Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Sam Spade]

The old one got infected with PA13-itis with Flyers v. Phil.

Yep, like the last 50-60 posts of that thread were one big b*tch fight that's been playing on ever since I got here. 

Bores the hell out of me.

[Sam Spade]

Well, I'd be happy to discuss it if anyone has any questions.

I have always felt like this is unnecessary legislation and yet at the same time, I wish to build a compromise so that elimination of it will go to things that I think it needs to go towards.

First, and most importantly, that means the federal budget deficit. 

75% of the savings from this bill will be earmarked straight to the general Budgetary fund and frankly 100% of the funds can be used for that if need be.  We will be able to cut the deficit by at least 13.2375 Billion dollars and maybe by as much as 17.65 Billion dollars.

However, I know that there are things that some Senators might have plans with regards to education.  I know that Cosmo Kramer has talked about fully funding NCLB.  So, I have set aside as much as 25% of this saved money for future appropriations within the Education Sub. Dept. only if a good and valuable program can be designed for those appropriations.

This is basically the first of a number of cuts I have in mind to make our budget deficit no longer the huge problem it presently is.

[Sam Spade]

Are any of the other cuts going to involve the military, which has seen a sharp increase in funding by the last few Senates?

I posted a response to True Democrat a few days ago which I think encapsulates the rationale behind how you get a budget deficit downwards:

Perhaps we could cut something from the Treasury Sub-Dept.  Could a Senator (probably Sam Spade) post a rundown of what is basically included in the Treasury sub-dept. budget?

Ok, but if the President would look through the Treasury budget himself, he would discover that other than some rather minor expenses here and there (1 billion to run the Mint, 8 billion for Financial Management Services and a couple of other minor things), there are basically two major expenses that the Treasury Dept. does that make up all of its budget.

1.  Running of the IRS (roughly about 59 billion)

2.  Paying off the interest on the National Debt (roughly about 350 billion)

Now, if you want to get rid of the IRS, I have no problem with that, but we'd better have an alternative tax system in place before.
Simply put, there is pretty much no way to really get into the budget deficit without cutting either:

1. Social programs (things to do with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, in that order)

2. Defense expenditures  (I think there are some things you can cut out of here (as being wasteful), but probably not more than 50 billion max.)

Or you can:

3. Raise taxes.

Or you can:

4. Keep spending increases down and hope for another 1990s to boom the federal coffers.

[Sam Spade]

Cutting even 25 billion out of defense wouldn't be such a bad option, since some of it's waste anyhow.

We should leave raising taxes on the table, we don't have to do it by much, but considering the spending increases, it's about time we do that.

Considering the spending increases that we've had, it is high time we cut the pointless spending increases and cut spending in other places.

I will oppose tax increases on the hard-working citizens of Atlasia unless it is "absolutely" necessary, which is almost never.

[Sam Spade]

We should do what we can to make sure the cuts aren't totally slanted one way, cut equally from favored programs of both sides. If we do that, we save ourselves the precious time that would otherwise be spent on a never-ending argument over whether building a school or a bomber is a more effective use of money.

How about a tax increase (if this is already done, then there's no need, but I'm trouble getting onto the Wiki at the moment) on those over $500,000. I don't mean to sound like Naso throwing around random numbers, I think if the senate considers raising taxes, which is a viable option, that is a good starting point, which can be tweaked by those who know better what they are talking about. 

I have no favored programs whatsoever.  I am a fiscal hawk true and true.  If there is no need for a new school or a new bomber, then I won't spend for it (though the last time I checked, the Federal government does not build local schools, local school districts do).

I'll be quite honest that my knowledge of wasteful social programs and unfunded mandates is quite better than my knowledge of wasteful military spending.

If the Secretary of the Defense or John Ford or Jake would have ideas as to wasteful defense spending that could be cut, I'm all ears.

But I will not raise taxes during a weak and stagnant economy unless "absolutely" necessary.  Please talk to your Senators or someone in the Senate willing to place a bill raising taxes.

