Mideast: The Big Debate - Daniel v. Peter

[Peter]

Since Daniel has indicated he wants to debate me now, heres a thread for us to do just that.

[True Democrat]

Is this a town hall debate?

[Peter]

I'll start:

You've said that one of the things that you'll be doing if elected is abolishing the income tax, without seemingly allowing for any increases on other taxation except with your gun tax that we all know could never replace the revenue of the income tax.

Here's my question:

What exactly will you be cutting to be able to afford this?

I know that every government program isn't as efficient as I'd like it to be and some of them could probably do with abolition, but a move as monumental as cutting the income tax, would undoubtedly cut into critical services that are needed such as education.

If you start chipping away at education funding as you probably would have to, you are not helping the economy as you claim, instead you are attacking it. Education is critical to training a competent workforce for tomorrow and without it, the Mideast will be increasingly a second rate force in Atlasia and we will then be in true economic dispair.

[Peter]

Is this a town hall debate?

As far as I'm concerned, anybody can play.

[Sibboleth]

O.K... what are the candidates positions on ownership structure and mechanisation in the coal industry?

[Peter]

O.K... what are the candidates positions on ownership structure and mechanisation in the coal industry?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "ownership structure"; Is this referring to the companies that own the mines? Or is it something else?

Mechanisation in the coal industry is inevitable with increasing levels of technology in today's society. Workers in industries such as coal must realise that opposition to change in preference to what used to be is of no use, as change is inevitable, except from vending machines.

An administration lead by me would not attempt to engage in protectionist policies that stop redundancies caused by technology, but this is not to say I would abandon those workers. On the contrary, I would try to empower these workers to get new jobs through retraining and further education. I'm a great believer that education should be used to empower the people to determine their own destiny, and thats what the coal mining communities can expect from me.

[PBrunsel]

What are your positions on a Balanced Budget Act?

[Sibboleth]

O.K... what are the candidates positions on ownership structure and mechanisation in the coal industry?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "ownership structure"; Is this referring to the companies that own the mines? Or is it something else?

I was referring to the tendency of large coal companies to subcontract to smaller firms which tend to make a quick buck for about 5 years then liquidate themselves. This leads to more surface and strip mining and greater enviromental damage.

An administration lead by me would not attempt to engage in protectionist policies that stop redundancies caused by technology, but this is not to say I would abandon those workers. On the contrary, I would try to empower these workers to get new jobs through retraining and further education. I'm a great believer that education should be used to empower the people to determine their own destiny, and thats what the coal mining communities can expect from me.

Good

[DanielX]

I'll start:

You've said that one of the things that you'll be doing if elected is abolishing the income tax, without seemingly allowing for any increases on other taxation except with your gun tax that we all know could never replace the revenue of the income tax.

Here's my question:

What exactly will you be cutting to be able to afford this?

I know that every government program isn't as efficient as I'd like it to be and some of them could probably do with abolition, but a move as monumental as cutting the income tax, would undoubtedly cut into critical services that are needed such as education.

If you start chipping away at education funding as you probably would have to, you are not helping the economy as you claim, instead you are attacking it. Education is critical to training a competent workforce for tomorrow and without it, the Mideast will be increasingly a second rate force in Atlasia and we will then be in true economic dispair.

I promise not to slash education funding. Instead, to raise revenue and cover costs, I plan on implementing a Welfare-to-Work program to get people off welfare roles (to free up money), reducing the budget for environmental programs and Regional Parks (attempting to get private environmental organizations to buy and run them, if possible), streamlining the bureuacracy of all departments (this will 'cut' education, but only higher-level bureaucrats - and that money will stay in education), privatizing several services (example: certain child support agencies), and raising fines on criminal activities. Yes, and raising money by applying sales and excise taxes to gambling, prostitution, and drug businesses that will no longer be underground.

[DanielX]

What are your positions on a Balanced Budget Act?

In most cases, a balanced budget is good. However, during boom years, it is healthy for a government to run a slight surplus, and during bust years, it is healthy for a government to run a slight deficit. Also, emergency spending (especially at the Federal level, where little things like wars can drain money) has to be taken into account.

