The Office of Former President Polnut, Boston - February Election Extravaganzaa!

[Secretary Polnut]

** Any attempt to wander off into tangent will force me to close this thread **

In response to the question on actual policy from the SoIA....

To bring this thread back from its epic derail, I am very interested in Polnut's proposal to establish a sub-Cabinet level position.  I know you'll probably have a detailed proposal out sooner or later but maybe this will help shape your policy.

Now, what exactly is meant by "sub-Cabinet?"  Is this a person who reports to the SoIA?  As the current SoIA, my main responsibility seems to be liaising with the regional governments, creating regional stories, putting out regional unemployment numbers, etc.  Sure, I have some power at the national domestic level but most national-level domestic responsibilities (such as managing the economy) are the domain of the Game Moderator.

 

As Marokai pointed out there seems to be some issues about the exact responsibilities of the SoIA and the GM, in many ways they do perform similar tasks.  

My preference would be to place most overarching domestic authority in the SoIA and place specific responsibility for economics in that sub-Cabinet official.

As I said before the original thread turned into a combination of petty bitch and fish-slapping, I said that my key game reform goal  is to ensure the authority granted to Cabinet officials actually reflect their roles and better target those Cabinet roles.

I will be making those proposals public shortly.

[Snowguy716]

** Any attempt to wander off into tangent will force me to close this thread **

In response to the question on actual policy from the SoIA....

To bring this thread back from its epic derail, I am very interested in Polnut's proposal to establish a sub-Cabinet level position.  I know you'll probably have a detailed proposal out sooner or later but maybe this will help shape your policy.

Now, what exactly is meant by "sub-Cabinet?"  Is this a person who reports to the SoIA?  As the current SoIA, my main responsibility seems to be liaising with the regional governments, creating regional stories, putting out regional unemployment numbers, etc.  Sure, I have some power at the national domestic level but most national-level domestic responsibilities (such as managing the economy) are the domain of the Game Moderator.

 

As Marokai pointed out there seems to be some issues about the exact responsibilities of the SoIA and the GM, in many ways they do perform similar tasks. 

My preference would be to place most overarching domestic authority in the SoIA and place specific responsibility for economics in that sub-Cabinet official.

As I said before the original thread turned into a combination of petty bitch and fish-slapping, I said that my key game reform goal  is to ensure the authority granted to Cabinet officials actually reflect their roles and better target those Cabinet roles.

I will be making those proposals public shortly.

I honestly think the GM should be the one that sets events in the game.  If the SoIA and SoEA want to react on their own to real world events, they should be able to... but it shouldn't be up to the SoIA or SoEA to come up with events... otherwise an SoIA could just come up with events that make him look good for future election potential.

Let the game making be done by the GM and let the SoIA and SoEA work like the Interior and State departments in real life.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

As Polnut's current main opposition candidate, I want to echo the sentiments of my VP pick in the old thread:

Lets keep this civil.

[Yelnoc]

** Any attempt to wander off into tangent will force me to close this thread **

In response to the question on actual policy from the SoIA....

To bring this thread back from its epic derail, I am very interested in Polnut's proposal to establish a sub-Cabinet level position.  I know you'll probably have a detailed proposal out sooner or later but maybe this will help shape your policy.

Now, what exactly is meant by "sub-Cabinet?"  Is this a person who reports to the SoIA?  As the current SoIA, my main responsibility seems to be liaising with the regional governments, creating regional stories, putting out regional unemployment numbers, etc.  Sure, I have some power at the national domestic level but most national-level domestic responsibilities (such as managing the economy) are the domain of the Game Moderator.

 

As Marokai pointed out there seems to be some issues about the exact responsibilities of the SoIA and the GM, in many ways they do perform similar tasks. 

My preference would be to place most overarching domestic authority in the SoIA and place specific responsibility for economics in that sub-Cabinet official.

As I said before the original thread turned into a combination of petty bitch and fish-slapping, I said that my key game reform goal  is to ensure the authority granted to Cabinet officials actually reflect their roles and better target those Cabinet roles.

I will be making those proposals public shortly.

I honestly think the GM should be the one that sets events in the game.  If the SoIA and SoEA want to react on their own to real world events, they should be able to... but it shouldn't be up to the SoIA or SoEA to come up with events... otherwise an SoIA could just come up with events that make him look good for future election potential.