[Sam Spade]

I also dislike the fact a three-man committee decides what will be voted on and what won't be voted on.  And if you can't write legislation that's not constitutional or original, then you shouldn't be writing legislation at all.

Personally, I have at least taken the time to read the Constitution, as every Senator should imo, and if I have any qualms about Constitutional questions on legislation, I ask the experts first.

Clause 4 seems redundant.  Doesn't the PPT or the President of the Senate already have that power?

The system, as it right now, works fine.  Things have gone much, much faster and better legislation has been written as a whole.

I also find it ironic that the person whose bills fit the profile of some of things this legislation is trying to supposedly fix is coming up with this legislation himself.

[Sam Spade]

Referring to Senator Spade's new SPR:

A Bill is something that is in (or awaiting) debate in the Senate; A Bill becomes an Act when it achieves passage into Law (e.g. when the President signs the Bill after Senate approval). At least this is the technical definitions that are generally used, though people here seem to introduce "Acts" into the Senate. Maybe we ought to codify this relationship at some point.

In Section 3 Clause 1, I would also point out that the Senate does debate Resolutions, and these have been counted against the limits for legislation on the floor.

These are good points.  I will amend the following proposed resolution to take care of them.

[Sam Spade]

Bill has been changed to deal with Peter's suggestions.

[Sam Spade]

How much more legislation are we going to be bothering with considering that we have just over 10 days left in the legislative session, and we have a number of vacancies (or effective vacancies): Nym90, Naso, NixonNow.

If legislation does not get voted on or considered, I will re-introduce it next session if need be.

[Sam Spade]

Which is why you're currently stalling legislation and wasting space.

I like to say filibustering Jake.

If you're going to filibuster, please be a little more creative, MAS, that's all I ask.

[Sam Spade]

I would like to actually vote on the NM-MT Bill, if possible. We'll see if it happens...

It will be reintroduced, regardless.

[Sam Spade]

Which is why you're currently stalling legislation and wasting space.

I like to say filibustering Jake.

If you're going to filibuster, please be a little more creative, MAS, that's all I ask.

give me some stuff then sammy:)

I'm not writing your own filibustering amendments like King wrote Naso's legislation.  Sorry, MAS.

[Sam Spade]

There are presently two gaps on the floor, and we've got a few days, so I'm going to put the next couple of pieces on the floor since they are relatively easy to handle.

I will not be introducing the Assault Weapons Ban Bill from NixonNow because Gabu does not recognise him as a Senator and therefore it has no sponsor, nor the SPR from Naso since he's definitely resigned.

Sounds good to me.

[Sam Spade]

As requested of me by former Senator Bono, I will introduce two Amendments to the Constitution (in separate posts) that he has asked me to introduce.

If there are any problems or changes with either of these, Bono, please let me know and I will do so.  I have modified the wording very slightly to make it sound in keeping with the rest of the document.
Addition to the Bill of Rights, Article VI

16.  Each individual shall have the inherent Right of defending the life, liberty and property of any individual using whatever force is necessary, through whatever means available, including the use of deadly force.

The vague wording of this makes it seem kind of dangerous in my eyes.  What's to stop someone from murdering someone else and then just saying, "Well, I was defending my liberty"?

Fwiw, I have made the same points. 

I will be introducing an amendment on this, as I have already told Bono, to make it so that an individual can only protect his/her own life, liberty, property through whatever means necessary.

That would be sort of like the Florida "Castle Law'.

[Sam Spade]

Why the hell is the Senate moving so damn slow?

Recent bills (Social Security Bill, Secret Ballot Bill) have produced much debate and tons of amendments from Senators.

All in all, we have voted on 16 pieces of legislation this session, as compared to the rapid fire pace of 28 pieces of legislation last session.

One of the main problems has been is that the quality of legislation introduced this session has not been anywhere near the quality of legislation introduced last session.

This session, I've voted Nay six times and Abstain once.  Compare this to my voting Nay only three times last session and two of those were against Mike Naso bills.

All in all, I predict we'll end up voting on around 20 pieces of legislation this session, give or take a few.