Overall, I like the idea, even if I am disappointed that Atlasia's Senators cannot muster the discipline needed to do this without limiting themselves with amendments.

[King]

If a Mideast Constitutional Convention were to occur, what kind of legislative process would you prefer: Direct assembly, parliamentary assembly, or ballot propositions?

[Peter]

What are your positions on a Balanced Budget Act?

Well, we'll start with the obvious: It is incredibly important that massive levels of debt cannot be passed on to our children. I am for a Constitutional Amendment that will allow for slight overspends (less than 0.25% of GDP) all of time, and that will allow for higher overspends in times of crisis, such as the nation being at War. Senators should realise that they must not mount up debt without paying for it, and should ideally look to always be running every so slightly in surplus.

0I was referring to the tendency of large coal companies to subcontract to smaller firms which tend to make a quick buck for about 5 years then liquidate themselves. This leads to more surface and strip mining and greater enviromental damage.

Well there's not much as a government one can do about this; I am not in favour of the government overly regulating a market because it rarely stops what it was intended to stop and regularly piles bureaucracy on to good companies.

Rest assured, that no such companies would be benefitted by the tax code of the Mideast and that what is possible to protect the environment from damaging human activity will be done. I'll be announcing some of my specific environmental policies tomorrow.

[Peter]

reducing the budget for environmental programs and Regional Parks (attempting to get private environmental organizations to buy and run them, if possible)

Shutting down Regional parks (or selling them off) will only lead to places that are of exceptional beauty not having the guaranteed revenue they need for their upkeep and them then falling into disrepair. I want a powerhouse economy, I also want a good public park to play ball in, lets see if we can have both.

Cutting the environmental programs will only lead to pollution in our rivers and in our cities; This will lead to increased numbers of respiratory problems, increased levels of toxins in our rivers, contaminating not only the water, but the fish that live in them and the fields on which our livestock graze near them. In short, your plans here would create a public health timebomb, and thats before I even get onto what it would do to the wider environment.

raising fines on criminal activities.

Collecting fines from criminals is already notoriously difficult given that criminals either don't have the money to pay the fines, or they are clever enough to be able to hide the money off-shore or secretly. This will raise little to no money on its own.

Yes, and raising money by applying sales and excise taxes to gambling, prostitution, and drug businesses that will no longer be underground.

So when you said the only tax you would introduce would be the excise tax on guns, you weren't being 100% honest with us were you?

[Peter]

If a Mideast Constitutional Convention were to occur, what kind of legislative process would you prefer: Direct assembly, parliamentary assembly, or ballot propositions?

My personal preference is toward regular ballot proposition; Let me tell you why:

Assembly debates invariably are difficult to keep organised and representative of the Region concerned. One of the problems is that few people in the Region have opinions on the subject under discussion and few are active enough to notice enough such discussions. With assembly debates, the voting times is never regular, they will always occur at different times of the month, this creates a problem of low turnout in my opinion, and therefore legislation can quickly lose legitimacy.

Ballot propositions on the other hand are regular, and I would propose monthly propositions, as well as allowing for citizen initiatives at the same time. They would occur at the same time each month and would occur all at the same time; Hopefully this would at least help the turnout issue and would therefore mean that props and initiatives would have greater legitimacy. Of course, this does not mean that I would not stifle debate before a prop or initiative, I would certainly like to see a lively debate on anything proposed before it saw a vote with everything else at the same time.

[Sibboleth]

Rest assured, that no such companies would be benefitted by the tax code of the Mideast and that what is possible to protect the environment from damaging human activity will be done. I'll be announcing some of my specific environmental policies tomorrow.

Good. At present the tax code encourages that sort of thing... one thing I'd like is a ban on surface mining of coal in the Mid East Region... this would (vastly) improve the enviroment while forcing coal companies to go back (or from a scientific/technological view, forward) to deep mines which in turn would create more jobs.

[Jake]

Rest assured, that no such companies would be benefitted by the tax code of the Mideast and that what is possible to protect the environment from damaging human activity will be done. I'll be announcing some of my specific environmental policies tomorrow.

