District 2 Senatorial Debate-Live from Philladelphia, PA

[SPC]

Hello, I am South Park Conservative, here to moderate the District 2 Senatorial Debate, sponsered by the National Weekly Atlasian.

Our first question of the two-day debate comes from bullmoose of Pennsylvania. This is for all the candidates to answer:

If elected, how will you further the interests of the district in an effective manner?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

First of all, I want to thank South Park Conservative for holding this forum, those who participated in asking questions, and especially thank those of you who are taking the time to read these responses!

If elected, how will you further the interests of the district in an effective manner?

Well, to advance the interests of the district, it takes someone who actually knows the district.  As I've said before, I've lived in both New England and Pennsylvania, in the suburbs, exurbs, and urban areas of this great District.  And it's that kind of familiarity, I believe, that will give me the tools to be an effective legislator.

For example, as a resident, I know how crucial mass transit is to our District.  I know how much the Lehigh Valley would benefit from a commuter rail connection to New York City.  And I know how existing infrastructure significantly reduces the costs makes this an affordable reality.

I know how organized labor is a significant player in our district.  I'm a strong supporter of union workers in the great North Eastern Republican tradition, realizing that government cannot give in to unions at every turn, but has a duty to negotiate and come to terms that all can accept.

And having lived in Pennsylvania, I'm sharply aware how international trade has hurt the district.  From the abandoned manufacturing plants of Massachusetts to the long-since cooled steel mills of Pennsylvania, an unbalanced, unfair trade relationship with China is causing the hard working people of the Second District extreme economic distress.  From ignoring Kyoto and even its basic ecological protections to constructing government subsidies that American business just can't compete with, China—perhaps more so than any of our trading partners—has shown a total, blatant disregard for the kind of free, open trading policies that America has negotiated with it.  That hurts this district more, perhaps, than any other in Atlasia.  We need to take a hard line with China and make sure it lives up with its end of the free trade bargain because right now, it's not.
 
And finally, as a taxpayer in the second district, I know how important it is to keep the line on spending.  I've proposed two key initiatives: the introduction of an Atlasian Lottery Commission, and the Health Care Access Expansion Act of 2007, both of which will be net revenue raisers for taxpayers, insure more Atlasians, and drop property taxes—all at the same time.

But simply mentioning these issues isn't enough.  The next senator of the second district must be able to cite facts, debate the issues successfully, and build support to win over the 4–5 extra votes needed to pass an agenda that will benefit the taxpayers of the second district.  My past work in politics as a writer, as a campaign worker, and as a journalist make me uniquely positioned to do this...and to be a strong player in Atlasian politics and an effective Atlasian Senator.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If elected, how will you further the interests of the district in an effective manner?

To begin with, I'm a long term resident of Delaware, and have indicated that I intend to stay here.  You need not worry that I'll move to another State seeking electoral advantage.

I have also shown by previous experience that unlike some of the candidates here on stage, I will carefully craft the legislation I present before the Senate.  This crafting increases the chances that something will actually get done.  Indeed, one of the two bills to pass the moribund and oft contentious 19th Senate was the Immigration Reform Act of 2007 I proposed.

That success is because I come up with specific proposals, not ones that contain handwaving generalities and assumptions.  Contrast Mr. Moderate's Health Care Access Expansion Act of 2007 to the last major bill I put before the Senate ere I declined to run for another term as Northeast Senator, the Carbon Tax Act.  My bill set a specific goal, to reduce Atlasian carbon dioxide emissions back to their level in the calendar year 1990, and provided a mechanism to gently increase the economic incentive to reach such a goal.  Mr. Moderate's on the other hand is a method centered approach, and as proposed by him provided no mechanism to check that its supposed goal, of increasing affordable health care access, would actually be met.   One needs to keep both goal and method in mind when holding the people's trust.

I'd also like to comment on a point made by Mr. Moderate.  He alleged that China has ignored Kyoto.  However, China, unlike most European nations, will meet its obligations under Kyoto.  Unfortunately, that is because under Kyoto, China has no obligations. Such flaws, as well as others, are why I am opposed to joining Kyoto ourselves, as has been proposed from time to time in the Senate.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Thanks for question Bullmoose, I would like to start by saying that the most important part of representing a district is listening to what people want and proposing bills if they ask.  I've sponsored bills like True Dems Atlasia Committee Bill because I feel that just because a person is not in the senate does not mean that they cannot be active in our process.  Did I think it was the greatest bill?  Of course not, but I felt I could do something for a citizen who could not it for themselves.  I have sponsored amendments for people if they propose them by simply copying and pasting.

