Motion to waive the budget requirement

[Gabu]

Given that nowhere is it specified in the Constitution that we can have only one vote on whether or not to delay the budget, I hereby motion that another vote to this end be called in light of the realization in the budget topic with regards to what we will actually need to do in order to balance the budget.  Work on the budget can resume once the amendment I proposed is passed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I agree with the honourable Senator for District Five. However I will not call a vote immediately; I think the other honourable Senators need to have a look at the official budget thread and see quite how big the mess we are in is and then decide whether or not to waive the requirement, instead of just voting "Nay" in a reflex action.

[Ebowed]

I disagree with the honorable Senators from Districts 2 and 5 simply because I have looked at the Budget thread, I see how large the mess is, and I believe we have that balanced budget requirement for a reason.  I think, although the Senate may not look agreeable yet, an acceptable compromise can be found.  I would add that since the deficit is so large, we can't just leave it there to get larger.  Even if we do end up waiving the requirement, I'd encourage a set of "chain saw" budget cuts anyway, so that we don't have to end up evading our constitutional responsibilities next February.

I assure you that my upcoming "Nay" vote on this motion is not 'reflex,' but rather a recognition that we cannot run away from every problem that faces us.

[Gabu]

I disagree with the honorable Senators from Districts 2 and 5 simply because I have looked at the Budget thread, I see how large the mess is, and I believe we have that balanced budget requirement for a reason.  I think, although the Senate may not look agreeable yet, an acceptable compromise can be found.  I would add that since the deficit is so large, we can't just leave it there to get larger.  Even if we do end up waiving the requirement, I'd encourage a set of "chain saw" budget cuts anyway, so that we don't have to end up evading our constitutional responsibilities next February.

I assure you that my upcoming "Nay" vote on this motion is not 'reflex,' but rather a recognition that we cannot run away from every problem that faces us.

As far as I can tell, to bring the deficit within an acceptable level, it seems to me that we're going to need to do a combination of these actions:

1. Abolish or nearly abolish public education.
2. Greatly cut back health services.
3. Greatly cut back social security.
4. Implement a tax increase of some form (and probably a considerable one, unless done in tandem with very large cutbacks).

...or some other form of large service cut.

Quite frankly, any cut large enough to bring the deficit within an acceptable level will hurt no one more than the poorest Atlasians.  Any tax increase large enough will likely hurt our economy, making things even harder next time we go to make the budget.  I really have to wonder if all of these actions are justifiable just to bring the deficit within an acceptable level (note that I don't say "to balance the budget" - there still will be a $200+ billion deficit even so once we're done!).

I agree with Al not to call a vote immediately, but I simply had to raise this issue, as I really think, unless someone can show me wrong, that we're totally screwed (unless you're a hardcore libertarian) as far as the budget goes, at this point.

[Ebowed]

I agree that it is a tough problem and there is no clear solution - yet.  What I do not agree with is that we should just walk away from it; the situation is only going to get worse if we don't at least attempt to fix it.

I think it is fair to say that if we do end up waiving the requirement, we should work on scaling down governmental services anyway (even if it is not down to the constitutionally mandated level), simply because the deficit will only be worse in the next senate session if things stay their course.

That said, last session Senators Q and I were working on a social security gradual phase-out bill, but unfortunately we couldn't work around a couple problems and the idea was never finished.  It is appropriate to bring that plan back into motion, I think.

[Jake]

After seeing the deep cuts we actually must make to our public services to even get close to balancing the budget, I'm forced to vote to delay consideration of the budget. A balanced budget is something for peacetime, and is unworkable with our current committment to public services and a war.

[afleitch]

As a citizen all I can say to you all is - Work out a goddam budget! Or the citizens will eventually elect someone who will.

[Ebowed]

A balanced budget is something for peacetime, and is unworkable with our current committment to public services and a war.

On the contrary.  War and public services are unworkable when we have a constituionally mandated commitment to a balanced budget.

[Gabu]

As a citizen all I can say to you all is - Work out a goddam budget! Or the citizens will eventually elect someone who will.

This vote isn't to say "screw the budget"; it's so we can pass my constitutional amendment that eliminates the requirement for the deficit to be under a certain amount.  As it currently stands, we must pass a budget that cuts over $200 billion out of the budget.  Would you prefer for us to abolish public education and essential health services, or for us to wait a little while longer to enable us to fix this hole we've dug ourselves into?

I fully admit that the balanced budget requirement was a bad idea and I will take full responsibility to that end as one who voted in favor of it.

[Gabu]

A balanced budget is something for peacetime, and is unworkable with our current committment to public services and a war.

On the contrary.  War and public services are unworkable when we have a constituionally mandated commitment to a balanced budget.

What exactly is the point of a balanced budget if we can't do anything we need to do because of it?

[Jake]

I believe I supported it and even wrote a draft of the legislation. Yes, I was young and stupid once too

[Ebowed]

What exactly is the point of a balanced budget if we can't do anything we need to do because of it?

Do we "need" war, social security, and medicare?

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I'd say no, but I'm aware that probably few agree with me.

You seem to think that the balanced budget requirement is inherently evil and/or unworkable, or else you wouldn't be trying to repeal it.  What exactly is great about running huge deficits?  Sacrifices have to be made in order to acheive this requirement, whether it be cutting programs, or raising taxes.  You can't say the problem is just too large to solve and run away from it.  We don't want to become like the real USA, where the deficit is so large that it will basically leave future generations in a bigger problem than there is currently.  Similarly, if we attempt to waive and repeal the requirement, future Senates will look back upon us as fiscally irresponsible.

If you are trying to waive this requirement so that we can work on the budget at a later date, I respect that, but I worry that it just won't get done, and come February a new Senate will be wishing hell upon the current one.

