new brackets for individual's income above $367,700, $1 million and $2.5 million, respectively. This would equate with a tax rate increase for the higher brackets and a tax rate decrease for the lowest brackets, with most rates remaining the same.

Previous estimates by the Office of the GM calculated between $250 billion and $600 billion in gained revenue as a result of these changes. Given the overall nature of marginal income tax, as well as the relative revenue gained through individual, rather than corporate, income taxes, the office is now prepared to predict a total revenue in-flow of $500 billion as a result of the new taxation brackets.

This would greatly help in reducing the budget deficit over the coming years. In conjunction with eventual spending cuts and other tax reforms, the Atlasian budget could reach neutrality in two years and bring the debt to zero shortly after a ten year time horizon.

Hope I helped shed some light for you, badger.

Well "helped" is relative---you've been very helpful indeed in educating me on some major relevent spending and taxing changes from barely a year ago, but not helpful at all in my hope to duck working major revisions to the proposed starting changes. But seriously, thank you. These are all major and recent changes that can't be ignored in formulating a "this is where we are now" starting budget.

Yank: Please note my use of the words "presumably" and "AS extensive" regarding the Atlasian stimulus bill passed. Until Blue's preceding post I was uncertain of the details, or even existence, of any such measure passed. To answer your question, I first registered to vote in Atlasia in June of last year, and primarily focused on the Mideast Assembly's doings rather than the Senate's for the first couple months.

Obviously there's a BIG disagreement over the Atlasian National Healthcare Act's cost, between Yank's recollection of 1.5 Trillion (over how many years, btw? per year??) and Blue's of it being essentially revenue neutral. Can anyone find the link to a contemporary estimation of costs, if any, without my searching 22 pages of Senate debate? We obviously need to gain more facts here before even holding a worthwhile debate.

Regardless, it's obviously crucial we seriously need input from our present GM and Committee Chair as to the budgetary impact of these 3 acts and change the current budget template accordingly.

This is a good start though. These are exactly the kind of obvious and inescapable previous enactments that can't be ignored in figuring out the state of the current budget? Any others?

Now you have gone to far, I never said the Health Care bill cost a net of $1.5 Trillion. I said that was the "RANGE" in which EL PRESIDENTE MORADO ESTADO said the "total deficit" was in 2009.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Oh well, whats $600 Billion dollars between friends. I seem to recall us passing multiple bills which could be considered "Simulative" in nature, without a means of funding them. Especially mine dealing with credit lines and business loans in August/Septemberish. So somewhere between $1.0 Trillion and 1.1 Trillion dollars. Its still either equal to or greater then the US stimulus in RL.

We did spend alot with other things, and some of it wasn't paid for, true.

The Home Energy Assistance Administration Act that I penned nearly year ago for instance was something that passed without any expressed means of paying. PS didn't actually issue any reports on this IIRC, and the only cost estimate was me just guesstimating that we'd spend as much on this as we do on food stamps.

But Afleitch's Public Housing Act is one thing we did pass that was paid for. In some way at least. We passed an increase in the estate tax to pay for it.

The taxes levied by the amended version are adequate to render this bill essentially deficit neutral.

But we spent several billion more on another thing that was passed to expand internet access.

So yeah, there's a bunch of stuff to take into account.

[Badger]

hmm need to think on it. I think you should incorporate some more Historical facts about Atlasia. For instance there was involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan but that was finished by 2005 I think. A veterans would do nicely here!!!


As for taxes, have you used the rates established last year in the "Fiscal Responsibility Act"?

I also think expenditures are rathey low and the deficit would be larger, in the relm of $700 to $1.1 Trilion dollars. I said less meaning somewahere like 20 to 30 percent less not 70%.

Exactly my question, Yank. Still being relatively new to Atlasia (and Atlasia organizing its legislative history more akin to oral tradition than codification) I'm quite unsure as to what historically Atlasia has done that (again noting emphasis) needs to change these numbers. Please feel free to suggest what adjustments you feel are needed to adhere to Atlasian history, because I sure can't.