I also will continue with forum affairs reform that makes things easier for people to understand Atlasia.  We do not want Atlasia to turn into a burecratic nation, and things like the Fairness to the Voter and Fairness to the Office Holder Amendment do things like that.   I had proposed a second Fairness to the Voter Amendment, but I have withdrawn it for the time after I did not like the wording of the bill because it allowed people to move between a general election and a runoff.

Again, as senator my office while remain open and will consider no valid request too small, and I will continue to be the most active and easily accessible senator.  The most important thing to remember about being in the senate is it your constituents who put you there to represent them, you must remember their interests when you do anything as a senator.  I hope that answers your question.

[AndrewTX]

First, I would like to thank South Park Conservative for moderating this debate, as well as thank the National Weekly Atlasian for sponsering this debate.

If elected, how will you further the interests of the district in an effective manner?

 That is a terrific question.  If elected to the Senate, my office will remain open at all times for any questions, or suggestions that members of our district might have. I believe that the key to a sucsesfull term in office, as well as be highly approved by your fellow members, is to always listen to their needs, and concerns. I've said it again, I will not be a puppet for any party. I greatly love and respect the party that I belong to, but if the members of this district are opposed to current legislation that is up for voting, and they voice their concerns to me, I will follow the needs of District 2.

 I am a strong beliver of having the Government belong to the hands of the people, and I promise to do my best to keep that power with the members of this district. It is important to have fresh ideas, and new blood in our Government, and thats why I promise to serve a maximum of 2 terms if elected and re-elected.

 I do not plan on moving to any other district, at any other time to seek an easier election. I live in Connecticut, and will continue to live in Connecticut, regardless of any possible district changes in the future.

 I also plan to keep an open, honest, and friendly relationship with all members of Atlasia, including those of other districts.

   Thank you, and I hope this answers your question.

[SPC]

Okay, here's our next question from Sensei of Florida:

What will be your relationship with the left and such groups as the Progressive Caucus and the ACLC if elected?

[DownWithTheLeft]

What will be your relationship with the left and such groups as the Progressive Caucus and the ACLC if elected?

As I have demonstarted with some of the bills I have introduced and some of the votes I have taken, I pander to neither side and certainly do not pander to special interest groups.  My relationship would certainly not be one of hostility, but it would be the same as I do now, one of indifference.  That being said, I am also indifferent to right leaning special interest groups, although very few, if any exist.  If Atlasia has come to a point where politicians are put in with special groups support, maybe we need to rethink to how our system works.  I ask my opponents to follow my lead and also not pander to special interest groups.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I would like to respond briefly to some comments made by the gentleman from Delaware, if I may.

I have also shown by previous experience that unlike some of the candidates here on stage, I will carefully craft the legislation I present before the Senate.  This crafting increases the chances that something will actually get done.  Indeed, one of the two bills to pass the moribund and oft contentious 19th Senate was the Immigration Reform Act of 2007 I proposed.

I firmly believe that the next senator from the Second District must strike a balance when crafting legislation.  Bills need to be presented in a more professional, well-thought out, and spellchecked way than is currently being done by the incumbent.  But bills also need to be concise and accessable to the other 9 senators so we can have real debate and discussion.

A prime example is the Immigration Reform Act of 2007 you just mentioned.  Senator DWTL called the bill "hard to comprehend."  And, worse yet, our President admitted, and I quote, that he "might die before I actually am able to read the entire text of this bill"!

That success is because I come up with specific proposals, not ones that contain handwaving generalities and assumptions.  Contrast Mr. Moderate's Health Care Access Expansion Act of 2007 to the last major bill I put before the Senate ere I declined to run for another term as Northeast Senator, the Carbon Tax Act.  My bill set a specific goal, to reduce Atlasian carbon dioxide emissions back to their level in the calendar year 1990, and provided a mechanism to gently increase the economic incentive to reach such a goal.  Mr. Moderate's on the other hand is a method centered approach, and as proposed by him provided no mechanism to check that its supposed goal, of increasing affordable health care access, would actually be met.   One needs to keep both goal and method in mind when holding the people's trust.

