SC: Southern Workfare Act of 2016 (Statute)

[Anna Komnene]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: EdgarAllenYOLO

The floor is now open for debate on this bill.  (Figured I'd make the thread for this one just so everyone knows if we're debating or voting and what not.  No worries!)

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I worked on drafting this bill and asked Delegate EdgarAllenYOLO to introduce this for me. I put X billion because I was not sure what it should be.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Not a big fan of government intervention in the job market such as this.

[Santander]

I can't support this. It doesn't make government smaller, it makes it bigger.

[White Trash]

This is too restrictive on the lifestyles of welfare recipients. The fact that so much of it is mandatory just doesn't sit well with me.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Not a big fan of government intervention in the job market such as this.

     The goal is to train people through performing work that would otherwise not be done for pay. This has little to do with the job market directly, other than to bring people back into it.

I can't support this. It doesn't make government smaller, it makes it bigger.

     So what do you propose instead? The goal of this bill is to gradually replace and reduce welfare. It is no benefit to the South or its people to keep welfare recipients in that state forever.

This is too restrictive on the lifestyles of welfare recipients. The fact that so much of it is mandatory just doesn't sit well with me.

     If anything were to be made optional, it would have to be participation in workfare. After all, if it is to be like any form of employment then free association is key. It would also allow the program to be scaled down, since there would be fewer participants.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I know we talked about this in IRC, but we also need to discuss it in this thread too.

[White Trash]

I'd like to propose an amendment to the bill striking the sections that make participation mandatory, and instead make it an optional program.

[Anna Komnene]

Sure.  Could you post it with the parts you want to strike out and the parts you want to add specifically?

[White Trash]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: EdgarAllenYOLO

Just rephrased Section 2.1 to remove references to making this program mandatory for all able-bodied  welfare recipients.

[Anna Komnene]

We will now have a vote on Southern Gothic's amendment.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 24 hour vote.

This is the specific change just so everyone is clear.

Section 2: Employment

     1. All able-bodied welfare recipients who are currently employed not more than 20 hours per week will be referred to temporary employment with the SWA, effective September 1, 2016. approached with an offer to join the SWA as a work program. These persons will hereafter be referred to as "workfare employees".

  

[White Trash]

Aye

[Anna Komnene]

Aye

[Deblano]

Aye.

[Anna Komnene]

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 0, with 2 not voting.  The AYEs have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I originally thought $10 billion, but it sounded high off-hand to me. We do spend $38 billion on welfare right now, and my hope is that long-term this could bring down welfare spending by getting these people back into the workforce.

[Santander]

What do people think of abolishing all need-based welfare programs and replacing them with universal income?

[Santander]

Might depend on what you mean by need-based welfare programs, but I definitely like the idea of UBI.

Basically all welfare programs that you do not pay into - Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, SSI, CHIP, Obamacare, school meals - plus UI, or at least, as much as we could get away with without stepping on federal toes. Replace everything with universal income, massively cut down on the bureaucracy, and give those who have fallen on hard times the ability to look for a job or do what they need to do to pick themselves up rather than wasting time filling out forms or going through interviews at the welfare office. Let people make their own decisions on their priorities rather than force them to go through a one size fits all government system that makes all the decisions for them.

It would reduce the size of government, corporate welfare, and welfare fraud. By giving people the ability to make their own decisions, it would also likely reduce the number of people who are caught in a cycle of dependency on government. If we must have welfare, let's have welfare based on freedom, rather than on cronyism and inefficiency.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Might depend on what you mean by need-based welfare programs, but I definitely like the idea of UBI.

Basically all welfare programs that you do not pay into - Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, SSI, CHIP, Obamacare, school meals - plus UI, or at least, as much as we could get away with without stepping on federal toes. Replace everything with universal income, massively cut down on the bureaucracy, and give those who have fallen on hard times the ability to look for a job or do what they need to do to pick themselves up rather than wasting time filling out forms or going through interviews at the welfare office. Let people make their own decisions on their priorities rather than force them to go through a one size fits all government system that makes all the decisions for them.

It would reduce the size of government, corporate welfare, and welfare fraud. By giving people the ability to make their own decisions, it would also likely reduce the number of people who are caught in a cycle of dependency on government. If we must have welfare, let's have welfare based on freedom, rather than on cronyism and inefficiency.

     You do make a good case for it. If you could get me some sort of an estimate on what it would save the region compared to the current state of affairs I would definitely appreciate it.

[Deblano]

What do people think of abolishing all need-based welfare programs and replacing them with universal income?

You mean like a basic income?

I think we will need to see how it is implemented around the world first, before we take a swing at something as massive as switching to a system of Basic Income.

[White Trash]

What do people think of abolishing all need-based welfare programs and replacing them with universal income?

You mean like a basic income?

I think we will need to see how it is implemented around the world first, before we take a swing at something as massive as switching to a system of Basic Income.

I agree with this sentiment. There really is no established precedent for this kind of move.

[Anna Komnene]

Unless anyone else has any amendments, we should come up with a final number to allocate in this bill.  I'd prefer it come from Edgar or PiT since they came up with it.  I feel like any number I come up with would be kind of arbitrary.

[Santander]

What do people think of abolishing all need-based welfare programs and replacing them with universal income?

You mean like a basic income?

I think we will need to see how it is implemented around the world first, before we take a swing at something as massive as switching to a system of Basic Income.

The regions are supposed to be laboratories of democracy. There has already been much research on this topic, and several pilot projects run around the world. The reason the pilot projects were not successful is because they were socialist programs which did not reduce the size of the welfare state. If we did it in a libertarian way, research shows that it could work, and most importantly, we would reduce the size of government to something that more closely resembles what the framers had in mind.

[White Trash]

I'd like to go ahead an vote on the bill as is. Moving toward Universal Basic Income is a very radical move and does not seem like it has much support currently.

[Anna Komnene]

Well, the only reason I haven't had a vote on it yet is because the bill currently allocates "X billion" dollars.  That's why I keep asking how much it should be.