Public Fuel and Power Act of 2014 (Final vote)

[DemPGH]

I won't be vetoing this, ftr. I would consider a redraft, but I think Bore has done a good job with his edit. I'll weigh it closely before signing, though.

I also agree we're at an impasse. It sounds to me like the liquor store debates here in Pennsylvania. We have public / state run wine and liquor stores, which do three things: Keep prices stable and affordable, pay reasonably good wages to employees (who actually have a union! - imagine that), and the crucial thing is, they keep money in the system. When you make something public, it feeds itself. Does that make sense? So when I buy my Cabernet Sauvignon, it's going into the state system as opposed to the coffers of some tycoon who bought up the wine store as a side venture and who pays his help as little as he absolutely can get away with (i.e., minimum wage).

That said, I don't support making everything public, but the case has been made here and as someone who owns a [hybrid] car and fills it up with gas so it will run, I support the idea of this.

[Oakvale]

Just as an addendum (since I am a sitting Supreme Court judge) I'd like to make it as clear as possible that my complaints are entirely a question of  personal and political opinion, and do not relate to any kind of constitutional or legal issue - indeed, you could presumably have guessed my position on this from my time in electoral politics.

[Deus Naturae]

I won't be vetoing this, ftr. I would consider a redraft, but I think Bore has done a good job with his edit. I'll weigh it closely before signing, though.

I also agree we're at an impasse. It sounds to me like the liquor store debates here in Pennsylvania. We have public / state run wine and liquor stores, which do three things: Keep prices stable and affordable, pay reasonably good wages to employees (who actually have a union! - imagine that), and the crucial thing is, they keep money in the system. When you make something public, it feeds itself. Does that make sense? So when I buy my Cabernet Sauvignon, it's going into the state system as opposed to the coffers of some tycoon who bought up the wine store as a side venture and who pays his help as little as he absolutely can get away with (i.e., minimum wage).

That said, I don't support making everything public, but the case has been made here and as someone who owns a [hybrid] car and fills it up with gas so it will run, I support the idea of this.

Except that the case has most certainly not been made...the multitude of criticisms launched against this have yet to be addressed and the only actual reason to do this at all amounts "muh public ownership" and is being made by a communist. That's fine for him but you can't very well claim that "I don't support making everything public" when that's the only argument your side has offered. If this bill is passed, your hybrid will become useless as gasoline will be eliminated by 2030.  This will certainly "feed" itself...by bankrupting ratepayers. No matter how high costs rise (and, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the way this thing is structured will cause costs to explode), the price will just keep rising...talk about "excessive profits." Transforming a huge portion of our economy and passing the cost onto ratepayers is NOT going to keep prices "stable and affordable" in the slightest.

And again, what about distributed generation? What will become of the solar panels on Nix's house? What about the propane generator in my yard? Will that be allowed in this 100% Clean Energy (tm) utopia?

Also worth pointing out that the cost of booze is higher in PA than any of the surrounding States and there are much fewer liquor stores than elsewhere. The alcohol monopoly is highly unpopular even among Democrats and doesn't "feed" itself at all as it has consistently run deficits...

[DemPGH]

Deus, the right wing arguments against this are end of the world, etc., and I have no reason to accept that as yet. Because what's behind it is "muh private corporations!"

I mean, I live in PA . . . We at the moment are run top down by the GOP, and they could not privatize the booze stores because it was going to be a financial disaster.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Deus, the right wing arguments against this are end of the world, etc., and I have no reason to accept that as yet. Because what's behind it is "muh private corporations!"

I mean, I live in PA . . . We at the moment are run top down by the GOP, and they could not privatize the booze stores because it was going to be a financial disaster.

The left wing arguments completely lack merit on this energy bill. Deus and the assertions of the right are correct. The left wants to nationalize energy because they want more land under the centralizing control of the national government. Do I dare articulate the reasons why nationalizing industries is a bad thing to do? I could think of hundreds of millions of reasons why governmental ownership of any industry is a terribad idea.

[Cassius]

Deus, the right wing arguments against this are end of the world, etc., and I have no reason to accept that as yet. Because what's behind it is "muh private corporations!"