Incidentally, why would the deficit be that much higher if Atlasia avoided the worst of the recession and (presumably) didn't pass as extensive a stimulus program (if any)? I'm open to suggestions here. Although I want to keep numbers as close as possible to a real world scenario to start, I kinda like the idea of a really high deficit to give those sad sack b#$tards in the Senate a real challenge.

Oh, wait....

Since when is a $1.4 Trillion dollar stimulus not "extensive". I am sorry, when did you get active here again?

I don't recall our stimulus being that large, and Lief and I were the principal authors. I don't even think we topped a trillion dollars on it. (According to the totals in the Wiki) What made the stimulus so effective though was us eliminating most of the stupid tax breaks in the real-life stimulus.

For Badger, here are the links to our previous recovery Act: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/2009_Atlasian_Relief_and_Recovery_Act

The debate thread over the stimulus is here. It was fun, Yankee can attest.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=98994.0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe we estimated during the debate over the National Health Care Act that it was deficit neutral. I don't remember being exactly pleased over all the frenzied efforts to cover every penny, but I do remember that costs were dealt with, so I don't really think it adds to the deficit much, if any, in the long term. We also eliminated Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP, if I recall, to transfer the costs to that one single program designed for everyone.

For Badger, the wiki link to that: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_National_Healthcare_Act

And the very, very fun debate thread over it. Another thing that Yankee (and Vepres if he happens to pop in) can agree was a treat.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=99368.0

Exactly my question, Yank. Still being relatively new to Atlasia (and Atlasia organizing its legislative history more akin to oral tradition than codification) I'm quite unsure as to what historically Atlasia has done that (again noting emphasis) needs to change these numbers. Please feel free to suggest what adjustments you feel are needed to adhere to Atlasian history, because I sure can't.

Here's a wiki link to the act on taxes that I wrote soon before I left the Senate: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Fiscal_Responsibility_Act

Here's the senate debate thread (Vepres put up an amusing fight in this one): https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=105642.0

Here's Purple State's evaluation of the Act when he was GM assessing the revenue from it:

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Fiscal Responsibility Bill: This legislation, sponsored by Senator Marokai Blue (JCP), seeks to streamline and restructure Atlasian income tax brackets.

The current bill would create new brackets for individual's income above $367,700, $1 million and $2.5 million, respectively. This would equate with a tax rate increase for the higher brackets and a tax rate decrease for the lowest brackets, with most rates remaining the same.

Previous estimates by the Office of the GM calculated between $250 billion and $600 billion in gained revenue as a result of these changes. Given the overall nature of marginal income tax, as well as the relative revenue gained through individual, rather than corporate, income taxes, the office is now prepared to predict a total revenue in-flow of $500 billion as a result of the new taxation brackets.

This would greatly help in reducing the budget deficit over the coming years. In conjunction with eventual spending cuts and other tax reforms, the Atlasian budget could reach neutrality in two years and bring the debt to zero shortly after a ten year time horizon.

Hope I helped shed some light for you, badger.

Well "helped" is relative---you've been very helpful indeed in educating me on some major relevent spending and taxing changes from barely a year ago, but not helpful at all in my hope to duck working major revisions to the proposed starting changes. But seriously, thank you. These are all major and recent changes that can't be ignored in formulating a "this is where we are now" starting budget.

Yank: Please note my use of the words "presumably" and "AS extensive" regarding the Atlasian stimulus bill passed. Until Blue's preceding post I was uncertain of the details, or even existence, of any such measure passed. To answer your question, I first registered to vote in Atlasia in June of last year, and primarily focused on the Mideast Assembly's doings rather than the Senate's for the first couple months.