I must admit to a bit of confusion regarding the gentleman's comments here.  Like the Carbon Tax Act, my Health Care Access Expansion Act of 2007 has a set goal: expanding the availability of health insurance to small businesses, and enrolling 1,000,000 new Atlasians in health insurance plans.

It also has a very simple method to check its supposed goals: a two-minute phone call to an insurance administrator to check on new enrollment numbers.  I see little reason to codify an increase in bureacracy when common sense could instead carry the day.

And best of all, the bill—when combined with a circuit breaker clause that allows it to take effect only after a net reduction of rates has been negotiated by the government—actually saves Atlasian taxpayers money by reducing expenditures on its own employees' health coverage!  It's a terrific, win-win bill, and I hope all my opponents would seriously consider supporting it should they find themselves in the Senate.

Now, to address the Carbon Tax Act.  I'm a strong believer in protecting our environment, but as written, the Carbon Tax Act—passed, sadly, with little debate—will prove disasterous for the families of the Second District.  I don't know how much the gentleman from Delaware makes, but I challenge him to explain how an average family in the Second District could afford such a tax, never mind how a low-income family could afford it!

First off, a punitive $0.50/gallon tax is not, as he claims, "very modest."  For a family that only consumes only 10 gallons of gas a week, this amounts to a tax hike of $260 by 2017.  Hybrid cars can ease the sting here, as can alternative commuting methods, but both are options that not everyone has.

Then, consider the hike in electric bills.  Based on the average electricity usage in the northeast, by 2017, this tax will cost the second district another $360 per year.

Now, worse of all is something that we just cannot avoid: home heating.  Pity the poor soul who has to pay to heat his or her home—a family that consumes the national average 730 gallons of heating oil per year will give off 7.4 metric tons of CO₂, costing yet another $370 per year by 2017!  And that's before you consider that a home in the northeast consumes more heating oil than the national average, because of the colder winter climates!  

How does a family mitigate that $1,000 yearly cash crunch?  A low-income family sure can't afford the drastic one-time expense of converting an oil heated home to something more carbon friendly, and the Carbon Tax bill gives them no assistance in doing so.

And what about industry and dirty manufacturing?  This bill as written only targets fossil fuel use, creating a massive loophole!

A much more reasoned approach would have been to set a baseline—let's take 1990 here, since Ernest suggested it—and then tax carbon output that exceeds those levels.  Or, at the very least, provide additional tax breaks for lower and middle class families so that they don't bear the brunt of the financial blow.  Perhaps use the tax reciepts to provide low- or no-interest loans to families to convert to cleaner burning fuel technologies like natural gas.  The bill provides for none of these.

For such a well-crafted bill, there are a number of very unsettling problems with it.  We need to exhibit EXTREME caution when forcing a new tax on Atlasian families, ESPECIALLY one of this magnitude.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

What will be your relationship with the left and such groups as the Progressive Caucus and the ACLC if elected?

I pride myself with being able to work with both sides of the aisle, both conservative and progressive.  Certainly, I'm not going to agree with a given person or caucus on every issue, but I'm more than happy to try to use my position as an Independent to bridge the gap and work with both sides when there is at least potential for compromise.

This would include offering friendly amendments and working with bill sponsors to help make fundamentally progressive bills more acceptable to the conservative bloc.  Should such measures fail, and should the bill be sound and in the interests of the people of the Second District, I would not hesitate to support such legislation anyway.

Personally, I consider myself to be socially liberal but rather fiscally conservative.  I do not envision myself to be a crusader for social issues, but regardless, I'll stand up and support a good bill when I see it.

[AndrewTX]

What will be your relationship with the left and such groups as the Progressive Caucus and the ACLC if elected?

 I believe that I would work well with the other groups if elected. My posts have already shown that I on many occasions have an independent mind, and I am ready and willing to work with whoever it takes to ensure that we get what we need done, that is right for the people.
 
 I will not agree with the Republicans and Conservatives on every issue, and I'm not going to agree with the Democrats, and Liberals on every issue. I will stand up for what is right, and if that means working with the members of the opposite caucus, than so be it. I will put the intersts of the Second District ahead of the intersts of a party.

 As I have stated earlier, I consider myself to be fiscally conservative, and socially moderate (Like one of my opponents, Mr. Moderate), and I agree with him when it comes down to it, I too will stand up and support a good bill when it comes around.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wish to respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts last comments before answering the second question:

I must admit to a bit of confusion regarding the gentleman's comments here.  Like the Carbon Tax Act, my Health Care Access Expansion Act of 2007 has a set goal: expanding the availability of health insurance to small businesses, and enrolling 1,000,000 new Atlasians in health insurance plans.

