Break the Chains Act [WITHDRAWN]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[Bacon King]

This has the votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Bacon King]

Senators in favor of the bill: Bacon King, Hans-im-Glück, Franzl, Badger, AHDuke (5)
Senators opposed: Libertas, Bgwah, Dallasfan65, NCYankee (4)
Senators abstaining: bullmoose88 (1)

This bill has hereby passed the Senate and is presented to President Purple State.

[Bacon King]

The passed bill, for the President's convenience:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

A bill can pass with only 5 ayes?

[Bacon King]

A bill can pass with only 5 ayes?

With at least one abstention, yes.

Or if there is a vacancy in the Senate, but that's moot in this circumstance.

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Libertas, you want to accept the President's changes or attempt to override?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Libertas, you want to accept the President's changes or attempt to override?

Those are the only two options?

[Badger]

I can certainly live with these changes, but perhaps the President could further explain for what other uses the revenue would be applied?

[Franzl]

I can certainly live with these changes, but perhaps the President could further explain for what other uses the revenue would be applied?

How about for the Hiring Incentives Act

[Bacon King]

Libertas: you have two options:

1. File a motion to approve the President’s redraft by a simple majority vote, and return it to the President for his signature or veto. If the vote fails, then you decide whether to send our version of the bill back to the Senate or for the Senate to restart debate.

OR,

2. You can just withdraw the bill from the Senate.

[k-onmmunist]

I like the President's amendment and would go with it.

[Purple State]

I can certainly live with these changes, but perhaps the President could further explain for what other uses the revenue would be applied?

The rates have two purposes. One is to raise revenue and the other is to push companies to avoid growing too large. The extra revenue can be apportioned by the Senate (and Franzl seems to have a pretty bright idea ), but this also strengthens the bill's primary purpose significantly.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas: you have two options:

1. File a motion to approve the President’s redraft by a simple majority vote, and return it to the President for his signature or veto. If the vote fails, then you decide whether to send our version of the bill back to the Senate or for the Senate to restart debate.

OR,

2. You can just withdraw the bill from the Senate.

In that case I would rather withdraw the bill from the Senate. I'd rather start all over again. The bill in it's current state is just totally ineffective and inefficient, and the president's amendment just adds a band-aid over a bad bill.

[Badger]

Libertas: you have two options:

1. File a motion to approve the President’s redraft by a simple majority vote, and return it to the President for his signature or veto. If the vote fails, then you decide whether to send our version of the bill back to the Senate or for the Senate to restart debate.

OR,

2. You can just withdraw the bill from the Senate.

In that case I would rather withdraw the bill from the Senate. I'd rather start all over again. The bill in it's current state is just totally ineffective and inefficient, and the president's amendment just adds a band-aid over a bad bill.

I'd ask you to reconsider, Senator. You agreed to not withdraw an amended bill reading much as it does now.

Well, I'm not sure I would offer an amendment if it wasn't accepted as friendly. I was kind of waiting for Libertas's response.

I understand the Senate could amend the bill without the sponsor's consent. Still, I readily admit my idea to shield businesses from the tax until their number of outlets gets around triple digits, imposing the tax on a per store basis, and limiting the the use of such revenue to small business expansion without subsizing the already wealthy would dramatically change Libertas's vision of the bill. I'm not hesitant to do that per se but--and correct me if I'm wrong here, Mr. PPT--the sponsor of a measure can withdraw the measure from the floor even after its amended.

So I guess the ball is in your court, Libertas. I strongly suspect you'd oppose such sweeping changes as I've proposed, and if the amendment passing would cause you to withdraw the bill then I don't want to waste my time drafting a proposal. If, however, you would not withdraw the bill if the Senate passed such an amendment--even if you fight the amendment itself tooth and nail--then I'll put something forward.

But if you or any other senator would like to put forth an amendment that you feel keeps within the spirit of the law, I'm open...

I understand you may likely argue that this version is not "within the spirit of the law", but that is simply not correct for several reasons.

1) The amended version still has the same basic thrust as the original. Discouraging large conglomerate chains with a tax penalty related to size, and using the revenue raised to encourage the expansion of small business entrepreneurs. For reasons we've debated ad nauseum I understand the version passed did not go as far as you wanted (though the key word here may be "passed"; I frankly believe the original version would've been lucky to get more than 2 votes, and PS would've never signed it as was regardless), but the same result is indubitably "within the spirit of the law".

2) The changes in the amendment passed were hardly unexpected when you made the above statement agreeing not to withdraw an amended bill. The specific changes I proposed were: " to shield businesses from the tax until their number of outlets gets around triple digits, imposing the tax on a per store basis, and limiting the the use of such revenue to small business expansion without subsizing the already wealthy". This is exactly what the amendment did.

3) The President's proposed changes actually increases the tax rates that you felt the amendment had made too low. If you didn't withdraw the bill after the amendment passed (which, again, would've been contrary to your earlier promise) there's no reason to do so on what, from your perspective, is an at least slightly improved version from what the Senate passed.

I can understand concern over PS's request the revenue not be strictly allocated for small business development, but I gather that's not the reason for considering withdrawal of the bill as you describe the President's proposed changes as "a band-aid" rather than further undermining its goals. (IF that is truly an issue to you, maybe PS would consider signing a bill that limited the use of revenue raised pursuant to Section 6 for at least the first year of the Act?)

4) Ask yourself this:"Even if the amended measure doesn't go nearly as far as I wish, is it at least a slight improvement over the status quo?"

5) Even if you did ultimately withdraw this bill, PS's version could and probably would be submitted in the legislation que the same day. As we've already debated this to death I believe the Senate would have enough patience to simply pass the resubmitted measure without delay and get the darned thing signed.

As the amended bill is still unquestionably "within the spirit of the law", I sincerely hope you'll stand by your word and allow a vote on this measure.

[Badger]

On second look it appears that you had already reintroduced a similar version of the bill. All that typing for nothing...

At any rate, at first glance it appears the new version and the passed version are at at least in the same ballpark so there's room for further compromise, I guess (though I still think the taxation kicks in too early with as little as 15 stores).

BTW: Can you define "differential tax"? Is that simply a less wordy way of imposing the tax "per store"?