I mean, I live in PA . . . We at the moment are run top down by the GOP, and they could not privatize the booze stores because it was going to be a financial disaster.

Yes, but, the difference between those advocating in favour of and against this bill is that the latter are defending a status quo that I'm sure that the vast majority of us would agree is hardly disastrous; indeed, whatever its imperfections (and you're not going to get a perfect policy), it does the job of electricity provision reasonably well. The proponents of this bill, on the other hand, are arguing in favour of an almost revolutionary change; nationalising a large and key sector of the economy and turning it over to management by randomly selected boards. To me, this sounds like a rather risky leap of faith, and one that will be difficult to undo if it is implemented and proves to be a disaster. Best to stick with the workable status quo just in case.

[Deus Naturae]

Deus, the right wing arguments against this are end of the world, etc., and I have no reason to accept that as yet. Because what's behind it is "muh private corporations!"

I mean, I live in PA . . . We at the moment are run top down by the GOP, and they could not privatize the booze stores because it was going to be a financial disaster.

That's a strawman. I haven't just been claiming this would lead to Armageddon without any reasoning. I'v given specific reasons for why this bill specifically will not work...those arguments need to be addressed. You can't just ignore structural incentives, questions of cost and pricing, the need for peak demand-capable generation, and distribution issues that will effect countless people. And, you still haven't given a valid reason for doing this in the first place.

I hate to derail the discussion, but booze is more expensive and less plentiful in PA than in non-monopoly States. That's what happens when you have monopoly instead of competition.

[PPT Spiral]

This "muh X" so-called argument that leftists here primarily use is irritating by this point and only serves as a distraction away from actually refuting any of the points made here. Talking with someone as ideologically driven as TNF about changing his mind on this is absolutely pointless and he acknowledges that. I would hope that the other comparatively moderate Laborites listen in, however. So far I haven't seen anyone really refute the criticisms of the bill as substantively as those who made those criticisms.

[Dr. Cynic]

This "muh X" so-called argument that leftists here primarily use is irritating by this point and only serves as a distraction away from actually refuting any of the points made here. Talking with someone as ideologically driven as TNF about changing his mind on this is absolutely pointless and he acknowledges that. I would hope that the other comparatively moderate Laborites listen in, however. So far I haven't seen anyone really refute the criticisms of the bill as substantively as those who made those criticisms.

I didn't choose to put my name toward this bill as a sponsor for any ideological reason. Indeed, there are parts of it that run counter to some of them. I did this because of the reasons I outlined in the debate thread. I grew up with a family that had to use things like LIHEAP in order to get by. I'm not ordinarily someone who favors nationalization of industries, but if it meant families like that have one less bill to worry about, especially in winter, then I'd support it. My reasons are less ideological than they are personal.

I will vote Aye and if it "destroys my reputation", then I guess it's something I'd have to live with.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What? So if we nationalize then we are just giving away power? There will be no bills at all? How will we be able to afford that? I'm not trying to fight over anything. I'm just asking basic questions because I am genuinely curious.

[bore]

I think, as with education and healthcare I come at this from the different perspective of someone who's British.

In the UK, energy is a real problem with about 1 in 10 households suffering from fuel poverty. Anything that can be done to reduce that should be, including reducing costs.

With regard to things like nuclear energy, the plants are simply uneconomic for a private company to run, so they don't. Private firms don't want to run them absent massive subsidies, so either the government pays huge amounts to subsidize private profits or it pays huge amounts to run it itself.

The same is true for things like renewables. Ultimately, unless we want to use fossil fuels, we are forced to pay huge amounts out of the public purse, nationalisation or not.

Also, I can't believe that nationalisation would be that disastrous. Countries like France have nationalised energy without the sky falling in.

[TNF]

Aye(s): Senator Cynic, Senator Tyrion, Senator bore, PPT TNF, Senator Alfred F. Jones
Nay(s): Senator Cassius, Senator Lumine, Senator Spiral, Senator Goldwater
Not voting: Senator North Carolina Yankee

With 5 votes in the affirmative and 4 votes opposed, this bill has passed the Senate and shall now be presented to the President for his consideration.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Comrade TNF, the rules require a 24 hour vote change period for all votes that are not unanimous unless time has expired beforehand and it was started on the eleventh.

