SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Internal Affairs

[Napoleon]

I'd like to remind the Committee that businesses were already prepared to make these increases in accordance with the previous Living Wage Act.

[Sbane]

I'd like to remind the Committee that businesses were already prepared to make these increases in accordance with the previous Living Wage Act.

So what is extra about this bill?

[Napoleon]

I'd like to remind the Committee that businesses were already prepared to make these increases in accordance with the previous Living Wage Act.

So what is extra about this bill?

That bill was repealed a few months ago, sadly.

[Sbane]

I see. Although I don't know why the repeal happened, maybe the jump in wages was part of it. I think a more gradual increase is better for businesses and workers.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just a program note, this bill is now on the floor. If amendments be recommended by the committee, keep in mind that in order to be incorporated or adopted they would have to be offered on the floor of the Senate at this point.

[Napoleon]

(general)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do we think of these proposed cuts? Personally, I would like to keep the cooperative program alive. I will look into the rest, but please share your thoughts.

[Sbane]

I don't have a problem with research into hydrogen fuel cells, so I don't agree with the first one. I am a little conflicted on the third one. It really depends on whether Taiwan needs the help. If they need it, we should help them. I also don't agree with points 6 and 7. We should encourage people to drive hybrids and like Napoleon, I am fine with helping out workers co-ops.

[Napoleon]

I'm largely in agreement with you, Sbane.

I've contacted the SoT to get his opinion. I'll contact the SoS to get his opinion regarding Taiwan.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Some of these cuts seem to be politically motivated.  The last item was just passed last September and has hardly had enough time to take effect.

I feel as if Nix just looked through the legislation and picked what he figured was 'wasteful', when in fact these cuts would set back important research on things like hydrogen fuel cells or potentially improving working conditions for Atlasians... while realizing only a minimal nominal savings.

At the same time, legislation passed in 2004 and still in effect should be reworked and repassed in the senate in order to be effective.

So I'd recommend a reworking of the older legislation and allowing the newest legislation proposed to be cut to have an opportunity to show results.

In the mean time, no cuts should be made to these programs without further work.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Reducing aid to Taiwan, looks very good on paper and appears a reasonable cut to make.

I would warn against a particularly risky removal of support. Since the establishment of Taiwan in 1949, we have been a strong and firm friend of the island. It would risk at best a significant lack of both faith and loss of face in an area where we need to ensure our continued position.

I'm not arguing that we need that specific amount of money going there each year. But a blanket cut because of what may appear unnecessary without really any analysis would be a risk I would warn the Senate against. I would support some kind of cost-benefit analysis of current aid levels, before going gun-ho and deciding to cut entire aid programs. I support Secretary Snowguy's overall position. 

[Napoleon]

Hey, Snowguy, how about waiting until I've had the chance to explain why I'm proposing these cuts before you start questioning my motivation? It's more than a little irritating to hear people doing that before I've even had the chance to explain why I believe that these cuts are worthwhile.

Can the faux outrage and hyper sensitivity when you address this committee. Thank you.

[Napoleon]

Then take your thin-skin to PM and stop disrupting productive discussion. Trust me when I say none of us are interested in hearing how offended you are.

[Napoleon]

Then take your thin-skin to PM and stop disrupting productive discussion. Trust me when I say none of us are interested in hearing how offended you are.

I'm not disrupting anything. Someone said that I'm proposing cuts for political reasons, and I needed to point out that this isn't the case. If you're not interested in hearing from the sponsor of the bill that you've been discussing, that's your business as chair of this committee, but stop acting as if my comment wasn't germane.

You're disrupting our work if I say you are. Let me be clear- you or anyone else who shows up here uninvited only to take an opportunity to pick a fight or shame someone is disruptive and unwelcome. You could have responded to the Secretary's concerns, but you chose to be petty and childish. If you want to address the Secretary, he has an office or a PM box- but stop wasting this Committee's time and space.

*checks list to see if attacking and shaming Snowguy is on the agenda...no*

Ruling: not germane. Bye bye.