Obviously there's a BIG disagreement over the Atlasian National Healthcare Act's cost, between Yank's recollection of 1.5 Trillion (over how many years, btw? per year??) and Blue's of it being essentially revenue neutral. Can anyone find the link to a contemporary estimation of costs, if any, without my searching 22 pages of Senate debate? We obviously need to gain more facts here before even holding a worthwhile debate.

Regardless, it's obviously crucial we seriously need input from our present GM and Committee Chair as to the budgetary impact of these 3 acts and change the current budget template accordingly.

This is a good start though. These are exactly the kind of obvious and inescapable previous enactments that can't be ignored in figuring out the state of the current budget? Any others?

Now you have gone to far, I never said the Health Care bill cost a net of $1.5 Trillion. I said that was the "RANGE" in which EL PRESIDENTE MORADO ESTADO said the "total deficit" was in 2009.

Ah, so you meant for the entire deficit being approximately $1.5 Trillion. That wasn't clear before.

@ Blue: These are all good examples (especially the actual current estate tax levels), but two things to consider here: First, many of these enactments are at least partially duplicative of expenditures reflected in the template RL federal budget (even during the Bush & GOP Congress years ). More importantly, do we really want to go through every multi-billion dollar enactment in Atlasia's history and measuring how it changes the numbers from this template?

Getting the correct tax rates is crucial, of course, as is mega-impacting acts like the Atlasian Stimulus, Financial Responsibility Act, and (possibly) the National Healthcare Act. But I fear going through every single such enactment will result in our never completing this job.

I do NOT want to discourage your suggestions here, Blue and Yank, as they're in the right direction. What I suggest though is looking at the budgetary impact of prior acts with the following question:

"Would not changing the budget template for this bill fundamentally ignore Atlasian history?"

Another way of thinking of it is whether the act affects the budget to the tune of trillions rather than merely billions? If not (or maybe at least hundreds of billions--emphasis on the plural) then it's probably better left ignored.

Applying these principles to some of the bills Blue listed, I'd suggest that the Home Energy Assistance Administration Act, could be reasonably considered to not require changing the template budget's numbers---the HEAAA can simply be considered to be factored into this budget, IMHO. The Stimulus and Fiscal Responsibility Act obviously can't be similarly "factored in" and require changes.

Obviously these various acts and their budgetary impact, or lack thereof, will be subject to debate and vote of the full committee. But can we agree on these basic principles to keep the process relatively simple and moving?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would consider every major bill since atleast January 2009.

[Badger]

OK, allow me to make some suggestions as to how we proceed from here.

The first question is whether we want to use the basic structure of the long version NathanNewman sim for constructing a budget. This would involve adopting the numbers for spending and revenue as a starting point for the Committee to make changes based on major differences between Atlasia and RL. The issue is whether these categories sufficiently cover various categories of spending and taxing, or if instead we may prefer something more simple like the NathanNewman short version:

Spending ($2672.55 billion)
$446.11 billion .... Military Spending (No Change)
$111.85 billion .... Iraq War and Afghanistan Operations (No Change)
$115.48 billion .... Veterans & Retired Military Pensions and Services (No Change)
$31.59 billion ..... International Affairs (No Change)
$23.97 billion ..... General Science, Space, and Technology (No Change)
$2.12 billion ...... Non-Defense Energy Spending (No Change)
$31.16 billion ..... Natural Resources and Environment (No Change)
$26.02 billion ..... Agriculture (No Change)
$70.67 billion ..... Transportation (No Change)
$19.1 billion ...... Community and Regional Development (No Change)
$64.07 billion ..... Education (No Change)
$47.81 billion ..... Training, Labor and Unemployment Programs (No Change)
$253.32 billion .... Non-Medicare Health Spending (No Change)
$345.75 billion .... Medicare (No Change)
$71.94 billion ..... Civilian Retirement (Social Security excluded) (No Change)
$206.77 billion .... Aid to Low-Income Families (No Change)
$25.62 billion ..... General Family Support (No Change)
$6.82 billion ...... Commerce and Housing Loan Programs (No Change)
$544.82 billion .... Social Security (No Change)
$43.1 billion ...... Administration of Justice (No Change)
$17.75 billion ..... General Government Administration (No Change)
$211.08 billion .... Net Interest (No Change)
$-44.37 billion .... Undistributed Offsetting Receipts and Allowance (No Change)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tax Expenditures ($1074.83 billion)
$294.6 billion ..... 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts (No Change)
$60.36 billion ..... Corporate Tax Breaks (No Change)
$86.71 billion ..... Personal Business and Investment Benefits (No Change)
$168.47 billion .... Pension and Retirement Tax Benefits (No Change)
$140.99 billion .... Health Insurance Tax Benefits (No Change)
$163.71 billion .... Housing Tax Benefits (No Change)
$159.99 billion .... Other Individual Deductions and Expenditures (No Change)