Reluctant Nay/b]

As much as I want some kind of altnerative distribution network this is far too complex and whilst bore improved it I think it still contains provisions that will be hard to manage or otherwise problematic and would detract from the benefits of the providing an alternative setup.

[Deus Naturae]

I didn't choose to put my name toward this bill as a sponsor for any ideological reason. Indeed, there are parts of it that run counter to some of them. I did this because of the reasons I outlined in the debate thread. I grew up with a family that had to use things like LIHEAP in order to get by. I'm not ordinarily someone who favors nationalization of industries, but if it meant families like that have one less bill to worry about, especially in winter, then I'd support it. My reasons are less ideological than they are personal.

I will vote Aye and if it "destroys my reputation", then I guess it's something I'd have to live with.

Sorry but this is getting kind of frustrating at this point. Have you read anything I've written in this thread? This bill will increase energy costs for a number of reasons which I have detailed countless times. It will lead to power outages during cold winters when many households are trying to use heating. Stop pretending that this will make energy free when that is not what the bill does and not the effect it will have.

[Simfan34]

Comrade TNF, the rules require a 24 hour vote change period for all votes that are not unanimous unless time has expired beforehand and it was started on the eleventh.

Reluctant Nay

As much as I want some kind of altnerative distribution network this is far too complex and whilst bore improved it I think it still contains provisions that will be hard to manage or otherwise problematic and would detract from the benefits of the providing an alternative setup.

For nearly five years now, people like myself have been looking to you, Senator Yankee, for leadership. I find it hard to believe that now, you oppose this bill only "reluctantly". That you feel such towards this utter catastrophe of legislation, that I find difficult for any thinking person to support, much less a self-declared conservative to regard with anything less than total and absolute opposition, is both shocking yet unsurprising. After all, your party, or at least several members of it, chose to hand the presidency to the man who now seems set upon signing this bill into law.

The fact that we are here today facing this predicament, is a heavy mark upon all of us who oppose the propagation, not to mention the implementation, of such complete nonsense as this, and it is a mark strongly made on people like yourself who seem to acquiesce to it. If there is a time to stand up and shout "NO!" I daresay now is that time, particularly for those who have made a name for themselves as leading voices. I understand you are facing challenges, and I wish you well. But that does not mean you must not resist calamities as strongly! Where is your voice?

[President Tyrion]

I'm concerned that there will not be a redraft right now. In light of that, I'm switching my vote to NAY. I think I have come around to the idea that the system as presented is untenable. I can imagine a manner in which this might be redrafted (and yes, as mentioned, it would be a major overhaul, and a not-insignificant amount of work for the President).

In fact, I have to admit that I made a mistake in voting Aye on the bill in the first place, as I did not offer much debate on the subject, and misunderstood some portions of the bill. Luckily (or unluckily, whatever), the public outrage turned me on to what I realized was not quite something I could support

I would point out, however, that any reasonable analysis of my voting record would indicate that I've been antagonizing TNF far more than supporting him, to the point where I feel the need to apologize personally to him. But that's neither here nor there. At the end of the day, I do think we need to go back to the drawing board on this.

[Dr. Cynic]

I didn't choose to put my name toward this bill as a sponsor for any ideological reason. Indeed, there are parts of it that run counter to some of them. I did this because of the reasons I outlined in the debate thread. I grew up with a family that had to use things like LIHEAP in order to get by. I'm not ordinarily someone who favors nationalization of industries, but if it meant families like that have one less bill to worry about, especially in winter, then I'd support it. My reasons are less ideological than they are personal.

I will vote Aye and if it "destroys my reputation", then I guess it's something I'd have to live with.

Sorry but this is getting kind of frustrating at this point. Have you read anything I've written in this thread? This bill will increase energy costs for a number of reasons which I have detailed countless times. It will lead to power outages during cold winters when many households are trying to use heating. Stop pretending that this will make energy free when that is not what the bill does and not the effect it will have.