[Napoleon]

Good to hear you guys are buddy-buddy. I am sure in that case that the Secretary won't mind if you take your "sass" somewhere else in the future. Now, discussion on the actual bill will resume (which apparently the sponsor has no interest in). Any more thoughts? I was thinking we could hold a vote on each cut and recommend the ones that aren't harmful.

[Napoleon]

Now, discussion on the actual bill will resume (which apparently the sponsor has no interest in).

Hey, I thought that you were trying to haul me out of here. Now you're condemning me for an alleged lack of interest?

Fascinating.

Considering you've had every opportunity to discuss the bill but instead entered a smart ass, left a smart ass, and returned a smart ass, its fair to say your only interest here is being a smart ass. Be gone, nuisance.

[Napoleon]

I don't see any substantive contributions from you. I see you going after Snowguy and now, myself.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The main controversy right now seems to be over the proposed elimination of the co-operatives. Any information on how the experimental co-operatives have worked out since the bill was passed?

[Napoleon]

1. Clause 8 of F.L. 3-3 ("The National Energy Act") is hereby repealed. Expected annual savings: $1 billion

NAY

2. F.L. 3-5 ("The Missile Defense Initiative Act") is hereby repealed. Annual savings: Expected annual savings: $1 billion

AYE

3. F.L. 5-1 ("The Pacific Defense and Taiwanese Protection Act") is hereby repealed. Expected annual savings: $720 million+

NAY

4. F.L. 5-2 ("The Military Division Appropriation Act) and Section 1 of F.L. 5-8 ("The Second Military Division Appropriation Act") are hereby repealed. Expected annual savings: $5 billion+ (estimate)

AYE

5. F.L. 10-2 ("The Protection Act") is hereby repealed. Expected annual savings: $1 billion+ (estimate)

AYE

6. Clause 3 of F.L. 11-4 ("Comprehensive Energy Act for the 21st Century") is hereby repealed. Expected annual savings: $2 billion (estimate)

NAY

7.  F.L. 51-1 ("Worker Co-operative Pilot Program") is hereby repealed. Expected annual savings: $1 billion

NAY

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I would only support chopping 2 and 4. The rest are necessary.

[Sbane]

1. Clause 8 of F.L. 3-3 ("The National Energy Act") is hereby repealed. Expected annual savings: $1 billion

NAY

2. F.L. 3-5 ("The Missile Defense Initiative Act") is hereby repealed. Annual savings: Expected annual savings: $1 billion

AYE

3. F.L. 5-1 ("The Pacific Defense and Taiwanese Protection Act") is hereby repealed. Expected annual savings: $720 million+

NAY

4. F.L. 5-2 ("The Military Division Appropriation Act) and Section 1 of F.L. 5-8 ("The Second Military Division Appropriation Act") are hereby repealed. Expected annual savings: $5 billion+ (estimate)

AYE

5. F.L. 10-2 ("The Protection Act") is hereby repealed. Expected annual savings: $1 billion+ (estimate)

AYE

6. Clause 3 of F.L. 11-4 ("Comprehensive Energy Act for the 21st Century") is hereby repealed. Expected annual savings: $2 billion (estimate)

NAY

7.  F.L. 51-1 ("Worker Co-operative Pilot Program") is hereby repealed. Expected annual savings: $1 billion

NAY

[Napoleon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Internal Affairs Committee recommends that the bill be passed in this form.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I expect the Spring Savings Act to be on the floor today or tomorrow. Are we to expect the recommended change as amendments? If so, I would recommend working out who is to offer what in advance.


As for the unfortunate exchanges that transpired prior to the vote, I must ask that such exchanges that occur be as civil and respectfull as posssible. The Committees are for deliberation and investigation, not bitchfests.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are there any remaining items to be discussed for this term in this committee?

[Sopranos Republican]

So what's next on the agenda? Any issues we need to discuss?

[Napoleon]

So what's next on the agenda? Any issues we need to discuss?

We aren't in session yet.