[Bono]

As a citizen all I can say to you all is - Work out a goddam budget! Or the citizens will eventually elect someone who will.

This vote isn't to say "screw the budget"; it's so we can pass my constitutional amendment that eliminates the requirement for the deficit to be under a certain amount.  As it currently stands, we must pass a budget that cuts over $200 billion out of the budget.  Would you prefer for us to abolish public education and essential health services, or for us to wait a little while longer to enable us to fix this hole we've dug ourselves into?

I fully admit that the balanced budget requirement was a bad idea and I will take full responsibility to that end as one who voted in favor of it.

So, you just change the rules you made when you can't play by them?

[The Duke]

Two questons:

1. Are our current deficits "huge" by historical standards, as some have said?

2. Are deficits a drag on the economy?

I believe the answer to both questions is no.

[Bono]

Two questons:

1. Are our current deficits "huge" by historical standards, as some have said?

2. Are deficits a drag on the economy?

I believe the answer to both questions is no.

OK Trostky.

[The Duke]

Two questons:

1. Are our current deficits "huge" by historical standards, as some have said?

2. Are deficits a drag on the economy?

I believe the answer to both questions is no.

OK Trostky.

Yeah, fine.  I'm a big fat communist.  Who wants some government borscht?

Any other arguments against my position?

[Bono]

Two questons:

1. Are our current deficits "huge" by historical standards, as some have said?

2. Are deficits a drag on the economy?

I believe the answer to both questions is no.

OK Trostky.

Yeah, fine.  I'm a big fat communist.  Who wants some government borscht?

Any other arguments against my position?

It's generational egoism. You are just burdening your children with paying the spending you did today. Happy now?

[The Duke]

Two questons:

1. Are our current deficits "huge" by historical standards, as some have said?

2. Are deficits a drag on the economy?

I believe the answer to both questions is no.

OK Trostky.

Yeah, fine.  I'm a big fat communist.  Who wants some government borscht?

Any other arguments against my position?

It's generational egoism. You are just burdening your children with paying the spending you did today. Happy now?

We've been running deficits for 18 of my 22 years on this Earth, yet the top tax bracket in 15% lower today than it was when I was born.  No, deficits today don't result in higher future tax burdens "for our children to pay for" as you say.

[Bono]

Two questons:

1. Are our current deficits "huge" by historical standards, as some have said?

2. Are deficits a drag on the economy?

I believe the answer to both questions is no.

OK Trostky.

Yeah, fine.  I'm a big fat communist.  Who wants some government borscht?

Any other arguments against my position?

It's generational egoism. You are just burdening your children with paying the spending you did today. Happy now?

We've been running deficits for 18 of my 22 years on this Earth, yet the top tax bracket in 15% lower today than it was when I was born.  No, deficits today don't result in higher future tax burdens "for our children to pay for" as you say.

Just wait until the baby boomers start to retire.

[Brandon H]

I agree with Al not to call a vote immediately, but I simply had to raise this issue, as I really think, unless someone can show me wrong, that we're totally screwed (unless you're a hardcore libertarian) as far as the budget goes, at this point.

I concur.

[The Duke]

Two questons:

1. Are our current deficits "huge" by historical standards, as some have said?

2. Are deficits a drag on the economy?

I believe the answer to both questions is no.

OK Trostky.

Yeah, fine.  I'm a big fat communist.  Who wants some government borscht?

Any other arguments against my position?

It's generational egoism. You are just burdening your children with paying the spending you did today. Happy now?

We've been running deficits for 18 of my 22 years on this Earth, yet the top tax bracket in 15% lower today than it was when I was born.  No, deficits today don't result in higher future tax burdens "for our children to pay for" as you say.

Just wait until the baby boomers start to retire.

The boomers are a seperate issue, and it won't be resolved by ending farm subsidies and the Commerce Department.

If anything, this fuss over deficits obscures the real issue of the entitlements going under.  Those are a self-contained problem seperate from the general budget.

[Bono]

Two questons:

1. Are our current deficits "huge" by historical standards, as some have said?

2. Are deficits a drag on the economy?

I believe the answer to both questions is no.

OK Trostky.

Yeah, fine.  I'm a big fat communist.  Who wants some government borscht?

Any other arguments against my position?

It's generational egoism. You are just burdening your children with paying the spending you did today. Happy now?

We've been running deficits for 18 of my 22 years on this Earth, yet the top tax bracket in 15% lower today than it was when I was born.  No, deficits today don't result in higher future tax burdens "for our children to pay for" as you say.

Just wait until the baby boomers start to retire.

The boomers are a seperate issue, and it won't be resolved by ending farm subsidies and the Commerce Department.

If anything, this fuss over deficits obscures the real issue of the entitlements going under.  Those are a self-contained problem seperate from the general budget.

No quite, because, besides colection on SS, they won't be paying income tax anymore(well, they will, but not as much), which will reduce the tax base.

[Platypus]

Guys, we need to increase revenue. However we do it, it'll harm the economy, but if we want to stop the hole getting any bigger, we have to do it now, not 10 budgets down the road.

We need to raise income tax, or implement other forms of taxation, such as a GST.

[Bono]

Guys, we need to increase revenue. However we do it, it'll harm the economy, but if we want to stop the hole getting any bigger, we have to do it now, not 10 budgets down the road.

We need to raise income tax, or implement other forms of taxation, such as a GST.

No, we don't.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

O.K here's a suggestion; we vote to waive the budget requirement and get an ammendment passed that makes our budget system sane and workable (for more than one reason it's neither right now). But we also get to work on legislation designed to help the economy back on it's feet and to cut down on bureaucratic overhead and waste. Then we pass a budget that is designed to further aid economic recovery.