Support for Atlasia's Soldiers Bill

[Emsworth]

Support for Atlasia's Soldiers Bill

Section 1 - Pay for Armed Forces Personnel
An increase in annual pay of $3,000 for all active duty military personnel and reserve and National Guard personnel serving in a zone of special danger at any time during the fiscal year and an increase in annual pay of $1,000 for all other military personnel shall take effect in fiscal year 2006.

Section 2 - Funding
The funds for the above salary increases shall be derived from the budget of the Defense Department.

Section 3 - Recruitment
Recruitment for the armed forces shall not occur on the grounds of institutions used primarily for public primary or secondary education.

Sponsor: Sen. Q

[MasterJedi]

I'm strongly in favor of this but I believe we should clarify "a zone of special danger".

[Gabu]

Just so I know, what would the funding increase on account of this bill be?

[Defarge]

Excellent. This bill has my complete support.

[Jake]

This bill's third section should be removed unless all avenues of higher education are barred from public school buildings.

[MasterJedi]

Ah crap I misread the third section.

I'd like to introduce this amendment (I know I'm not phrasing it good):

Section 3 is hereby removed.

[Platypus]

Can people please give less propagandised names to their bills?

[True Democrat]

Could we get the Secretary of Defense's opinion on this?

[Q]

Can people please give less propagandised names to their bills?

No.

Besides, how is increasing soldiers' pay not supporting them?

[Jake]

How is removing a large portion of access to recruiting helping them?

[Q]

I'm strongly in favor of this but I believe we should clarify "a zone of special danger".

Thank you for your support as well as your question, Senator.

A zone of special danger is actually a rather specific term, as far as the insurance industry and the Atlasian government is concerned.  The Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act of 1927 established the concept.

I can provide more specific information on this area of law, on which I am actually quite knowledgeable, having written several briefs on it.

[Gabu]

Can people please give less propagandised names to their bills?

No.

Besides, how is increasing soldiers' pay not supporting them?

I believe that Hughento's main complaint is that the name implies that to oppose this bill means that you don't support the troops.

I'm still waiting for an answer with regards to how much of a spending increase this would translate into, by the way.

[Jake]

If we estimate 250,000 soldiers serving in the Middle East during FY 2006, that's 750 million. Assuming 1.4 million active duty, that's another 1.4 billion in spending. Total approximately could come out to anywhere from 2.0 to 2.5 billion dollars.

[Gabu]

If we estimate 250,000 soldiers serving in the Middle East during FY 2006, that's 750 million. Assuming 1.4 million active duty, that's another 1.4 billion in spending. Total approximately could come out to anywhere from 2.0 to 2.5 billion dollars.

In that case, I have to ask why those who supported abolishing the NEA and the NEH based on the fact that it would save us the money it did would support a spending increase that is ten times what was cut with that bill.

I recognize that it's defense spending, which is generally treated as separate from all other spending, but it still completely defeats the stated purpose of abolishing the NEA and the NEH, given that now we'll have to cut another couple billion dollars from the budget to fit this in.

If some who supported abolishing the NEA and the NEH also oppose this spending increase, then I congratulate those people for being consistent.

[Ebowed]

In that case, I have to ask why those who supported abolishing the NEA and the NEH based on the fact that it would save us the money it did would support a spending increase that is ten times what was cut with that bill.

This is an excellent question, Gabu.  Let's look at who supported abolishing the NEA and who supports a pay raise for Atlasian soldiers.

Oppose federal funding of artwork:
- Sen. Q;
- Sen. Ebowed;
- Sen. Colin Wixted;
- Sen. PBrunsel;
- Sen. DanielX.

Supports a pay raise for soliders:
- Sen. Q;
- Sen. Defarge;
- Sen. MasterJedi.
(And possible others who have not yet stated their opinion.)

So now, why not address Sen. Q personally?

As to your question, here's a possible reason.  Some people do this thing called thinking about issues separately.  They might have an ideology, but it doesn't have to dictate their opinions on every single issue.  So if someone opposes spending federal dollars on artwork, but supports a pay raise for soldiers, perhaps it's not strictly about the money.  Perhaps it's about the artwork and the soldiers.