Let the game making be done by the GM and let the SoIA and SoEA work like the Interior and State departments in real life.

I never thought about it that way.  Hmm...

I suppose I've blown up too much stuff for that. 

In response to Polnut, I do agree there is some overlap.  Badger and I have worked out a system whereby I mostly control events and other stuff related to the regions while he handles major federal stuff and introduces "big events."  My main concern is that creating another cabinet official with a focus that the SoIA and GM already share could actually make matters worse.  But, I'll wait and read your proposal before making a judgement.

[Snowguy716]

I think the GM should also be responsive to the actions of the SoIA and SoEA or the senate for that matter.

The biggest lacking part in this game are any tangible consequences for actions that we take.

But that opens a huge can of worms.  Because we will likely respond to real world problems differently than the real world government.  What if the real world government's plan fails?  Does ours automatically fail as well?  The GM has to figure that out.  And then the game becomes slightly different than reality.  And so on and so forth.

That's why maybe the game should reset every so often or something along those lines to keep us from getting to the point where we have no bearing on the real world.

[Secretary Polnut]

I'm obviously happy to hear any options that people have.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

More GM's. A GM team.

[President Marokai]

The biggest lacking part in this game are any tangible consequences for actions that we take.

Could not agree more, honestly. It's difficult to do in the game, of course, (since it is, you know, a game) but I think it's possible. I think one of the biggest problems is we've always had the backwards approach. For a really long time everyone always used to say "we need to make the Senate actually react to events!" because time and time again, the GM would lay out events, and the Senate wouldn't react. But then the Senate started doing more stuff and actually did start paying attention, but the situation just kept staying the same. It got kind of ridiculous where we basically just have a new recession every 6 months.

I think instead of "we need to make the Senate respond to our actions" we need to switch it around and think "we need to take into account Senate actions and respond to them." Who knows, could work.

That's why maybe the game should reset every so often or something along those lines to keep us from getting to the point where we have no bearing on the real world.

Almost something like a "refresh" to Atlasia? Perhaps a "legislative reboot"? You're not wrong.

[Secretary Polnut]

The biggest lacking part in this game are any tangible consequences for actions that we take.

Could not agree more, honestly. It's difficult to do in the game, of course, (since it is, you know, a game) but I think it's possible. I think one of the biggest problems is we've always had the backwards approach. For a really long time everyone always used to say "we need to make the Senate actually react to events!" because time and time again, the GM would lay out events, and the Senate wouldn't react. But then the Senate started doing more stuff and actually did start paying attention, but the situation just kept staying the same. It got kind of ridiculous where we basically just have a new recession every 6 months.

I think instead of "we need to make the Senate respond to our actions" we need to switch it around and think "we need to take into account Senate actions and respond to them." Who knows, could work.

That's why maybe the game should reset every so often or something along those lines to keep us from getting to the point where we have no bearing on the real world.

Almost something like a "refresh" to Atlasia? Perhaps a "legislative reboot"? You're not wrong.

You see, this is part of my reform platform, give the Cabinet appropriate powers and authority, as well as substantive subject-matter.

I would be laying down the law with the Senate to act - if they didn't I would use presidential authority to act if they couldn't be bothered. What's the point of the Senate if it cannot be flexible to respond to issues as they emerge?

[shua]

The biggest lacking part in this game are any tangible consequences for actions that we take.

Could not agree more, honestly. It's difficult to do in the game, of course, (since it is, you know, a game) but I think it's possible. I think one of the biggest problems is we've always had the backwards approach. For a really long time everyone always used to say "we need to make the Senate actually react to events!" because time and time again, the GM would lay out events, and the Senate wouldn't react. But then the Senate started doing more stuff and actually did start paying attention, but the situation just kept staying the same. It got kind of ridiculous where we basically just have a new recession every 6 months.

I think instead of "we need to make the Senate respond to our actions" we need to switch it around and think "we need to take into account Senate actions and respond to them." Who knows, could work.

That's why maybe the game should reset every so often or something along those lines to keep us from getting to the point where we have no bearing on the real world.

Almost something like a "refresh" to Atlasia? Perhaps a "legislative reboot"? You're not wrong.

You see, this is part of my reform platform, give the Cabinet appropriate powers and authority, as well as substantive subject-matter.

