Repeal of the Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act

[Sam Spade]

Just the original author's two cents

1. 4 billion dollars is still a lot of money for the DoE.
2. I'll admit it's a pretty poorly written bill

Thanks for the words on the bill, Akno. 

I thought, when I designed this bill, that this was also a fair compromise that would allow a significant sum of money to be earmarked for education (perhaps for NCLB, etc.), while at the same time allowing for us to deal with the budget deficit that awaits us in a couple of months in a fiscally responsible manner.

I would like to see some restraint on military spending, which we haven't seen. John Ford was so knowledgeable he could basically impress the senate into funding whatever he wanted, so we likely don't need anymore military spending until we get the budget under control.

Like I said before, if someone (John Ford or anyone knowledgeable on defense) can list useless things we can cut in terms of defense spending, I'm all ears.

As I have also said before, I am very knowledgeable in terms of matters dealing with social spending, I am not very knowledgeable in matters that deal with defense spending.  So, it's obvious what I know about where waste is between the two.

I'm not saying we need to cut defense spending, but I think we've added on a suitable amount to the Defense budget recently.

Fair enough.  I have no plans for any increase in defense spending anyways. (since I don't know the place) 

[12th Doctor]

I must come out against the repeal of this act.  While it provides for more government than I would like, it does make it easier for women to choose to take a pregnancy to term.  Also, the repeal of this act would be a disater for those who are currently utilizing the benefits granted here-in.  I must support the Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act and encourage all of my fellow Senators to do the same.

Couldn't you reintroduce a constitutional version of your Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill instead to handle your first concern?*

And perhaps a phased-out process of reducing benefits instead of an abrupt halt would be better?

*Hey, if the UaTM Bill was unconstitutional, why would this bill still be constitutional? Just wondering...

Not according to the ruling by the court.  Hopefully I will be able to pass an ammendment that will allow for it.

[WMS]

I must come out against the repeal of this act.  While it provides for more government than I would like, it does make it easier for women to choose to take a pregnancy to term.  Also, the repeal of this act would be a disater for those who are currently utilizing the benefits granted here-in.  I must support the Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act and encourage all of my fellow Senators to do the same.

Couldn't you reintroduce a constitutional version of your Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill instead to handle your first concern?*

And perhaps a phased-out process of reducing benefits instead of an abrupt halt would be better?

*Hey, if the UaTM Bill was unconstitutional, why would this bill still be constitutional? Just wondering...

Not according to the ruling by the court.  Hopefully I will be able to pass an ammendment that will allow for it.

Thanks for the reply, Super. Sam had some good points there, so I'm currently mulling this one over...

[Sam Spade]

Since John Ford cannot find any useful provisions for this wasteful spending and there appear to be no more questions by any other Senators, I motion that we bring this bill to a vote.

[The Duke]

Since John Ford cannot find any useful provisions for this wasteful spending and there appear to be no more questions by any other Senators, I motion that we bring this bill to a vote.

This evening, PBC News will air a piece on the bill in question, Senators might want to wait for it before they vote.

As for useless defense spending, we eliminated certain programs I thought weren't that effective, like the FCS, but we always redirected the money to more useful things.  I can't name any major waste off the top of my head.  I always made it my first option to cut waste to fund my stuff, and asking the Senate for money was the second resort.

[Gabu]

Given that debate seems to have stopped, I hereby call a vote to this legislation.

All senators in favor, vote "aye"; all against, vote "nay".

[Sam Spade]

Aye.

I will also be giving an editorial rebuttal to John Ford's (somewhat) biased piece sometime tonight.

[The Duke]

Aye.

I will also be giving an editorial rebuttal to John Ford's (somewhat) biased piece sometime tonight.

"Its not biased, its humanitarian. "

-Walter Cronkite

Okay, so maybe Walter didn't stick his tongue out at the end of the statement, but the rest is true.  I didn't think it was biased.

[Colin]

Aye

[12th Doctor]

Nay

[Gabu]

I'm going to wait to see Sam's editorial before making a decision.

[Colin]

I'm going to wait to see Sam's editorial before making a decision.

I think he wrote it in the National Atlasian

[MAS117]

Aye

[Gabu]

Well, as I said before, we desperately need to cut something, so, while this may have been beneficial in some ways...

Aye.

[WMS]

*sighs*

Aye.

Sorry Super, while I support the intentions of this bill its implementation needs work. And when Akno refused to oppose it, even admitting it had problems, that made my vote easier. What say you work on a better version next Senate?

[Gabu]

This legislation now has enough votes to pass; senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

[A18]

I would suggest an amendment to abolish the Department of Education, if this doesn't do that already. Canada has no such thing.

Yeah, that's because they want to placate the Frenchies.

Federal education spending in the United States amounts to only 7% of the total, and obviously we don't need a Department of Education to send that money to the states.

Federal intervention in education is nothing but an unjust power grab, that will greatly hinder any progress in this area.

[The Dowager Mod]

Ya how dare those poverty stricken children take tax dollars from more usefull things like tax cuts for the rich.

[A18]

Tax cuts are certainly far better than federal intervention in education.

[Sam Spade]

Ya how dare those poverty stricken children take tax dollars from more usefull things like tax cuts for the rich.

This money is going directly to cut the Budget Deficit (or towards $4 billion of future Education expenses), nothing else.

If it was going towards tax cuts, I wouldn't support it myself.

[A18]

I am in favor of cutting welfare for any reason, under any circumstance, for any excuse, so long as it is possible.

[Gabu]

Ya how dare those poverty stricken children take tax dollars from more usefull things like tax cuts for the rich.

We currently have nearly a $503 billion deficit.  There are a lot of things that need to be cut in order to get that down to a reasonable level, and like John Ford says, even then a marginal tax increase may be necessary if there are simply not enough things we can cut without serious consequences.

[A18]

Why not just cut everything except defense spending?

[Gabu]

Why not just cut everything except defense spending?

Because we're not you.

[A18]

Well, at the very least, why not go back to the departments that existed pre-FDR?