It also has a very simple method to check its supposed goals: a two-minute phone call to an insurance administrator to check on new enrollment numbers.  I see little reason to codify an increase in bureaucracy when common sense could instead carry the day.

And best of all, the bill—when combined with a circuit breaker clause that allows it to take effect only after a net reduction of rates has been negotiated by the government—actually saves Atlasian taxpayers money by reducing expenditures on its own employees' health coverage!  It's a terrific, win-win bill, and I hope all my opponents would seriously consider supporting it should they find themselves in the Senate.

I meant by my comments that the bill includes no mechanism for furthering its stated goal, should its chosen mechanism prove unable to achieve it.  The Carbon Tax Act not only a mechanism for graduated increases in the carbon tax until its goal is met, it also includes a means to halt further increases once the goal is met.

I also should point out that the circuit breakers mentioned were only added after it was pointed out that his bill as originally proposed could have the effect of increasing health care costs should its assumptions prove unwarranted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His dire economic prognosis assumes that the Federal Government chooses not to reduce other taxes as a result of the revenues raised by the Carbon Tax.  I'll freely admit that I chose not to specify how the revenues raised were to be used.  I wished to avoid having the bill becoming mired down or rejected because of disputes over which taxes were to be reduced or which programs were to be funded as a result of those revenues.  Besides, with a graduated phase-in of the tax over 10 years initially, I believed that it would be wiser to let future Senates make those decisions as they would have better and more immediate information on the revenues raised and the economic effects caused.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Carbon taxes passed in other countries have usually included loopholes for various industries, this bill provides no such loophole.  While there are other greenhouse gases, according to the IPCC, carbon dioxide is responsible for about 70% of the increase in the greenhouse effect since 1750.  Two other major contributors, methane and nitrous oxide, result primarily not from industry but how we choose to use land, especially for agriculture.  Land use is primarily a Regional issue, not a Federal one.  Lastly, the fourth major constituent, halocarbons are minor compared to the other three and are already regulated under the Montreal Convention because of their effect on ozone depletion with regulations that are more stringent than other greenhouse gases.  There are no doubt additional Federal measures that could be added to address these other components.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The gentleman from Massachusetts would have us reward past emitters of greenhouse gases and establish a bureaucracy so we could distinguish between pre-1990 emitters and post-1990 emitters.  Worse, without a bureaucratic carbon emission trading scheme, such a plan would provide no incentive to pre-1990 emitters to reduce emissions.  To quote the gentleman from Massachusetts: "I see little reason to codify an increase in bureaucracy when common sense could instead carry the day."  A carbon tax on fossil fuels has the advantage of simplicity that he says he favors in government policy.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

His dire economic prognosis assumes that the Federal Government chooses not to reduce other taxes as a result of the revenues raised by the Carbon Tax.

My apologies for missing the accompanying tax cut bill that you offered the Senate—a high priority item, no doubt, since the carbon tax takes effect almost immediately!

The gentleman from Massachusetts would have us reward past emitters of greenhouse gases and establish a bureaucracy so we could distinguish between pre-1990 emitters and post-1990 emitters.  Worse, without a bureaucratic carbon emission trading scheme, such a plan would provide no incentive to pre-1990 emitters to reduce emissions.  To quote the gentleman from Massachusetts: "I see little reason to codify an increase in bureaucracy when common sense could instead carry the day."  A carbon tax on fossil fuels has the advantage of simplicity that he says he favors in government policy.

To clarify, my intent here was a measured average, and not a specific case-by-case basis (the latter of which would likely not even be bureaucratically feasable).  It's a bit difficult to elegantly amend that which defies inexpensive elegance.  As you can no doubt divine from my suggestions, I do favor a carbon trading system over a "flat carbon tax."

In my own defense to your latter point, to further optimize bureaucratic simplicity, I would have simply voted against the bill in its current form!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

His dire economic prognosis assumes that the Federal Government chooses not to reduce other taxes as a result of the revenues raised by the Carbon Tax.

My apologies for missing the accompanying tax cut bill that you offered the Senate—a high priority item, no doubt, since the carbon tax takes effect almost immediately!