Good. At present the tax code encourages that sort of thing... one thing I'd like is a ban on surface mining of coal in the Mid East Region... this would (vastly) improve the enviroment while forcing coal companies to go back (or from a scientific/technological view, forward) to deep mines which in turn would create more jobs.

I admit I don't know much about mining, but why would you want more miners to go back underground?  I thought you have major health risks do to the coal dust and possible cave ins/explosions.

[DanielX]

If a Mideast Constitutional Convention were to occur, what kind of legislative process would you prefer: Direct assembly, parliamentary assembly, or ballot propositions?

Ballot propositions. Why? This way, the people of the region will have their voices heard.

[DanielX]

reducing the budget for environmental programs and Regional Parks (attempting to get private environmental organizations to buy and run them, if possible)

Shutting down Regional parks (or selling them off) will only lead to places that are of exceptional beauty not having the guaranteed revenue they need for their upkeep and them then falling into disrepair. I want a powerhouse economy, I also want a good public park to play ball in, lets see if we can have both.

I meant selling the Regional Parks to organizations such as the Sierra Club.

Cutting the environmental programs will only lead to pollution in our rivers and in our cities; This will lead to increased numbers of respiratory problems, increased levels of toxins in our rivers, contaminating not only the water, but the fish that live in them and the fields on which our livestock graze near them. In short, your plans here would create a public health timebomb, and thats before I even get onto what it would do to the wider environment.

I believe that economic incentives to 'clean up' are more effective than forced regulation. Plus, more emphasis should be on reforming future development, and not on already existing structures - which will in time be shut down, when they become no longer safe or profitable to operate.

raising fines on criminal activities.

Collecting fines from criminals is already notoriously difficult given that criminals either don't have the money to pay the fines, or they are clever enough to be able to hide the money off-shore or secretly. This will raise little to no money on its own.

This will raise revenue - not by a huge amount, but some. You also underestimate things - i meant all criminal fines, from misdemeanors to high felonies. Plus, I support prison work programs, paying convicts salaries that illegal immigrants would not work on to teach themselves marketable skills as well as defray their cost to the taxpayer.

Yes, and raising money by applying sales and excise taxes to gambling, prostitution, and drug businesses that will no longer be underground.

So when you said the only tax you would introduce would be the excise tax on guns, you weren't being 100% honest with us were you?

I mean applying the existing sales taxes. I didn't mean creating a new 'Boradello tax'.

Let's say there's a 5% sales tax in Wherever County. John Doe decides to visit a prostitute. He pays her (or him!) a 5% sales tax, plus whatever local Wherever County fees crop up.

I must ask you a question myself: How will you handle increased spending? Wil you raise taxes, run deficits, or what will you cut?

[Sibboleth]

I admit I don't know much about mining, but why would you want more miners to go back underground?  I thought you have major health risks do to the coal dust and possible cave ins/explosions.

With better safety regulations that wouldn't be a major problem, it isn't in the few deep mines left in the U.K for instance.
I understand you're worries and I intend to get some new safety laws through the Senate soon.
But less surface mining is ultimately better for everyone IMO.

[Jake]

I admit I don't know much about mining, but why would you want more miners to go back underground?  I thought you have major health risks do to the coal dust and possible cave ins/explosions.

With better safety regulations that wouldn't be a major problem, it isn't in the few deep mines left in the U.K for instance.
I understand you're worries and I intend to get some new safety laws through the Senate soon.
But less surface mining is ultimately better for everyone IMO.

Oh, so they can make it save, okay I got it.

[Peter]

I meant selling the Regional Parks to organizations such as the Sierra Club.

As lovely as that sounds, I find it doubtful that you will be able to find buyers for all the Mideast parks who will be able guarantee long term financial funding for them.

I believe that economic incentives to 'clean up' are more effective than forced regulation. Plus, more emphasis should be on reforming future development, and not on already existing structures - which will in time be shut down, when they become no longer safe or profitable to operate.

Economic incentives still need to be paid for.

This will raise revenue - not by a huge amount, but some. You also underestimate things - i meant all criminal fines, from misdemeanors to high felonies. Plus, I support prison work programs, paying convicts salaries that illegal immigrants would not work on to teach themselves marketable skills as well as defray their cost to the taxpayer.

