SB 2016-028: New Economic Atlasian Regulation Act (Failed)

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Public Submission by: Kinpoleon

72 hours for debate. I have invited the sponsor to speak on the bill.

[Kingpoleon]

I'd like to help create an economic environment that our businesses and communities will thrive in while not hurting consumers, and I believe this bill is just the way to do just that.

[Blair]

As much as I support Kingpoleon on this; and helped pass something similar in the Northeast it reminds me of the lesson that if you're unsure of something in Government you create a commission to avoid it

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm also skeptical of the practice of what is seemingly creating new positions for the sake of having new positions.  Like Blair, I had a negative experience trying this as Northeast Governor (though the aims were slightly different).  Unfortunately, I honestly can't see this committee garnering much interest or serving any real purpose if we go through with it, so I'm going to need a lot of convincing before I vote on this.

[Kingpoleon]

In the North, a similar version successfully brought about economic growth for a short period before it was destroyed by the reset. This will benefit our economy and our economic standing. I hope it provides economic stability for now, as that is vital to our economy in the wake of the reset and this inactivity, and then its efficiency will hopefully be enough to maintain a good economy for Atlasia in the years to come.

[Senator Cris]

This act has my support. It played well in the North and I think this shall be the role of the government: help our businnesses, our citizens, improve the economic environment.

[tmthforu94]

In Clause B, why are only former managers/employees allowed, not current ones? Also, why specify that they have to be in a union? Not all industries are unionized.

Also, is the Chair supposed to be an actual Atlasian citizen?

[Kingpoleon]

In Clause B, why are only former managers/employees allowed, not current ones? Also, why specify that they have to be in a union? Not all industries are unionized.

Also, is the Chair supposed to be an actual Atlasian citizen?

Current ones may have on ongoing conflict of interest. As for being in unions, it gives them experience on both sides.

Yes, they are.

[tmthforu94]

In Clause B, why are only former managers/employees allowed, not current ones? Also, why specify that they have to be in a union? Not all industries are unionized.

Also, is the Chair supposed to be an actual Atlasian citizen?

Current ones may have on ongoing conflict of interest. As for being in unions, it gives them experience on both sides.

Yes, they are.

On both sides as in? Union and employee? Why not allow for employees that are unionized AND non-unionzed? Provides two different perspectives.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm still not confident that the creation of this board will garner any interest or activity.

(Minor note: section 1a will have to be modified to change "Assembly" to "Congress.")

[Kingpoleon]

I'm still not confident that the creation of this board will garner any interest or activity.

(Minor note: section 1a will have to be modified to change "Assembly" to "Congress.")

Of course. On the modification, that is.

I'm confident that it will encourage the regions's economies. It also provides a set economic plan for Atlasian regulations and the economy without overt interference.

[tmthforu94]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

24 for hours for sponsor/senator objection.

Additionally, I'd appreciate a breakdown of how that $1.25 billion is being spent. How did you come up with that figure? That is a lot of money to hand over to an advisory board without specific guidelines.

[tmthforu94]

With no objections, the amendment is adopted.

I'll allow another 24 hours for the sponsor to respond to questions on the floor.

[Kingpoleon]

Implementation of these repeals alongside potential hiring a staff and bureacracy to carry out its orders should cost a good deal. I'm hopeful that it won't need re funded for a long time with such a big nest egg to start off with.

[Blair]

Could we tie this into a big infrastructure deal later?

[tmthforu94]

I'm generally not in favor of increasing government bureaucracy, and while I do think it is important to cut burdensome regulations, I'm not sure I like the idea of giving a large sum of money to a bureaucracy without clear objectives. All it would be doing is going through our laws and finding ways to de-regulate and streamline the process, then proposing changes to Congress for us to debate and vote on. $1.25 billion seems like a lot for that.

[tmthforu94]

Since there has not been debate in over 24 hours, we will now proceed to a final vote. Senators, please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.


Nay

While I appreciate the spirit of the bill and would look to tie this into a bigger bill later on, I don't feel writing such a large check for a bureaucracy.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

My concerns with this legislation remain as well as those mentioned by Tmth.  Nay.

[Blair]

Abstain

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

With 1 in favor, 2 opposed and 1 abstaining, this has failed in the Senate.