Since the projected revenues in the first year (the tax in 2008 is one-tenth of that which will be in place in 2017) will be less than our projected budget deficit, the need for immediate decisions is low, as eliminating the deficit is a desirable goal.  If you have ideas of spending we can cut so that taxes can be responsibly reduced sooner, I will be glad to entertain them when I'm in the Senate.

[SPC]

Okay, here's our next question, from Jas of Iowa:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

His dire economic prognosis assumes that the Federal Government chooses not to reduce other taxes as a result of the revenues raised by the Carbon Tax.

My apologies for missing the accompanying tax cut bill that you offered the Senate—a high priority item, no doubt, since the carbon tax takes effect almost immediately!

Since the projected revenues in the first year (the tax in 2008 is one-tenth of that which will be in place in 2017) will be less than our projected budget deficit, the need for immediate decisions is low, as eliminating the deficit is a desirable goal.  If you have ideas of spending we can cut so that taxes can be responsibly reduced sooner, I will be glad to entertain them when I'm in the Senate.

The need for immediate decisions is low from a "balanced budget" standpoint, but not from the standpoint of a low-income taxpayer who is struggling to pay their bills as it is!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What will be your relationship with the left and such groups as the Progressive Caucus and the ACLC if elected?

I expect that the ACLC will like me better than the Progressive Caucus.  As a classical liberal, I fall to the left of center on social issues, but to the right of center on economic ones, under the usual left-right divide.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Okay, here's our next question, from Jas of Iowa:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I will answer this question even though I am in the senate and my votes reflect it.  I think some of the ideas, like the Introduction to Atlasia Bill, were a good idea.  I approve of their plans to clean up forum affairs.  However, I disapprove of some of their reforms that try and all but eliminate the powers of the senate.  In my opinion, some of their reforms basically make the senate a board of suggestions rather a legislative body.  The administration wants to expand presidential power to increase the number of vetoes, something very hard to overcome in an remotely closely divided senate.  They also have a plan to allow a people's referendum which would really turn us from a republic to a direct democracy.  If some of their plans are pushed through, there really is no reason for the senate at all, their power will resemble that of the United Nations. 

Forum affairs reform is something that I have championed and done something about with the bills I have sponsored and had pass.  We cannot stop now from making the game easier to understand yet at the same time bigger and more detailed.   Needless restrictions, including almost all of Article 5 of the constitution need to be repealed.  In my next term in the senate I will continue to fight the fight I have fought.  Thank you

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People’s Referendum Amendment
Nay - Besides my preference for small-r republicanism over small-d democracy, this is supposed to be an election simulation, not a government simulation.  Adding Federal referenda will reduce the value of the elections we conduct in Atlasia.

Expansion of Presidential Line Item Veto Power Amendment
Neutral - It's intended effect is minimal, or would be if we had presidents proposing legislation more often than they have in the past.  However, it's title is misleading as it has nothing to do with the line item, rather it provides a mechanism for a President to veto a bill, and provide an alternative that jumps in at the start of the line rather than the end of the line of legislation in the Senate queue if the veto is not overturned.

Popular Initiative Amendment
Nay - I don't see the point.  I haven't noticed a problem in getting Senators to sponsor non-Senatorial originating bills.

Judicial Term Limits Amendment
Neutral - In real life I'd be opposed, but for Atlasia, 12 months is a lengthy term in any office.  I would offer an amendment to lengthen the term limit to either 20 or 24 months though.  Such a change would make me a marginal supporter of the measure.

Proportional Representation Bill & End to Districts Amendment
Nay - It does have the benefit of eliminating the need for a census, but I'm not happy with its method of resolving vacancies.  I'd prefer eliminating by-elections and going to a two month term if we have proportionally elected Senators.  I'm not opposed to going to a PR system, but the PR system it would establish does not meet my approval.

Change of Registration Bill
Aye - Clarifies and gives formal approval to existing practice.

Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (Amendment) Bill
As written: Nay - There needs to be some time between the certification of the vote and the opening of the runoff so as to allow suits to be filed.  Would favor a modified bill consisting of Section 2 alone or Section 2 with a modified Section 1.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Okay, here's our next question, from Jas of Iowa:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excellent question.  By and large, I do support the majority of reforms.

The easiest vote for me is the Change of Registration Bill.  I whole heartedly support it as a common-sense measure.

I lean toward supporting the expanded line item veto power.  So long as the Senate retains the ability to "veto the veto," it seems like a modest way of giving the Presidency more teeth.