Oh great, as well as asking citizens to pay to keep these guys in prison, you're going to be asking them to pay them a salary whilst they are in there too? Your plan won't reduce costs to the taxpayer at all, it'll put more costs on to them. Teaching prisoners good job skills for their release back into society is admirable, I just don't see why people who are in the process of paying their debt to society should get money from society.

I must ask you a question myself: How will you handle increased spending? Wil you raise taxes, run deficits, or what will you cut?

I haven't proposed any increases in spending; The one proposal that I have expounded upon is simply a redistribution of the way present funds are already spent. When I do propose plans that will incur a cost to the taxpayer (as I plan to tomorrow), I will at the same time propose the way which I intend to pay for it.

I have stated my support for a Balanced Budget Amendment, and I stand by that; There will be no deficit spending.

[DanielX]

I meant selling the Regional Parks to organizations such as the Sierra Club.

As lovely as that sounds, I find it doubtful that you will be able to find buyers for all the Mideast parks who will be able guarantee long term financial funding for them.

I didn't mean sell every park. Just sell some of them for revenue. Also, allowing companies to thin trees in Regional Forests (while making sure they don't harm wildlife or endanger the forests) also will earn cash while preventing forest fires.

I believe that economic incentives to 'clean up' are more effective than forced regulation. Plus, more emphasis should be on reforming future development, and not on already existing structures - which will in time be shut down, when they become no longer safe or profitable to operate.

Economic incentives still need to be paid for.

Yes, they will be....

This will raise revenue - not by a huge amount, but some. You also underestimate things - i meant all criminal fines, from misdemeanors to high felonies. Plus, I support prison work programs, paying convicts salaries that illegal immigrants would not work on to teach themselves marketable skills as well as defray their cost to the taxpayer.

Oh great, as well as asking citizens to pay to keep these guys in prison, you're going to be asking them to pay them a salary whilst they are in there too? Your plan won't reduce costs to the taxpayer at all, it'll put more costs on to them. Teaching prisoners good job skills for their release back into society is admirable, I just don't see why people who are in the process of paying their debt to society should get money from society.

The crooks will be paid rates so low (less than 1/10th the minimum wage)  that the Government will sell their products at market price and get money. The Government nets money from that, the prisoners get a tiny bit of money and skills for post-prison.

I must ask you a question myself: How will you handle increased spending? Wil you raise taxes, run deficits, or what will you cut?

I haven't proposed any increases in spending; The one proposal that I have expounded upon is simply a redistribution of the way present funds are already spent. When I do propose plans that will incur a cost to the taxpayer (as I plan to tomorrow), I will at the same time propose the way which I intend to pay for it.

I have stated my support for a Balanced Budget Amendment, and I stand by that; There will be no deficit spending.

I also support a balanced budget, when possible.

I am also going to say the following. Yes, this is another not-quite-new-tax that will pay for revenue:

I intend to treat legallized drugs in a way that will both increase freedom and earn revenue. I plan to place marijuana in a similar situation to tobacco - legal age of 18, with a similar (no higher) sin tax. Some other drugs will also become legal at 18, some at 21, and will be taxed the way tobacco or alcohol are, in terms of percentage of price.

[Peter]

Exactly which drugs are you proposing to legalise?

[DanielX]

Exactly which drugs are you proposing to legalise?

Most of them. Marijuana and ecstasy, as well as other such drugs, will be treated the same way as tobacco and alcohol.

Opiates like heroin will be treated like morphine, available by prescription only. Similar treatment will be in order for amphetamines.

LSD will remain illegal. It is dangerous in any dose, and has no medicinal value. That's my standard: drugs that can be used in moderation reasonably safely and/or have some form of medicinal value should be legal.

To be honest, I have not decided what do with cocaine. Probably remain illegal, or perhaps available by prescription.

[DanielX]

O.K... what are the candidates positions on ownership structure and mechanisation in the coal industry?

I think this is not a manner which the Governor has much authority to address - save as a mediator in labor/industry negotiations.