[Sam Spade]

Replying to Sam's latest rendition of War and Peace:

Article 2, Clause 5:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thats a bit like Naso's 'I support abortion except in cases of rape and incest' position isn't it? I look forward to welcoming the Cows recently wed in Thailand to Atlasia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, if this passes, I'm suing Atlasia in a federal court under the Ex Posto Facto clause.

Look, I know that you don't like this and I occasionally put a wrong word here or there when I'm dealing with transferring state law to the federal level (which I did in this case).  Obviously it provides for good material to attack, I don't deny that.

If anyone is curious, I essentially stole the language of article 2 from a combination of Arizona and Washington family law.  Article 3-4 come from Vermont's Civil Union statute.

[Sam Spade]

I urge both of my senators to vote against Senator Spades amendment(s) to the voting system reform bill.
By trying to lessen the number of ordinary citicenzes
and increasing the number of bureaucrats the proposed commision will lose most if not all credibility.

I haven't proposed any amendments to the Voting System Reform Bill, Texasgurl. 

As far as I know, Colin's the only one who has.

[Sam Spade]

Can I motion to bring bills to the front of list?

Only the PPT and VP, acting together, can bring bills to the front of the list.

Technically, if you wanted to make a motion and have the Senate vote on such a matter, you could bring it forward with the support of a majority of Senators.

[Sam Spade]

Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.

On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs. 

[Sam Spade]

Yeah I'm here. I, constitutionally, can't do anything, though, unless Emsworth is away so my position is nearly useless. Emsworth has the overall authority to control the bill debates, decide which amendments to dispose of, and when to start votes. I only do it very rarely and when it is needed.

On the contrary, you are perfectly at liberty to act whenever you please. The Senate rules allow it.

Oh good. I thought the Constitution limited me to a purely secondary role.

Nope.  In fact, the OSPR really gives you primary control over internal Senate affairs. 

That's why i was wondering.

Well, the Constitution simply says that the Senate can create its own body of laws to govern itself.  The OSPR is that set of laws.

[Sam Spade]

MAS, is there any reason why you are attempting to (badly) rewrite the Official Senate Procedural Resolution and remove the Legislation Introduction Thread and various safeguards and procedures written into the Resolution?

Also, why are you introducing this as a Act, when it is clearly a Senate resolution?

A couple of things you have added here might be nice to add to the Senate rules (such as decorum, unanimous consent and tabling motions), but the other essentially tries to rewrite what has already been written (and not any better, I might add).

I can't help it that the PPT or the VP chooses not to read the document.  That's their problem, not mine.

[Sam Spade]

I'm aware that I'm prohibited from using the Senate Legislative Introduction Thread as I'm not yet a sitting Senator

However, can someone confirm for me whether this thread is the place for me to comment or make suggestions -as a Citizen re-current Senate Debate or do I use the appropriate thread as a Citizen for designated for any particular legislation? For example, were I to make a suggestion on the Tennessee Valley Authority Privatisation Act

I just thought I'd ask with this thread being inactive of late

Thanks

Dave (currently trawlling his way through wads and wads of Atlasia stuff )

Techinically speaking, this is the thread to use until the legislation is on the floor, at which point you use the legislation's private thread.

Practically speaking, however, you can basically just talk about it wherever.  Restrictions are not followed religiously, if at all.

There is a section in the OSPR which says something to the effect that "individuals that post in the legislation introduction thread may be subject to prosecution under relevant statute in criminal laws", but since no relevant statute has been added, the phrase is pretty much meaningless, though I would still hope most comments on legislation would remain in this thread.

[Sam Spade]

When I do I have to help you guys with the budget?

When the new Senators take the oath.  First Friday in March.

[Sam Spade]

When I do I have to help you guys with the budget?

When the new Senators take the oath.  First Friday in March.

So there's a new budget only once every year?  Or is the every four months?

Every four months.  For some reason I typed "first Friday in March" when it should be "first Friday in May".

[Sam Spade]

I am strongly disapprove of the Senate passing, and Afleitch approving of the Prostitution Legalization Bill.

Wasn't that simply allowing the government some means of control over what was already prevalent in the black neighborhoods of DC?