I would be laying down the law with the Senate to act - if they didn't I would use presidential authority to act if they couldn't be bothered. What's the point of the Senate if it cannot be flexible to respond to issues as they emerge?

well you see we have this little thing called the separation of powers . . .

[Secretary Polnut]

The biggest lacking part in this game are any tangible consequences for actions that we take.

Could not agree more, honestly. It's difficult to do in the game, of course, (since it is, you know, a game) but I think it's possible. I think one of the biggest problems is we've always had the backwards approach. For a really long time everyone always used to say "we need to make the Senate actually react to events!" because time and time again, the GM would lay out events, and the Senate wouldn't react. But then the Senate started doing more stuff and actually did start paying attention, but the situation just kept staying the same. It got kind of ridiculous where we basically just have a new recession every 6 months.

I think instead of "we need to make the Senate respond to our actions" we need to switch it around and think "we need to take into account Senate actions and respond to them." Who knows, could work.

That's why maybe the game should reset every so often or something along those lines to keep us from getting to the point where we have no bearing on the real world.

Almost something like a "refresh" to Atlasia? Perhaps a "legislative reboot"? You're not wrong.

You see, this is part of my reform platform, give the Cabinet appropriate powers and authority, as well as substantive subject-matter.

I would be laying down the law with the Senate to act - if they didn't I would use presidential authority to act if they couldn't be bothered. What's the point of the Senate if it cannot be flexible to respond to issues as they emerge?

well you see we have this little thing called the separation of powers . . .

Really? I had no idea

Obviously, I'm not talking about unconstitutional abuses of power.

There are clear constitutional mechanisms, that allow the president act.

This should be an incentive for the Senate to be a hell of a lot more responsive than they have been.

[shua]

it's never been the nature of the Senate to rush through things. not in RL either.  it's set up as a deliberative body, with procedures allowing for amendments that tend to draw things out.
sometimes things slow down because the Senate is trying to find out information, or waiting for a policy recommendation from the executive.
what are the things you are expecting the Senate to act on that it hasn't? 

[Secretary Polnut]

You're mistaking what my concerns are - I don't want the Senate to rush things, but I do think as the only federal legislative body it should be more active when circumstances require.

For example, we now have the second major terror attack this year, but I don't see action coming from the Senate, as I would expect. Also I don't see major economic action being taken, but that is also a shortcoming from the executive branch.

I think the Senate does an excellent job, but I do worry that it sometimes doesn't prioritise activity appropriate to the circumstances. As you say, this does have to do with the relationship that exists between the executive and legislature.

If I have the fortune of being elected, my first step will be to organise a conference of regional governors to discuss where successful regional level programs could be expanded to a national one. But the second thing will be to have private discussion with each Senator. The issues this country faces require a strong working relationship across all levels of Government, and across the branches of the federal government.

[HappyWarrior]

I'd like to offer my two old friends including my mentor, Polnut my personal endorsement for the Presidency.

[Bacon King]

You're mistaking what my concerns are - I don't want the Senate to rush things, but I do think as the only federal legislative body it should be more active when circumstances require.

For example, we now have the second major terror attack this year, but I don't see action coming from the Senate, as I would expect. Also I don't see major economic action being taken, but that is also a shortcoming from the executive branch.

Indeed. The Senate OSPR contains several mechanisms to ensure the rapid passage of emergency legislation. While I agree that the Senate should in general be proactive rather than reactive, in times of crisis the Legislative branch can and must make an expedited response in the event of a national crisis.

[Snowguy716]

You're mistaking what my concerns are - I don't want the Senate to rush things, but I do think as the only federal legislative body it should be more active when circumstances require.

For example, we now have the second major terror attack this year, but I don't see action coming from the Senate, as I would expect. Also I don't see major economic action being taken, but that is also a shortcoming from the executive branch.

Indeed. The Senate OSPR contains several mechanisms to ensure the rapid passage of emergency legislation. While I agree that the Senate should in general be proactive rather than reactive, in times of crisis the Legislative branch can and must make an expedited response in the event of a national crisis.

I think we should change the OSPR to allow for emergency legislation to be introduced on the floor by the PPT, VP, or the regional senator where the emergency has occurred.  That way we can get through it.  It also should not be subject to fitting into the PPT slots... what happens when we have two emergencies?