Budget is $3747.38 billion
($2672.55 billion in spending, $1074.83 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).

Your deficit is $401.01 billion.

(The types and rates of various federal taxes would be added here; I didn't copy and paste them as Blue has demonstrated Atlasia's actual tax rates are far different than the RL one's I posted )

The choices I see here would be either the NN long version, short version, or possibly the structure from one of the other budget sims we've been playing with. I mention the latter as perhaps someone on the Committee feels that, even with major changes expected to comport with Atlasia's economy and legislative history, one of the other sims presenting more current 2010ish numbers is still a better starting point.

At any rate, we would have nominations of these potential budget structures (I'll nominate the NN long version when the time comes), and if there are multiple nominations we should be able to debate and vote on which one to adopt within (i.e. less than) a week from now.

Step 2: Adapting the expenditures to Atlasian history.

Here Committee members will nominate for consideration Atlasian laws they believe fundamentally change the budget from whatever RL template we adopt, such as Blue and Yank have done. The nominations will be subject to first a majority vote whether they have sufficient impact on the budget to even be considered by the Committee. If the program fails this vote, it is deemed to already be included inside the RL template budget's spending. If the program is approved for consideration, however, the Committee will discuss and eventually vote on the necessary change to the budget caused by that law.

Example: Yank nominates the Atlasian National Healthcare Act to be considered by the Committee for creating a major difference between from the NN short version we adopted as a starting template. The Committee votes on whether the ANHA is considered to notably change the budget from RL, and unanimously votes aye. The Committee then debates and votes to increase the category of non-Medicare spending from $253 billion to (e.g.) $500 Billion to reflect the ANHA's impact on the budget. Blue nominates the Home Energy Assistance Administration Act for consideration of changing the template budget's numbers. the Committee however votes 4-1 against considering the HEAAA to be a major impact on the template budget, so the HEAAA's provisions are considered to already be included in the $206.77 billion listed in the NN sim for Aid to low-income families (or some other category). The Committee then moves on to the next law nominated as majorly impacting the template until finished.

Step 3. Adapting Revenue to Atlasian Law:

This will actually be fairly easy. In fact, Blue's done a lot of it today already. The Committee would consider nominations to amend the proposed tax rates to comply with Atlasian law. Unlike estimating and debating the relative spending impact of particular programs, this is basically making sure we have the correct tax rates in place. The only tricky part may be determining if there are any tax breaks/credits passed that seriously affect revenue collected for taxes on (e.g.) income, or corporations, or gas, or whatever. These will be addressed the same way as laws involving spending; nominations for consideration by the Committee, and if approved debate and final vote on the amount of change in revenue there is from the starting template budget.

Step 4: Determining the Deficit and Debt Levels:

Once we've figured out the levels of spending and revenue, the Committee will discuss and vote on how much in the red the government is. both annually and overall. This will include debate on the state of Atlasia's economy relative to RL, such as the recession's impact here vs. the US. The GM/Chair's input will be particularly crucial here.

