SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Law'd)

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A BILL

To promote and incentivize job growth in the Republic of Atlasia.

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled.

SECTION 1. TITLE

This act may be cited as the ‘Jobs Now Act of 2012.’

SECTION 2. HIRING INCENTIVES ACT RENEWAL

1.) The effects of the Hiring Incentives Act are hereby renewed for one year after passage of this legislation.

SECTION 3. VOLUNTARY WORK HOUR AND PAY CUT COMPENSATION

1.) Employers of businesses with 20 employees or more will be allowed to give each worker the option of cutting their work hours by 10%, or their salaries by 10%.

2.) Employees who take either option will be subsidized 60% of lost income.

3.) This section shall be in effect for one year after passage.

SECTION 4. WHITE ROOFTOP INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATELY OWNED BUILDINGS

1.) All local, state, and regional administrative officials will be subsidized 25% for the hiring of construction workers to paint black rooftops of government buildings the color white.

2.) All individuals, households, and business owners will be subsidized 25% for the hiring of construction workers to paint black rooftops of houses and businesses white.

SECTION 5. REGIONAL PUBLIC BANKING SYSTEM

1.) All regions of the Republic of Atlasia are bestowed the option of creating individual state-owned banks, which will be funded by the federal government per request of each region.

2.) Regional banks will be delegated with the duties
    To assist local banks with capital and liquidity requirements
    To provide loans & loan guarantees
    To provide assistance to borrowers in areas of job retention
    To provide assistance to borrowers in technology creation
    To provide assistance to small businesses and businesses of retail, and
    To participate in community service projects

3.) All revenues collected by each region shall be deposited in their respective banks.

4.) Funds that are deposited in a regional bank shall not transmit services to other regions or countries unless funds are prescribed to via a budget item of the region in control of the bank.

5.) 35% of a bank's earnings will be remitted to the region's Treasury.  If a treasury is not in place, the region will be responsible for establishing one.

6.) A regional bank will be responsible for keeping a record of all transactions and writing summaries which shall convey expectation and outlook of growth and inflation over each upcoming year.  The region's Treasury will be designated with the responsibility of annually checking the bank for organization of these records and efficiency in management.

7.) No individual, co-partnership, or corporation shall be permitted to subscribe for or to hold at any time more than $25,000 par value of stock in a regional bank.

Sponsor: Scott

[Governor Scott]

Mr. PPT, the reforms that are outlined by this legislation seek to accomplish four essential goals which are paramount to jump-starting the economy and putting Atlasians back to work: one, to incentivize businesses for expansion and job creation, two, to curb the ongoing loss of jobs by subsidizing workers for lost hours, three, to putting construction workers back to work whilst making our infrastructure more environmentally friendly and less costly, and four, to help regional governments put their checkbooks in order and provide them with the necessary tools to expand their local economies.

I will explain each section separately.

Hiring Incentives Act Renewal

The first portion of the bill is an extension of an older policy that was introduced by former Senator Bacon King.  It is my understanding that while taxes must be kept at a reasonable level for new businesses to work around, tax reductions simply aren’t enough, and so they must have the incentive to hire and expand.  The polices that the Hiring Incentive Act put in place over the course of its effectiveness did just that, and in a time when employment is still not up to par, it is necessary for us to renew this law for another year.

Voluntary Work Hour and Pay Cut Compensation

This section focuses to encourage companies to reduce employees’ hours and pay instead of laying them off.  Faced with reduced demand in recent years, many companies have been forced to make up the costs by laying workers off, and this is partly how we lost over eight million jobs in the Great Recession.  But what if, instead, we encouraged them to divide the pain more equally, by reducing workers' hours, rather than shedding jobs?  This is what many companies in Germany do, and this can be partly attributed to its ongoing success in an overall weak global economy.

To quote this Yahoo! News article, “Kevin Hassett, an economic policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and a supporter of the idea, recently laid out how it works. If an employer in Germany cuts a worker's hours and wages by 10 percent or more, the government pays the worker 60 percent of the amount he lost--unemployment benefits, essentially, for the lost income. That helps the worker, of course, because he's making more than he would be just from jobless benefits, and because he keeps up his skills and contacts by continuing to go to work every day. But it also helps the employer, because turnover of employees is costly: It's cheaper to keep workers during slow periods than it is to have to hire and train new employees once things pick up.”  This is a policy that has shown tremendous success where it’s been used, and it ought to be a model for this government to look toward.