[Secretary Polnut]

You're mistaking what my concerns are - I don't want the Senate to rush things, but I do think as the only federal legislative body it should be more active when circumstances require.

For example, we now have the second major terror attack this year, but I don't see action coming from the Senate, as I would expect. Also I don't see major economic action being taken, but that is also a shortcoming from the executive branch.

Indeed. The Senate OSPR contains several mechanisms to ensure the rapid passage of emergency legislation. While I agree that the Senate should in general be proactive rather than reactive, in times of crisis the Legislative branch can and must make an expedited response in the event of a national crisis.

I think we should change the OSPR to allow for emergency legislation to be introduced on the floor by the PPT, VP, or the regional senator where the emergency has occurred.  That way we can get through it.  It also should not be subject to fitting into the PPT slots... what happens when we have two emergencies?

In some ways you're reading my mind....

[Senator Napoleon]

An idea I have and may propose if elected is that of a legislative hold, where less important legislation can be temporarily stopped to deal with emergencies as they come while allowing normal debate to be resumed at a later date. This would also allow legislation to be thoroughly debated whilst removing pressure to rush things. Libya could have received quicker action if this were he case. No need to tie our own hands.

[Secretary Polnut]

An idea I have and may propose if elected is that of a legislative hold, where less important legislation can be temporarily stopped to deal with emergencies as they come while allowing normal debate to be resumed at a later date. This would also allow legislation to be thoroughly debated whilst removing pressure to rush things. Libya could have received quicker action if this were he case. No need to tie our own hands.

This is something I believe I did once in my last session while speaker of NE Assembly. We were debating a Bill, but when the EA office was bombed - I had the Assembly suspend activity on the present Bill and moved to a motion of mourning and determination - then once that was settled, we returned to to the Bill at hand.

Libya is certainly one issue where action was not quick enough, and while I'm sure the Senators were eager to handle the issue, there needed to be more active engagement with the executive and flexibility to allow the Senate to act quickly where required.

[Secretary Polnut]

WEEK 2 Campaign Schedule

Monday 16 May
- Richmond, VA - Trenton, NJ - Newark, NJ

Tuesday 17 May
- Philadelphia, PA - Pittsburgh, PA - Columbus, OH

Wednesday 18 May
- Cincinnati, OH - Detroit, MI - Green Bay, WI

Thursday 19 May
- Madison, WI - Milwaukee, WI

Friday 20 May
- Chicago, IL - St Louis, MO

Saturday 21 May
- Nashville, TN - Orlando, FL - Miami, FL

-- The Polnut/Bacon King policy on Cabinet and Vice Presidential authority reform will be released during a speech in Milwaukee on Thursday night.

[Lief]

super duper endorsed

[Bacon King]

Just a notice- I'll only be posting from my phone for the next couple of days. I'll still be here, of course, but typing anything longer than a paragraph gets pretty difficult

[Senator Napoleon]

Will you choose a new game moderator if elected? Badger hasn't updated in over a month.

[Jayhawker]

Will you choose a new game moderator if elected? Badger hasn't updated in over a month.

On this note, I would like to input that I have recently spoken to Badger, and he has assured me he will be posting updates this week when his court case is over, and seems confident he'll finish his term strong.

[Secretary Polnut]

I wanted to briefly make comment on my present opponent's policy release.

While I will be releasing our economic platform next week, I wanted to stress my view on the issue of a balanced Budget and the National Fiscal Reserve proposal.

Now, I do prefer a balanced Budget model, over one that that strives for surpluses, however, we are a long way from even talking about a balanced budget. A balanced budget is something that can be striven for, but it's essentially worrying about renovating a house before it is even built.

In order to repair our economic situation, we need to make some difficult decisions. Spending cuts are unavoidable, that's a rock-solid fact. But it's an incredibly delicate balancing act of reducing expenditure in the right way, not simply cut, cut, cut. It also requires a broad-scale re-assessment of our tax system. These issues need to be managed well before we debate the issue of a balanced-budget.

The fiscal national reserve is an interesting idea. If the nation were flushed with cash, directing a portion of that money towards a reserve fund may indeed be a useful idea. But again, at a time when we should be directing additional funds towards reducing deficits and paying down the debt, we cannot shave off an arbitrary amount of money, which would likely still be based on debt. This is another decent idea, that does not coincide with the current economic reality.