Step 5: Procedure and "Other", then Final Passage:

The Committee will vote on recommending the basic procedure and timing for the Senate and Executive's handling the budget. For example, I've suggested a budget to be considered and passed starting at the beginning of each presidential term to cover spending and taxes for the next term, just as in RL the budget for FY 2011 is passed in 2010. The GM would advise at the beginning of each term what the estimated spending, revenue and deficit/surplus will be for the next budget if left unchanged. That way the Senate and President know if (e.g.) revenues fell short of estimations from the previous budget, a particular category of spending is expected to increase for whatever reasons, etc. Most importantly, the GM will show the impact of the previous term's budget. (Surely someone thought to ask about this last term before passing the budget, right?)

If there are any other noteworthy issues arising as to the structure or process of the budget, these can be addressed here as well. Once these are all done we can vote to approve the starting budget for the Senate and President to deal with, hopefully by the start of the next presidential term.

My typical verbosity may make it sound overly complicated, but it's really not. It's essentially:

> Adopt a template budget from one of the sims to start

> Change spending in the template to match major differences between Atlasia and RL. The Committee will consider whether laws nominated have a discernable impact on the templates numbers and, if so, how much.

> Ditto for taxes.

> Based on the previous two steps and the GM's imput re: economic conditions, determine the deficit and national debt levels.

> Recommend a basic procedure and timetable for budgets plus detailing the GM's role in determining changes based on the previous budget and trends in the economy/random events. Then vote on final approval of the whole enchilada.

How's this all sound to you, Mr. Chairman?

[Badger]

I would consider every major bill since atleast January 2009.

YAAANKKKK!!!! <shakes fist>

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would consider every major bill since atleast January 2009.

YAAANKKKK!!!! <shakes fist>

I love getting that reaction from people. Though I look forward to seeing your reaction in November when Kasich and Portman win, even more.

How does that not fit with your proposal. I seems to me you have a baseline which includes everything prior then you take every bill that had signifcant impact on the budget and consider it. Basically what you said, but in far less words.

[Badger]

I would consider every major bill since atleast January 2009.

YAAANKKKK!!!! <shakes fist>

I love getting that reaction from people. Though I look forward to seeing your reaction in November when Kasich and Portman win, even more.

How does that not fit with your proposal. I seems to me you have a baseline which includes everything prior then you take every bill that had signifcant impact on the budget and consider it. Basically what you said, but in far less words.

I have no problem with that at all, Yank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke 

[Badger]

I'll do this now as I'll likely not be on-line much this weekend due to my parents visiting tomorrow, and I really want to get the ball rolling here:

Assuming Al has no major objections to the proposed agenda (or at least Step 1), I nominate the NathanNewman long version budget sim as a template budget for the Committee to start with. I believe the more detailed breakdown of spending categories and taxes allows more specificity to Senators and Cabinet members wanting to make changes, but doesn't make the process any more complicated.

Compare this to the SoEA's Foreign Policy Review. If the Senate can handle a report of about 200 countries including updates on our relations with places like Barbados and the Marshall Islands, surely we can handle a budget with a few score subcategories of spending and about half a dozen revenue sources.

Any comments? Other nominations for using as a template? Input Mr. Chairman?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm fine with using that as a template (yes - I still am alive ).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I agree with the long version of the nathannewman sim. I think it provides the most specificity as you say, but that it will also provide far more red meat for elections and debates over spending on various items then we have hither to have seen. I can't tell you how many times I have been asked how much we spend on this or that, and I always give the same generic response, "Nobody knows". I think that if we can finally provide a way for that problem to be resolved and have readily available knowledge of what spending is on each item, candidates would be much more willing to talk about, argue and debate topics related to them. For a long time there has been a reluctance and a prefered desire to avoid entirely any such discussions of the budget except in the most vague and general terms.