I lean toward supporting the "People's Veto" as well, which the Second District's own state of Maine has already adopted, with much success.  I do like the direction the debate has taken in the Senate, as I favor a region-based mechanism over the simple "20% method."

Still, I maintain a general distrust for I&R, which tends to serve much too often as a tool to enforce the tyranny of the majority.  That's why, if Senator, I would introduce an amendment requiring a two-thirds vote from the public to override, rather than a simple majority.  Further, any People's Veto amendment that I would support needs to have a clear time table for action—the process for the People's Veto should start no later than one week from the President's signing of a bill (lest the People's Veto be used as a tool to dredge up old business from years prior).

This gives the people a way to keep their government in check, without destroying the rationale for having a Senate in the first place.  The People's Veto is a good idea, but it should be held in high regard as a tool of last resort.

With regard to Judicial Term Limits, the amendment seems misnamed: I have no opposition to judges serving as many terms as future Presidents may wish to name them to, and would not support "term limits" in that sense.  Most states, however, do have a mechanism for a renomination process of judges.  I think that would be a welcome addition, and I support the text of the amendment. 

I feel that the Popular Initiative Amendment is largely unnecessary, and would likely never need be utilized.  Still, since it is not a "true" I & R amendment (and thus tyranny of the majority would not be a factor), I'm not in total, absolute opposition.

At the moment, I stand opposed to the Proportional Representation Bill, largely because I do not see an immediate need for it.  My opposition to the bill is soft, however, and I look forward to hearing the debate in the Senate.

On the Consolidated Election Reform Amendment, I'm rather neutral.  I'd like to see how any amendments play out before coming down firmly on either side.

[AndrewTX]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, as with any administration, there will always be proposals from the Presidents administration that I would disagree with, but overall I support many of their proposals that were presented to the Senate.

 Some of the reforms that were introduced would be tough decisions, and there would be some that I may have abstained from. Others have great potential but need changes, and rewrites before I could consider voting in support of these measures. I appologize for the quick and short answer, but I was just handed a last minute report at work, and I don't want to hold up the debate.

[SPC]

Our next three questions come from King of Hawaii:

I'm not a D2 member, but I have three questions:

(1) This question is for Mr. Moderate and AndrewCT:  Unlike Ernest and DWTL, neither of you have been elected to public office in Atlasia before.*  How would you make up for this lack of inexperience? Do you believe it would be beneficial?

(2) This question is for Ernest, Mr. Moderate and AndrewCT: The current Senate is perhaps one of the most predicable in history.  It is usually Ebowed, Al, Rob, Lewis and Earl voting one way and DownWithTheLeft, PBrunsel, Brandon H, Keystone Phil and Sam Spade voting the other with whoever having the most on vacation losing control of the legislature, at least for that period of time.  What side would you likely vote on if elected or would you be a swing voter? If you think you would be a swing Senator, defend your answer with proof to show you aren't lying.

(3) This question is for DownWithTheLeft:  You tend to introduce a lot of legislation only to withdraw it which clutters up the Senate.  I consider this a problem. How do you plan to fix this high amount of error in your work?


* At least to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong--if I am, then instead of public office put "Senate."

[DownWithTheLeft]

(3) This question is for DownWithTheLeft:  You tend to introduce a lot of legislation only to withdraw it which clutters up the Senate.  I consider this a problem. How do you plan to fix this high amount of error in your work?

King, the reason I withdraw my bills as far from a negative, it is in fact a positive thing.  The reason I withdraw my bills is if they do not look to have enough support to pass.  Unlike some senators, I do not want to entangle the senate with a bill that is destin to fail.  For example, let us take the Yates Cancer Research Bill and Acceptance of Science Bill.  I withdrew the Yates Cancer Reserach Bill because it had gotten out of hand and was not going to pass.  This would have saved the senate weeks of frivulously debating and amending this bill which failed miserably when it came up for a vote.  Had it been withdrawn, we could have moved onto bills that mattered miore and had good chances of passing.  The Acceptance of Bill was the pinnacle of this, it lasted 15 pages of debate and over a month even though it was clear from the beginning it would fail when it came up for a final vote.

