Pacific Legislature Official Thread

[The Duke]

Sacramento is a terrible choice for capital.

Its not the capital, San Francisco is the capital.  We chose to put the bureacracy in Sacramento because its reasonably close to the capital and it already has the infrastructure to support the administration of government.

[The Duke]

I'm going to open debate on all these bills, having amended them when reasonable as per the requests of citizens:

Administrator Reduction Act

1. The Pacific Legislature empowers the Governor and the heads of the Regional Agencies to reduce the number of administrative position in the Pacific Government by 5%.

2. Estimated savings will be $800 million.

Salary Reduction Act

1. All salaries of Regional government employees shall be reduced by 5%.

2. Teachers shall be exempted from this act.

3. Law enforcement officers shall be exempted from this act.

4. Estimated savings will be $1.5 billion.

Consolidation Act

1. Whereas the operations of the Regional government are currently dispersed, and whereas it is beneficial to have them centralized;

2. The Agencies of the Regional Government shall have their headquarters relocated and consolidated into city of Sacramento.

3. Existing facilities shall be used where possible, and new facilities constructed when necessary.

4. This legislation will save an estimated $3.1 billion.

Gambling Revenue Amendment to Tax Code

1. All casinos within the Pacific Region shall pay a 20% tax on their revenues.

2. This tax is comparable to the level of tax that state government's placed on casinos prior to the unification of the tax code.

3. Gambling shall not be extended to or legalized in any jurisdiction where it is not legalized at the time of this bill's passage.

3. Estimated Revenues are $3 billion.

Please vote yes!

[Platypus]

1. Numbers of people lose lose their jobs, please.

2) Did you ask sam for an estimate if a lower limit is imposed of, say, $30,000?

3) For reasons i've already stated, I won't support this; it'll hurt the economies f many small, government towns in the region and obviously the people who live in them.

4) I'll support that.

[The Duke]

Sam's numbers are on the way, btw.  Just waiting, because he's been quite busy with the things that matter.

[Platypus]

Fair enough. Would you consider amending the legislation once his numbers are received?

[The Duke]

Fair enough. Would you consider amending the legislation once his numbers are received?

Initial indications are that there won't be much need for revision of the Salary Reduction Bill, because there aren't many administrators making less than $30,000 a year.  I'd be willing to amend depending on these new numbers.

I would be willing to amend the other bill only if it cannot pass in its current form.  Waste in government will never be scaled back if I am unwilling to to tackle the problem head on.  Efforts like this always get derailed by concerns over the well being of the people being let go.  But someone has to worry about the taxpayer's right not to have to pay people to do make-work jobs.  Reducing unnecessary personnel is long overdue, and I'm determined to do it.

[Sam Spade]

Hugh and John Ford:

1. Estimated number of people who lose their jobs:  2,000

2. Savings if admins under $30,000 are not fired: $775 million, as opposed to $800 million.

Most admins in state (regional) government make more than $30,000 a year.  Very few make less than $30,000 a year.

Set the range at $50,000 or $60,000, that's a different story.

[Platypus]

I think $30,000 is a reasonable amount. It's not good that we'd be reducing wages of those under, say $40,000; but sometimes tough choices have to be made.

Can I also ask for an estimation of how this will affect the economies of cities and towns such as Juneau and Olympia, where government is a/the major industry? Just an opinion would suffice.

[Sam Spade]

I think $30,000 is a reasonable amount. It's not good that we'd be reducing wages of those under, say $40,000; but sometimes tough choices have to be made.

Can I also ask for an estimation of how this will affect the economies of cities and towns such as Juneau and Olympia, where government is a/the major industry? Just an opinion would suffice.

It would probably affect it a decent bit negatively.  However, you would expect Sacramento to boom and I doubt it would have any affect on the conomy at all.

[The Duke]

I have amended the legislation to prevent administrators making less than $30,000 from being fired, as Hugh requested.

Amended legislation:

Administrator Reduction Act

1. The Pacific Legislature empowers the Governor and the heads of the Regional Agencies to reduce the number of administrative position in the Pacific Government by 5%.

2. Administrators currently making less than $30,000 a year will not be fired.

3. Estimated savings will be $775 million.

Salary Reduction Act

1. All salaries of Regional government employees shall be reduced by 5%.

2. Teachers shall be exempted from this act.

3. Law enforcement officers shall be exempted from this act.

4. Estimated savings will be $1.5 billion.

Consolidation Act

1. Whereas the operations of the Regional government are currently dispersed, and whereas it is beneficial to have them centralized;

2. The Agencies of the Regional Government shall have their headquarters relocated and consolidated into city of Sacramento.

