NE4: March-June Northeast Budget FY2014 (Law)

[Deus Naturae]

Are the tax revenue figures in this budget updated from our last budget? If not, we should probably request a GM report when/if Adam Griffin is confirmed. If possible, we should also try to find out if we still have any of the last budget surplus left.

Anyway, here are my initial thoughts:
I assume that refitting government buildings and updating energy infrastructure were one-time things, so I think we can safely eliminate spending on those things.

I also think we should consider eliminating, or at the very least reducing, alternative energy spending and loans. It is my impression (which would seem to be confirmed by the recent Senate debate on fracking) that alternative energy development has reached a far more advanced stage in Atlasia than it has irl. Assuming that alternative energy is a dominant energy source at this point, I see no reason to continue subsidizing it.

Finally, now that we eliminated agricultural subsidies in the last session, that should probably translate into a spending cut somewhere, but I'm not sure which section of the budget that program was getting its funding from.

[Deus Naturae]

I was referring to the $2 billion allocated to "updating the Northeast's energy infrastructure." My thought was that, since this was a budget that was previously passed, the infrastructure would've already been updated, and there would be no need to update it again, or at least not this soon.

[Deus Naturae]

I don't mean to overburden the Governor, but we should also try to determine how much is currently in the Disaster Relief Fund.

Also, I have a few more questions:

What does "tax expenditures" refer to?

What specifically is entailed in "direct aid and incentives to municipalities?"

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Deus Naturae]

I this the bill you're referring to? Would it be possible to just include those things with funding levels of $0?

[Deus Naturae]

I this the bill you're referring to? Would it be possible to just include those things with funding levels of $0?

You could, but these are things worth funding. Your question regarding general tax expenditures was a better question for the GM -- did you ever ask?

What exactly would I ask?

[Deus Naturae]

To reiterate, here is the reasoning behind my proposed cuts to energy spending:

I assume that refitting government buildings was a one-time thing, so I think we can safely eliminate spending on that.

I also think we should consider eliminating, or at the very least reducing, alternative energy spending and loans. It is my impression (which would seem to be confirmed by the recent Senate debate on fracking) that alternative energy development has reached a far more advanced stage in Atlasia than it has irl. Assuming that alternative energy is a dominant energy source at this point, I see no reason to continue subsidizing it.

[Deus Naturae]

I plan to try and get rid of a few line items when Governor Dallasfan's budget procedure amendment is being debated, but for now I will withdraw my previous amendment and offer this one instead:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I still think we should get rid of the special loan program completely because, not only have clean energy sources been developed at this point, but we also have a regional bank that provides loans. Money spent on the clean energy loan program is effectively just money spent to give energy companies a fast pass on a process that's already open to them.

[Deus Naturae]

So, is everyone fine with the current expenditures? I might have an amendment regarding tax expenditures later but I'd like to start discussing revenues if the Representatives are content with that.

[Deus Naturae]

I support Governor Dallasfan's proposal.

I am also introducing an amendment to eliminate the tanning tax

Here is my reasoning:

The tanning tax is a tax upon the use of tanning beds. Not only is this blatant discrimination against tanning establishments, but it is an insult to those citizens of the Northeast who wish to improve their tan. Who are we to try and tax them out of existence because they want to tan their skin? In addition, this tax risks causing the MTV show Jersey Shore, a valuable commercial asset, to depart our region and set up shop in a region that doesn't want to tax tanners out of existence. Besides, the tax hardly generates any revenue anyway, and it seems doubtful that it actually deter tanners, but rather would only serve to make their habit more expensive, and thus more harmful to themselves.

[Deus Naturae]

Deus never introduced the amendment regarding the tanning tax.

When I said, "I am also introducing an amendment..." I mean that i was introducing it right then, not that I was planning to introduce it in the future.

[Deus Naturae]

Deus never introduced the amendment regarding the tanning tax.

When I said, "I am also introducing an amendment..." I mean that i was introducing it right then, not that I was planning to introduce it in the future.

You didn't give me the language, which I need to put the final bill together.

Am I allowed to just strike out the tax?

Also, since this is the "March-June" budget would the regional government shut down if we didn't pass the budget by the end of March?

[Deus Naturae]

Ftr:
Total expenditures - $231.428 billion
Total revenues - $251.425 billion

Am I correct in thinking that the recently passed budget procedure amendment only takes effect after this budget?

[Deus Naturae]

I urge my fellow Representatives not to vote Aye just yet...we don't know what our obligations are regarding the Disaster Relief Fund, and thus we don't know how much is currently in the surplus.

[Deus Naturae]

I'd argue the point that despite no specific mention, the Another Budget Amendment doesn't apply, since I've yet to sign it.

That makes sense. In that case, the final figures for the budget look like this:
Total expenditures - $231.428 billion
Total revenues - $251.425 billion
Total surplus (after 20% allocation to Disaster Relief Fund) - $15.997 billion
Disaster Relief Fund (I used Cinci's estimate of $13 billion) - $16.999 billion

These figures can just be incorporated into the budget, right?

[Deus Naturae]

I'd argue the point that despite no specific mention, the Another Budget Amendment doesn't apply, since I've yet to sign it.

That makes sense. In that case, the final figures for the budget look like this:
Total expenditures - $231.428 billion
Total revenues - $251.425 billion
Total surplus (after 20% allocation to Disaster Relief Fund) - $15.997 billion
Disaster Relief Fund (I used Cinci's estimate of $13 billion) - $16.999 billion

These figures can just be incorporated into the budget, right?

Sirnick's numbers weren't definitive, so I don't see why not. However, since we're abolishing an income bracket I don't know that the surplus would be that high.

Here are my calculations:
Initial expenditures (from the budget Adam Griffin provided)=$236.428 billion
236.428-5(from energy spending cuts)=231.428
Total expenditures=$231.428 billion

Initial revenues=$253.736 billion
253.736-2.112(income tax bracket elimination)=251.624
251.624-0.199(tanning tax elimination)=251.425
Total revenues=$251.425 billion

251.425(total revenues)-231.428(total expenditures)=21.997
21.997/5(Disaster Relief Fund)=4.3994
21.997-4.3994=17.597
Total surplus=$17.597 billion (looks like I was initially wrong, good thing you pointed that out)

So, the correct figures are:
Total expenditures - $231.428 billion
Total revenues - 251.425 billion
Total surplus - $17.797
Disaster Relief Fund - $17.399

Not that that's cleared up, Aye on cloture.

[Deus Naturae]

Aye