White Rooftop Incentive For Private and Publicly Owned Buildings

This section aims to put our infrastructure on a more environmentally friendly path by incentivizing government officials, homeowners, and business owners to pay construction workers, one of the hardest hit groups of the recession, to paint black tar roofs white.  This would save 20% in energy, which could be spent on goods and services other than generating electricity, which increases fuel and oil prices.  This initiative, minor as it may appear at a first glance, would have a significant impact on our economy.

Regional Public Banking System

Finally, the primary purpose of this section is to increase revenue for regions that are struggling with their budgets and promoting job creation by encouraging regional administrators to establish their own public banks.  This particular section of the bill is taken off a similar policy that I had written for the Northeast government.

As many of you might know, North Dakota is the only state in the country that went virtually unaffected by the Great Recession, and continues to run budget surpluses as well as have the lowest unemployment and the fastest job growth rate in the country.  While many attribute North Dakota’s economy to its abundant oil supply, much of its success is thanks to the state’s public bank, which has raked in over $300 million in revenue to the state's Treasury.  Basically, the state deposits its tax revenues in the bank which ensure that a high portion of State funds are in the economy, and the bank is able to remit a portion of its earnings to the Treasury.  This stands in heavy contrast to states like California, which has no public bank to steer funds into productive investments within the state.  Instead, revenues are largely deposited into private banks, which fund out-of-state, invest them in speculative trading strategies (including derivative bets against the state’s own bonds), and do not remit any of their earnings back to the State Treasury.

So what, exactly, does North Dakota’s success story teach?  It teaches us that there must be significant action on a local level for prosperity to be achieved across the board, and at the same time, the correct policies must be enacted in a responsible fashion.  Indeed, the federal government isn’t the cure to all the nation’s problems, but it is our duty as senators to ensure that every region has the tools it needs to maintain a business-friendly environment whilst keeping their checkbooks in order.


Evidently, this bill is designed to address several portions of our economy.  However, I recognize that these proposals cannot aid all of our economic woes, and that is why I urge my colleagues to use the opportunity to revise and add on to what we have.  To those who desire to tweak certain sections, I ask that any amendments or ideas that come forward do not disregard or displace the central ideas that the bill lays out.  And on that, I wish to open the floor to thoughtful and respectful debate and, where possible, bipartisanship.

Thank you.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Scott you have 24 hours to advocate for this bill.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Damn it, 13 seconds too late.

[Governor Scott]

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Pic doesn't work at least on my machine.

[Governor Scott]

Haha, it just says "Nailed it!"

[Governor Scott]

Does anyone know how much money in the energy budget goes to subsidies for renewable energy sources (such as solar panels) and to scientific research?  I'm thinking about adding a section to the bill that transfers funds from subsidies to energy research, since excessive spending on solar subsidies tends to actually raise costs instead of reduce them.  I'd appreciate some input from Yankee or shua on this idea.

EDIT: We also might want to look into reducing or eliminating oil subsidies if those are on our books, too.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It sounds promising but we would need some raw data from the Game Moderator to move forward.

[Senator Napoleon]

My administration would like to ensure that employers may not discriminate based on current employment status. Does the Senate think that could work its way into this bill?

[Governor Scott]

My administration would like to ensure that employers may not discriminate based on current employment status. Does the Senate think that could work its way into this bill?

Employment discrimination on account of anything is already illegal, if I'm not mistaken.

[Senator Napoleon]

My administration would like to ensure that employers may not discriminate based on current employment status. Does the Senate think that could work its way into this bill?

Employment discrimination on account of anything is already illegal, if I'm not mistaken.

4. There shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, political affiliation, religious affiliation, marital status, or veterans' status in membership to unions or employment, except where a government-issued waiver is granted for special circumstances, including, but not limited to: political organizations or work requiring certain attributes or skills.

That isn't included in the Worker's Bill of Rights Act.