3. Existing facilities shall be used where possible, and new facilities constructed when necessary.

4. This legislation will save an estimated $3.1 billion.

Gambling Revenue Amendment to Tax Code

1. All casinos within the Pacific Region shall pay a 20% tax on their revenues.

2. This tax is comparable to the level of tax that state government's placed on casinos prior to the unification of the tax code.

3. Gambling shall not be extended to or legalized in any jurisdiction where it is not legalized at the time of this bill's passage.

3. Estimated Revenues are $3 billion.


Are there any other suggested amendments?

[Platypus]

My $30,000 thing was for the second act, and I think it fits better there; if the ones earning less then $30,000 include people who 'should' be fired, then let them be.

Either way, it's safeguarded, so I support 1, 2 and 4.

And whilst the consolidation act wouldn't have a negative effect on the general regional economy, I don't want to see more ghost towns. I won't be supporting three, personally.

[The Duke]

Well, I'll have to tell Sam he's got more work to do if it was for act #2.  I'd imagine that the savings would be $50 million which is the same 3.2% difference we see in the first act.  That's just a guess, but its the same number of people so I'd guess its a similar change in savings.

[Platypus]

1 and 2 are satisfactory. I think i've been pigheaded enough, honestly. It'd be better in 2; it works in 1.

[The Duke]

With all this resolved, I declare voting open!

Voting begins now and continues until 2:50 pm Pacific Time on Thursday, Novemeber 24th.

[Platypus]

1. Aye
2. Aye
3. Nay
4. Aye

[AkSaber]

1. Aye
2. Aye
3. Aye
4. Aye

[Gabu]

Aye to all.

[WMS]

Aye to all.

[bgwah]

Nay to all

[The Duke]

All four bills have passed, voting over.

[Platypus]

I'm hopeless at legalese, but could we pass a bill banning all gambling on games of luck (or, only allowing those games with an element of skill)? Perhaps with the exclusion of Nevada; if it's necessary.

[The Duke]

I'm hopeless at legalese, but could we pass a bill banning all gambling on games of luck (or, only allowing those games with an element of skill)? Perhaps with the exclusion of Nevada; if it's necessary.

We could, but I would probably not support such a bill.  I know you've mentioned this before, but I don't recall the reasoning.  What was it again?

[Platypus]

if we're going to have a budget dependant on gambling money, let's at least make it gambling money that isn't totally dirty. Games of pure chance-with a very low chance of winning-are the most addictive and most destructive, especially things like pokie machines. I have no problem with allowing games of skill-poker, sports bettingm, etc., even if there is also luck involved. But pure luck games, especially those with a very low chance of success, should be banned. The government shouldn't be rasing revenue that way.

Lotteries could be exempted, because it's not like you put in $500 a day on lottery tickets.

[The Duke]

if we're going to have a budget dependant on gambling money, let's at least make it gambling money that isn't totally dirty. Games of pure chance-with a very low chance of winning-are the most addictive and most destructive, especially things like pokie machines. I have no problem with allowing games of skill-poker, sports bettingm, etc., even if there is also luck involved. But pure luck games, especially those with a very low chance of success, should be banned. The government shouldn't be rasing revenue that way.

I see what you're saying, but I don't totally agree.  I think people need to be responsible for their own actions to some extent.  If they play a game like a slot machine that is based only on luck, and lose, then they have to be the ones to take responsibility for that choice.

If it eases your mind, gambling revenue is barely 1% of all our Region's revenue.  We could end the gambling tax entirely and still we'd have a $8 billion surplus this year.

Lotteries could be exempted, because it's not like you put in $500 a day on lottery tickets.

Well, maybe you don't.

[The Duke]

I want to open debate on my Constitutional Amendment:

Amendment to Restructure Pacific Government

Section 1
1. Section 1:6 of the Pacific Constitution shall be amended to read "The Lieutenant Governor shall be charged with maintainging and updating the Region's Atlas Wiki page, and shall supervise all elections and referenda. But if the Lieutenant Governor is absent or unable to act (due to conflict of interest or otherwise), the Governor may designate another citizen of the Pacific to temporarily perform his duties."

Section 2
1. The position of Chief Justice of the Pacific Region is hereby created.
2. The Chief Justice shall be the presiding judge in all cases, criminal, civil, or otherwise, and will be empowered to determine the outcome of said cases.
3. The Chief Justice is empowered with the authority of Judicial Review, and may review the Constitutionality of laws, if a citizen petitions him to do so, in an open hearing.
4. The Chief Justice shall take his position on appointment by the Governor, and upon confirmation by the Pacific Legislature.  His appointment shall be for an term of life with good behavior.  He must take the oath of office before assuming his duties.
5. The requirements to be named Chief Justice are that a person must be a citizen of the Pacific, a registered voter, and have at least 200 posts.