IDS1: Basic Compassion Act

[Donerail]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I had several problems with the initiative, namely that it appears to prohibit people being on welfare for more than three years out of their entire lives. Suggestions for a better fix are always welcome.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I don't think there is any "appears to" about it; it explicitly limits people to three years of welfare lifetime. While I agree that this isn't the best time, we could just insert a clause making the bill take effect once we have balanced the budget.

     Anyway, I would prefer to keep the underlying law, though I would be open to a few changes, such as making the limit be on continuous welfare. I would also like to define "family" for the purposes of this law. If we are going to be using it as a class of recipient, then we should be clear as to what we are talking about.

     For Section 2, I would like to make an exception for the cohabitance requirement in cases where the mother is married, or is legally emancipated. I also think we might want to provide full-time employment as an alternative to the schooling requirement. The current requirements seem to be defined from a somewhat narrow point of view.

     Section 5 is just bad. What constitutes a violation? Receiving benefits while ineligible? Applying for benefits while ineligible? Being ineligible? That section is incredibly vague, and potentially punitive for honest mistakes. I would like to see it defined more carefully and require specific intent to defraud as an element of the crime.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As far as welfare goes, I'd much prefer a policy that allows people to be on welfare as long as they are out looking for a job, as well as expansion of the EITC that stays with them even if they have a job.  I think this bill provides a nice opportunity to discuss the merits of our welfare policy, but I'd hope that we do more than just repeal the current law.

[Associate Justice PiT]

As far as welfare goes, I'd much prefer a policy that allows people to be on welfare as long as they are out looking for a job, as well as expansion of the EITC that stays with them even if they have a job.  I think this bill provides a nice opportunity to discuss the merits of our welfare policy, but I'd hope that we do more than just repeal the current law.

     Chronic unemployment is a serious problem that makes it harder to find a new job. If we are going to do something, then instead of just extending the term of welfare, I would suggest that we sponsor job training and contract for internships with companies in the region. Give the unemployed the tools needed to get back on their feet.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As far as welfare goes, I'd much prefer a policy that allows people to be on welfare as long as they are out looking for a job, as well as expansion of the EITC that stays with them even if they have a job.  I think this bill provides a nice opportunity to discuss the merits of our welfare policy, but I'd hope that we do more than just repeal the current law.

     Chronic unemployment is a serious problem that makes it harder to find a new job. If we are going to do something, then instead of just extending the term of welfare, I would suggest that we sponsor job training and contract for internships with companies in the region. Give the unemployed the tools needed to get back on their feet.

I wholly agree.  (Not to sound like I'm shamelessly promoting myself or anything, but I think my recently introduced housing bill will put us in the direction of doing so.)

[CatoMinor]

I agree with our beloved Emperor, this law needs to be fixed, however lets do it in a way that it takes effect when our budget is squared away.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I'm planning on putting an amendment together. I should have it up either tonight or tomorrow. Just putting this out there so people know that I haven't forgotten about this matter.

[CatoMinor]

I introduce the following amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Thanks for that, man.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I introduce the following amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, but I definitely can't support completely eliminating our regional welfare programs... though admittedly, I am not aware of any that exist at this time.  Does the sponsor feel that all federal programs are sufficient enough?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     We have about $30 billion budgeted, whereas the federal government has a base of over $500 billion with more certainly having been passed in Atlasia. Considering that we have about a quarter of the population, the federal government is presumably outspending us by over 4:1 on welfare in our own region. There are also local programs in the mix.

     I doubt that we have the means to be efficacious in that area, especially in light of our budget deficit. I think that we can be more effective within our means by seeking to occupy a different niche. One way is by providing people with employment assistance, as I have outlined.

[Donerail]

Sorry, but I definitely can't support completely eliminating our regional welfare programs... though admittedly, I am not aware of any that exist at this time.  Does the sponsor feel that all federal programs are sufficient enough?

I'll declare the amendment friendly at this time - mainly due to a lack of knowledge of any regional welfare programs we operate. If anyone can find some, we can address that.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

So I did a quick skim of our statute page on the Wiki and I couldn't find anything remotely close to an assistance program provided by our region that's not already administered by the federal government.  That's okay and all, but keep in mind that we're not going to save any money from this bill because we don't really have anything to cut in the first place.  In fact, we might end up spending more by introducing the work education program - which I will support in spite of that.

(Arguably, we will gain revenue in the long term if this program does what it's intended to do and help grow the tax base, but we'll definitely be spending more over the short term with the current proposal.)

[Donerail]

So I did a quick skim of our statute page on the Wiki and I couldn't find anything remotely close to an assistance program provided by our region that's not already administered by the federal government.  That's okay and all, but keep in mind that we're not going to save any money from this bill because we don't really have anything to cut in the first place.  In fact, we might end up spending more by introducing the work education program - which I will support in spite of that.

Really, before passing any legislation we need to address the way we do budgeting. We don't have the same spending levels as the RL states do and to base our spending and taxation off of them doesn't make all that much sense.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Our region has a $30 billion welfare budget, which is where the cuts would be coming from. I am suggesting this in large part because the breakdown on the Spending site gives me the impression that our welfare programs are mostly just smaller time versions of the federal welfare programs. We could probably make more of an impact by spending less money but putting it in places where there is less assistance already, such as work education and Scott's housing proposal.

[CatoMinor]

ok, so just checking, where does everyone stand on this so far?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think I can support this.

[Enderman]

Support.

[Donerail]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

24 hours for objections until we move to a final vote here.

[Supersonic]

I have no qualms.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     By my estimate, this will save us $22.7 billion. We are about $22.97 billion in the red, so we will come very close to even by passing this bill.

[Enderman]

Extremely support. I move to vote! Let's get this passed before we get further down in the red!

[Associate Justice PiT]

Extremely support. I move to vote! Let's get this passed before we get further down in the red!

     Your term expired in January.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Shall we vote?

[Enderman]

Emperor, with all due respect, no I was up for re-election in December; two months previous was October, when I was elected. It's my third month being in this seat right here!

Anyways Scott, that's what I was trying to say....