The long version of the nathan newman sim I think will best serve dealing with this important side issue while still dealing with the overal goal and matter at hand, creating a budget process that doesn't overload the Senate into and even more active state. I think my vision for the drawing up of the budget on a regular basis may be a bit more extensive, perhaps to the risk of creating some arcane, byzantine structure that will collapse. That, not which sim we use will likely lead to some contention going forward.

The goal of my process, and indeed the reason for its scope, is to involve several important key players like the administration through the SoIA. I think having the President come up with his own budget separate from the Senate process might add to the debate and create a situation where the President has to use his influence and pull to get the most of what he wants. I do worry that this game may not be suited to such a thing being included in the process. As a prime example would be Marokai in the Lief Administration or BK in this administration, not to critize any of the three, but I fear that the existence of seperate Presidential budget risks that someone like them would just introduce the President's budget in total which could have the unforseen effect of limiting debate and even input of the Senate in the process.

As such, a solution to that would be to have the Senate Budget drawn up by a select committee of three Senators, and then force them to start from the baseline of the previous budget instead of the baseline of the previous budget + the President's changes. Of course once passed, the Senate budget would become "the" budget. As for the GM, the hope would be that both the Administration and the Senate would consult him. Something to thing about.





I am currently downloading a piece of software which will atleast allow me to fully partition my hard drive to 250 GB instead of 24 GB, and maybe even, "Fingers crossed" allow me to transfer the entire contents of my old hard drive to the new one directly which would be a godsend. Needless to say this could incapacitate me till Sunday or Monday.

[Badger]

I agree with the long version of the nathannewman sim. I think it provides the most specificity as you say, but that it will also provide far more red meat for elections and debates over spending on various items then we have hither to have seen. I can't tell you how many times I have been asked how much we spend on this or that, and I always give the same generic response, "Nobody knows". I think that if we can finally provide a way for that problem to be resolved and have readily available knowledge of what spending is on each item, candidates would be much more willing to talk about, argue and debate topics related to them. For a long time there has been a reluctance and a prefered desire to avoid entirely any such discussions of the budget except in the most vague and general terms.

The long version of the nathan newman sim I think will best serve dealing with this important side issue while still dealing with the overal goal and matter at hand, creating a budget process that doesn't overload the Senate into and even more active state. I think my vision for the drawing up of the budget on a regular basis may be a bit more extensive, perhaps to the risk of creating some arcane, byzantine structure that will collapse. That, not which sim we use will likely lead to some contention going forward.

The goal of my process, and indeed the reason for its scope, is to involve several important key players like the administration through the SoIA. I think having the President come up with his own budget separate from the Senate process might add to the debate and create a situation where the President has to use his influence and pull to get the most of what he wants. I do worry that this game may not be suited to such a thing being included in the process. As a prime example would be Marokai in the Lief Administration or BK in this administration, not to critize any of the three, but I fear that the existence of seperate Presidential budget risks that someone like them would just introduce the President's budget in total which could have the unforseen effect of limiting debate and even input of the Senate in the process.

As such, a solution to that would be to have the Senate Budget drawn up by a select committee of three Senators, and then force them to start from the baseline of the previous budget instead of the baseline of the previous budget + the President's changes. Of course once passed, the Senate budget would become "the" budget. As for the GM, the hope would be that both the Administration and the Senate would consult him. Something to thing about.

Personally I'm not sure if we should recommend (or as a senator I would like) defering the budget's construction to a 3 memeber committee. I wouldn't 100% rule it out either, but I think like the idea of letting the 10 Senators hash out dueling budget proposals in a free for all that can garner a majority vote plus White House signature. Can you imagine the debate over dueling RPP, Pop, and JCP budget proposals, then add to that the president trying to push his own proposal through?

Other than that minor difference, we're 100% on the same page, Yank.

[Badger]

I'm fine with using that as a template (yes - I still am alive ).