Furthermore, you appear to be criticizing Sen. Q for wanting to cut funds in one area and raise them in another.  It's almost as if you were saying he doesn't care about the deficit now.  But you opposed abolishing the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities because it would save only a small amount of money.  I suppose my question to you is, at what monetary point does a program or organization become too expensive that you would support its abolition?

I recognize that it's defense spending, which is generally treated as separate from all other spending, but it still completely defeats the stated purpose of abolishing the NEA and the NEH, given that now we'll have to cut another couple billion dollars from the budget to fit this in.

Well, Gabu, aside from the fact that we were wasting money on those two organizations (no matter how small you consider that amount to be), there's also the problem that we were spending taxpayer money on artwork, literature, and other things that they may find tasteless, offensive, or pointless.  I realize it's impossible to please everyone, but spending the people's money on subsidizing art seems like a way to make people deliberately mad.  Suppose some bigot opposes his money being spent on grants for a homosexual conceptual artist, or someone who is a fan of classic art but is disgusted that his money would be spent on "abstract" art?

Now, I don't really see how this pay increase will defeat the purpose of abolishing those two organizations.  Saving that money makes such a pay increase partially possible, even if it doesn't account for it adequately.  Every little bit helps, Senator.

If some who supported abolishing the NEA and the NEH also oppose this spending increase, then I congratulate those people for being consistent.

Anyone who seriously believes that a person who supports lowering the deficit by elimination unnecessary organizations while supporting what they view as a necessary pay raise for soldiers (the necessity is debatable) can't be consistent is taking an overly simplistic view of the situation.  You don't honestly believe that Senator Q is ideologically inconsistent for opposing federal funding of artwork as one way to help reduce the deficit, no matter how small the impact, just because he supports increased defense spending?  I could make the same charge about you; you support federal funding of artwork yet don't appear to like this bill because it requires more money being spent.  Would it be fair to call you inconsistent?

[MasterJedi]

Just FTR I support a large cut for the NEA and NEH but not abolishing them, that's why I voted against the bill.


Anyway Section 3 really needs to go and I found a better way to phrase my amendment:

Section 3 is hereby stricken from the bill.

[Q]

Anyway Section 3 really needs to go and I found a better way to phrase my amendment:

Section 3 is hereby stricken from the bill.

I would perhaps consider revising Section 3 such that its only effect will be to eliminate the Solomon Amendment.

[Q]

If some who supported abolishing the NEA and the NEH also oppose this spending increase, then I congratulate those people for being consistent.

With all due respect, Senator Gabu, I do not believe that financing government-mandated "art" and affording military families a decent living in return for their tremendous sacrifices are nearly equivalent.


Also, thank you, Senator Ebowed, for coming to my defense.  Very well said.

[MasterJedi]

Anyway Section 3 really needs to go and I found a better way to phrase my amendment:

Section 3 is hereby stricken from the bill.

I would perhaps consider revising Section 3 such that its only effect will be to eliminate the Solomon Amendment.

I could go with that.

[Ebowed]

I would support the repeal of that amendment.

[MasterJedi]

After thinking about I'll drop my amendment and do this instead.




Section 3 is hereby replaced with: "The Solomon Amendment is hereby repealed.

[Defarge]

I will support the repeal of the Solomon Amendment. 

[Q]

After thinking about I'll drop my amendment and do this instead.

Section 3 is hereby replaced with: "The Solomon Amendment is hereby repealed.

I will support this amendment.

Reasoned compromise pleases me.

[DanielX]

I propose an amendment:

The bill shall hereby be re-written as follows:

Support for Atlasia's Soldiers Bill

Section 1 - Pay for Armed Forces Personnel
An increase in annual pay of $2,000 for all active duty military personnel and reserve and National Guard personnel serving in a zone of special danger at any time during the fiscal year.

Section 2 - Funding
The funds for the above salary increases shall be derived from the budget of the Defense Department.

Section 3 - Definition of a Zone of Special Danger
A zone of special danger shall be defined as an area where there is a significant amount of active combat, in which the risk to military personnel is substantially above the norm.
[/quote]

[MasterJedi]

First I'd say to DanielX that I won't be supporting his change but only mine.



Second is that it has been 24 hours with no debate on my amendment, can we have a vote? (Yes they have said they agree but that's not really debate)