Would it piss you off if I told you that I didn't read anything you wrote? I mean, what are you expecting me to say? I didn't agree with your analysis.

If the bill is to be defeated by the votes as it appears, then so be it. It's not personal, nor is it something to get angry about. Keep in mind something... THIS IS A GAME.

Since this bill appears headed for defeat, what's the point of getting your blood pressure up?

[Deus Naturae]

I didn't choose to put my name toward this bill as a sponsor for any ideological reason. Indeed, there are parts of it that run counter to some of them. I did this because of the reasons I outlined in the debate thread. I grew up with a family that had to use things like LIHEAP in order to get by. I'm not ordinarily someone who favors nationalization of industries, but if it meant families like that have one less bill to worry about, especially in winter, then I'd support it. My reasons are less ideological than they are personal.

I will vote Aye and if it "destroys my reputation", then I guess it's something I'd have to live with.

Sorry but this is getting kind of frustrating at this point. Have you read anything I've written in this thread? This bill will increase energy costs for a number of reasons which I have detailed countless times. It will lead to power outages during cold winters when many households are trying to use heating. Stop pretending that this will make energy free when that is not what the bill does and not the effect it will have.

Would it piss you off if I told you that I didn't read anything you wrote? I mean, what are you expecting me to say? I didn't agree with your analysis.

If the bill is to be defeated by the votes as it appears, then so be it. It's not personal, nor is it something to get angry about. Keep in mind something... THIS IS A GAME.

Since this bill appears headed for defeat, what's the point of getting your blood pressure up?

I'm not mad lol. I'm just saying, claiming that this bill will eliminate or reduce energy bills makes zero sense based on the text of the bill. Yet people continue to make claims to that effect while never even bothering to address any of the arguments as to why it won't. I'm not particularly invested in most arguments I have on the internet but it does generally annoy me when people continue to claim something while just ignoring and not even responding to tons of reasons why that thing isn't the case.

[bore]

Seeing as a redraft is clearly now DOA, and we're just voting on the bill as it is, i'm reluctantly (even if that causes simfan to lose it) going to have to change my vote to Nay. (If I still can, I've got no idea what's happening with votes being open or not)

Like Tyrion I regret voting for the bill initially, and this isn't an excuse, but it's very difficult to maintain an active debating presence for every bill. Sometimes, and I think this is true for every senator, you delegate debating the bill to other senators, and base your opinions on that. I voted largely off the fact that I support nationalisation of energy and that was a mistake.

It's worth pointing out, yet again, and hopefully in not an obnoxiously moderate hero way, that I really don't vote in lockstep with TNF (earlier upthread I was accused of being the senates 6th right winger ), and, like with tyrion the amount that I have to vote against fellow laborites distresses me.

[Cassius]

-Ignore this post which my phone won't delete for some reason-

[bore]

Nay.

Nay

Since when did Cassius get two votes

[DemPGH]

lol, so the status of this is . It was declared passed but people are changing votes.

Somehow, I just imagine this ending in a brawl, you know? This has to end with a battle royal or something, haha.

[President Tyrion]

Well, we managed to give TNF an incredibly difficult set of votes for his first major action as PPT. We're not taking it easy on the newbie

[Lumine]

Well, considering Yankee is right regarding the change of votes lasting 24 hours, I believe this should fail 7-3 (o 6-3 if Yankee's vote is not counted). I think both the public reaction and the poll on the subject clearly show that most of Atlasia opposes nationalization, or, if you prefer me not using a generalization, that they oppose this attempt at nationalization of a key area of the economy. Just like Bore I deeply regret not participating more openly here, but I am more than relieved with the final result.

[TNF]

So this fails then, it looks like. No matter, I'll simply reintroduce it into the queue and we can resume debate, since it looks like at least the majority actually wants to pass this bill, they just don't feel entirely comfortable with the version as is proposed. Of course, this entire debacle could have been avoided had anyone other than me or Griffin or Cynic had bothered to comment in the early stages of this debate.