[Governor Scott]

Amendment:

SECTION 6. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FORBIDDANCE

Section 2, subsection 4 of the Worker's Bill of Rights Act is hereby amended;

4. There shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, political affiliation, religious affiliation, marital status, veterans' status, or employment status in membership to unions or employment, except where a government-issued waiver is granted for special circumstances, including, but not limited to: political organizations or work requiring certain attributes or skills.

[Senator Napoleon]

Thank you Senator Scott. This amendment can help ease people out of long term unemployment and reliance on the state. I believe that as a package, this bill can bring about positive change to our economic state.

[Senator Clarence]

I have a small semantic issue with Section 4.... I don't believe the incentive should be made for hiring the workers directly but rather hiring a construction firm which will then provide the workers. As is- I don't know if it would be most efficient to have workers apply to be employed directly by a business or individual as this work does not lead long-term employment

I will comment on the other parts of this legislation later today...

[Governor Scott]

I have a small semantic issue with Section 4.... I don't believe the incentive should be made for hiring the workers directly but rather hiring a construction firm which will then provide the workers. As is- I don't know if it would be most efficient to have workers apply to be employed directly by a business or individual as this work does not lead long-term employment

I will comment on the other parts of this legislation later today...

I don't see what the difference would be if the incentive applied to people who hired firms rather than individuals.  It is my belief that incentivizing people to take either of those options would lead to more work and reduced energy costs, and therefore, more employment.  The answer to whether or not this incentive will lead to long-term employment ultimately depends on how much people take advantage of the incentive and how much construction projects are being pursued.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SECTION 6. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FORBIDDANCE

Section 2, subsection 4 of the Worker's Bill of Rights Act is hereby amended;

4. There shall be no discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, political affiliation, religious affiliation, marital status, veterans' status, or employment status in membership to unions or employment, except where a government-issued waiver is granted for special circumstances, including, but not limited to: political organizations or work requiring certain attributes or skills.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator, has any success been had in establising a line of communications with the Game Moderator on the matter discussed Saturday last.

[Governor Scott]

No.  I'm going to PM him now.

[shua]

Does anyone know how much money in the energy budget goes to subsidies for renewable energy sources (such as solar panels) and to scientific research?  I'm thinking about adding a section to the bill that transfers funds from subsidies to energy research, since excessive spending on solar subsidies tends to actually raise costs instead of reduce them.  I'd appreciate some input from Yankee or shua on this idea.

EDIT: We also might want to look into reducing or eliminating oil subsidies if those are on our books, too.

The main renewable energy spending is the Go Green Fund, which is $50 Billion spent over four years in grants and loans. http://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_Green_Jobs_Act

There are also tax credits, which are based on some legislation passed by the Atlasian Senate which I can't find at the moment, but the first is for companies converting to renewable energy and the second is for research

Corporate Clean Energy Credit           2.7 B
Alternate Energy R&D Credits            3.4 B

I'm not aware of any subsidies that go specifically to oil companies.

[Governor Scott]

Are tax credits basically the same thing as subsidies?

[shua]

Are tax credits basically the same thing as subsidies?

They can be considered so - it's a common way to subsidize something without spending money on it directly. Still, it depends on who you ask.  They encourage spending on something that might otherwise not be made - but there has to be enough of a market for it that the consumer finds it valuable in itself, since the tax credit usually doesn't cover the entire cost.

The clean energy tax credits produce a modest amount of demand for clean energy. The effect of price increasing from greater demand is going to be balanced out to some extent by the greater economies of scale that reduce production cost. Combined with some of the grants in the Go Green Fund it may have an effect on raising prices, but nowhere approaching what has happened in Germany.  The major difference here is that there is an investment in a variety of clean energy (at least, that's the plan), and not a huge amount given to a single technology.

[Governor Scott]

Thank you, Shua.  With that in mind, I will not touch the clean energy tax credits.

Anything else, guys?

[shua]

Why are they state-owned banks rather than regionally?
Is 5.1 a blank check from the federal government to the regions? 

[Big DaddyTX]

Why are they state-owned banks rather than regionally?
Is 5.1 a blank check from the federal government to the regions? 

I never noticed that until now. That's a great question.