Good to see you Inks! I was beginning to worry.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm waitin', waitin' on a sunny day
Gonna chase the clouds away
Waitin' on a sunny day

Without you I'm workin' with the rain fallin' down
Half a party in a one dog town
I need you to chase the blues away
Without you I'm a drummer girl that can't keep a beat
And ice cream truck on a deserted street
I hope that you're coming to stay


Just felt appropriate considering...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I disagree with the direction this has taken and don't think that further participation - beyond gavel hammering - would be productive.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I disagree with the direction this has taken and don't think that further participation - beyond gavel hammering - would be productive.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where do you want to go? Come on and tell us. I mean good god, we ain't mind readers. Lets here those welsh vocal chords (via typed words )

[Marokai Backbeat]

I think, and forgive me if I'm offbase on any of my assumptions, that while it would be a pain in the ass to create a very detailed budget right now while including all the major things we've passed recently, I think it would be the right thing to do for comprehensiveness-sake.

I don't really think we should be encouraging the proposal of several different budgets, though. Honestly, I think all the budget should be is a running tally of everything we pass, and not something that is routinely adjusted. If we want to adjust things, we should do it in individual pieces of legislation, and then that can be reflected in the budget. I think that's an easier way to run the budget, which can be adjusted from time to time based on economic circumstances in regard to how much welfare costs vary and how much tax revenue varies, but is mostly just a tackboard for what we're spending already, instead of trying to turn everything upside down through the budget process instead of the normal legislative process.

It should be noted of course that I came into this committee much of the same mind as Al. Skeptical of the budget process and seeking how to make it as simple and unintrusive as possible.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Too much their for ordinary Atlasians to follow. And if they can't follow, they don't care. And if they don't care, things can head into ritual rather than game.

I should note that I'm not going to be an obstructionist prick; I don't see myself as a political figure these days.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think, and forgive me if I'm offbase on any of my assumptions, that while it would be a pain in the ass to create a very detailed budget right now while including all the major things we've passed recently, I think it would be the right thing to do for comprehensiveness-sake.

I don't really think we should be encouraging the proposal of several different budgets, though. Honestly, I think all the budget should be is a running tally of everything we pass, and not something that is routinely adjusted. If we want to adjust things, we should do it in individual pieces of legislation, and then that can be reflected in the budget. I think that's an easier way to run the budget, which can be adjusted from time to time based on economic circumstances in regard to how much welfare costs vary and how much tax revenue varies, but is mostly just a tackboard for what we're spending already, instead of trying to turn everything upside down through the budget process instead of the normal legislative process.

It should be noted of course that I came into this committee much of the same mind as Al. Skeptical of the budget process and seeking how to make it as simple and unintrusive as possible.

All I did was make a suggestion and stated myself that it had drawbacks and needed to be "considered". I usually say what I expect to be done, and that was all. And as I remembered "that was a slight disagreement" and we were 100% on the same page otherwise. And really it should be "potential' slight disagreement".

What the hell direction has this committee taken that it wasn't already on the moment it started. Or job was to create a budget process, debating and coming up with the structure of how the budget is to be created is well within that scope of things.

Also, I don't remember saying that the budget should be anything other then tackboard. I am the one who has called for a comprehensive economic "tackboard" with a whole hell of a more then just budget info.

So tell me, what the devil has occurred today that didn't occur on the many days of prior work this committee has undertaken? Especially so grave as to lead the chairmen to declare its uselessness?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Too much their for ordinary Atlasians to follow. And if they can't follow, they don't care. And if they don't care, things can head into ritual rather than game.

I should note that I'm not going to be an obstructionist prick; I don't see myself as a political figure these days.

Do ordinary US Citizens know how much is spent on VA benefits? or whatever category it maybe. I think you are missing the point. The whole point of this is to provide fodder of a budget sort for the campaigns and end the constand "What are we spending here, here and here guessing game".

They don't care know. If you want to feed them basic stuff that is basically what PS was doing as GM. As far as I can tell, we lose nothing by trying it with the detailed version.