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

[Sbane]

It's just adding more layers of bureaucracy...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It's just adding more layers of bureaucracy...

Not really.  The bill merely assigns a new responsibility for the DoIA, so no new departments are created.  Someone, unfortunately, has to be in charge of approving the business applications so that employers aren't simply getting cheaper labor at the expense of the taxpayer.

[Sbane]

It's just adding more layers of bureaucracy...

Not really.  The bill merely assigns a new responsibility for the DoIA, so no new departments are created.  Someone, unfortunately, has to be in charge of approving the business applications so that employers aren't simply getting cheaper labor at the expense of the taxpayer.

I know you are trying to do your best here but a more efficient use of our resources would be to spend more on constructing or repairing our infrastructure rather than providing subsidies to corporations.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It's just adding more layers of bureaucracy...

Not really.  The bill merely assigns a new responsibility for the DoIA, so no new departments are created.  Someone, unfortunately, has to be in charge of approving the business applications so that employers aren't simply getting cheaper labor at the expense of the taxpayer.

I know you are trying to do your best here but a more efficient use of our resources would be to spend more on constructing or repairing our infrastructure rather than providing subsidies to corporations.

Well, I'm really not concerned about corporations; I am concerned about helping workers keep their jobs in a tough economy, which is the key element of the bill.  If we must get rid of this section of the bill, then it needs to be replaced with an alternative means of helping workers, otherwise this effort would have been for nothing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.

Wouldn't any malicious shifts in income be detected by the department that's overseeing the businesses?

Yes, if the bill directs them to check for a specific secondary or subsequent criteria, which would clue them in as to the shift. Just assuming they will know what to look for and when could lead to them not looking at all.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.

Wouldn't any malicious shifts in income be detected by the department that's overseeing the businesses?

Yes, if the bill directs them to check for a specific secondary or subsequent criteria, which would clue them in as to the shift. Just assuming they will know what to look for and when could lead to them not looking at all.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply direct the SOIA to not accept applicants from businesses that are shifting their income around?  I 'm not sure what you mean by 'secondary criteria' unless you're referring to something like that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.

Wouldn't any malicious shifts in income be detected by the department that's overseeing the businesses?

Yes, if the bill directs them to check for a specific secondary or subsequent criteria, which would clue them in as to the shift. Just assuming they will know what to look for and when could lead to them not looking at all.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply direct the SOIA to not accept applicants from businesses that are shifting their income around?  I 'm not sure what you mean by 'secondary criteria' unless you're referring to something like that.

No that wouldn't work there are numerous legitimate reasons to be "shifting money". You would cripple any business with such a restriction.

I am thinking of another line on a financial statement. How familiar are you with accounting?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.

Wouldn't any malicious shifts in income be detected by the department that's overseeing the businesses?

Yes, if the bill directs them to check for a specific secondary or subsequent criteria, which would clue them in as to the shift. Just assuming they will know what to look for and when could lead to them not looking at all.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply direct the SOIA to not accept applicants from businesses that are shifting their income around?  I 'm not sure what you mean by 'secondary criteria' unless you're referring to something like that.

No that wouldn't work there are numerous legitimate reasons to be "shifting money". You would cripple any business with such a restriction.

I am thinking of another line on a financial statement. How familiar are you with accounting?

I'm really not...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yankee, what type of financial statement did you have in mind?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well changes in Revenues and Liabilities would be one, but you would have to word it in such as way as ot ensure it doesn't get flagged for legitimate business operations.


In the end there will be limits to what can be done, because they can simiply slow down their business operations and there will be little that could be done becuase provign it was just for the tax credits would be difficult at best.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"Companies must have declines in net income resulting from overall declines in sales and business during the reporting periods in questions. Declines in Net Income resulting from one time financial transactions shall not be eligible under this program and the Department of the Interior shall be charged with enforcing and policing applicants and and those the program to ensure compliance with the program and its standards."


How is that for a start?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Oh, sorry.  That was an amendment I just offered.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I tightened up the language and corrected some errors like a double "and".

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment is passed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am still worried about some of things in this bill, but I am unsure about how to go about fixing them. I like the underlying idea, but it is a very thing tiny needle to thread to get this kind of thing right and not end up subsidizing healthy companies to cut their employees and letting the gov't pick up the tab.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I am still worried about some of things in this bill, but I am unsure about how to go about fixing them. I like the underlying idea, but it is a very thing tiny needle to thread to get this kind of thing right and not end up subsidizing healthy companies to cut their employees and letting the gov't pick up the tab.

What in the amendment do you not find sufficient?  Truth be told, if this were real life, we would probably have written up a good five hundred pages or so that would standardize the requirements for these benefits.  I'm not sure what the bill lacks now that we need to fix.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am still worried about some of things in this bill, but I am unsure about how to go about fixing them. I like the underlying idea, but it is a very thing tiny needle to thread to get this kind of thing right and not end up subsidizing healthy companies to cut their employees and letting the gov't pick up the tab.

What in the amendment do you not find sufficient?  Truth be told, if this were real life, we would probably have written up a good five hundred pages or so that would standardize the requirements for these benefits.  I'm not sure what the bill lacks now that we need to fix.

I don't know that is the problem. If I did I would have amendments drawn up by now. If you feel comfortable, then you should consider calling for a final vote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If no one raises any objections to section three or any other parts of the current text, I will call for a final vote in the next 24 hours.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If no one has any more objections, I will call for a final vote in the next 24 hours.

Objections are defined in this case as any discussion relating to the bill itself. Only the PPT can do UC according to the OSPR and this post by the honerable Senators form the NE shouldn't be miscontrued as such by members, even though it kinda, sorta sounds like that.

Or just to be safe in case someone starts talking:

I ask unanimous consent to waive the cloture vote and proceed immediately to a final vote. Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote here in a little over 10 minutes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators, this bill is now at final vote so please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.