How do I plan to rectify this?  I plan to use my office to post bills, this process sometimes makes the bills take much, much longer to come up due to the high frequency of bills being put forth.  If I think a bill will not have enough support, I will withdraw it beforehand as I have done before, or withdraw it when it hits the senate immediatley if support is not there.  It is hardly a waste of time, no more than voting on one amendment to a bill or such.  The people who should be criticized are those who leave a bill out there to fail and clog up the senate from taking on more pressing issues.  I hope that answers your question, but feel free to enter a further rebuttal

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Unlike Ernest and DWTL, neither of you have been elected to public office in Atlasia before.  How would you make up for this lack of inexperience? Do you believe it would be beneficial?

It's true, I'm a newcomer to Atlasian politics.  But I certainly think that's a strength rather than a weakness.  Let's face it: the Senate would be an awful boring place if it was just the same 10 people all the time.  It constantly needs new ideas to keep it fresh and relevant, and that's exactly what my candidacy is meant to provide.  I've also taken a voluntary pledge to serve two terms.  Ernest and DWTL have both served their respective (original) districts well, but its time for new leadership.

Make no mistake, however—I'm a quick study.  I won't waste the Senate's time by introducing bills that won't be taken seriously.  I have significant real world experience under my belt, and have already begun to suggest and come up with ideas for new legislation that, hopefully, will spark some real debate and make Atlasia a better—and more affordable—place.

The current Senate is perhaps one of the most predicable in history.  It is usually Ebowed, Al, Rob, Lewis and Earl voting one way and DownWithTheLeft, PBrunsel, Brandon H, Keystone Phil and Sam Spade voting the other with whoever having the most on vacation losing control of the legislature, at least for that period of time.  What side would you likely vote on if elected or would you be a swing voter? If you think you would be a swing Senator, defend your answer with proof to show you aren't lying.

I cannot say my tenure would be entirely unpredictable—if that's your goal, you might as well nominate a two-sided coin.  What I can say, however, is that I'm a moderate; generally fed up with both sides with a desire to keep everyone honest.  I do go into most debate with an open mind, so in this sense, yes, you'd probably consider me a "swing" voter.

On issues of taxation, I'm probably going to side with the conservatives more often than not.  Still, I consider myself a 1980s balanced-budget-style fiscal conservative on tax issues, and not a 2000s cut-taxes-as-much-as-you-can-get-away-with conservative.

Again, when it comes to spending, I'd plot a very cautious course when it comes to new governmental programs that can't be easily disposed of.  But I also realize that there are fundamental needs the government must provide its citizenry beyond the most basic infrastructure items.  The government should provide a safety net, but not a permanent crutch.

On social issues, however, I'm probably closer to the left.  On the most basic level, I'm pro-choice—but I do support common sense controls, such as parental notification for minors.  I'm supportive of gay rights, but leery of hate crimes legislation.  I want to see stem-cell research without restriction, but I want to see industry take the primary lead, not government.

In the arena of foreign policy, I come down the middle.  I do not support engaging in unprovoked conflicts unless the security of Atlasia is directly and imminently threatened.  Atlasia should not engage in "nation building"—such matters are the domain of the UN.  We need to be firm with our trading partners such that they follow the rules of fair trade, and we should not be afraid to take economic action where necessary—just as it was reasonable to divest government funds from South Africa in the 1980s, so too is it reasonable to divest from Darfur in 2007.

[AndrewTX]

I'm going to copy and paste what I said earlier to these questions, to stay consistent with my message.

I'm not a D2 member, but I have three questions:

(1) This question is for Mr. Moderate and AndrewCT:  Unlike Ernest and DWTL, neither of you have been elected to public office in Atlasia before.*  How would you make up for this lack of inexperience? Do you believe it would be beneficial?

Well, it is true, I am not, nor have ever been an elected official of Atlasia. But, now is the time for fresh blood, and new faces to elected office here. Sometimes, inexperience is what you need in order to bring big changes to politics. A new face has no friends, has no enemies. They do what is best for the people, and have not been corrupted by the system. That is why I plan on serving a maximum of two terms, if elected and re-elected. Than, to bring a new face in. Also, I have friends in Atlasia who have served in elected positions, who will hopefully guide me along this road.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

  To be honest, I would pick the obvious side. I would pick the side of my district. As you can see in my posting past, I have disagreed with posters like BRTD, as well as our current Senator, DownWithTheLeft. I am a very independent minded person, and I believe it's shown. In real life, I ran for office on the terms that I would side with the city, and not the party. I narrowly lost by 300 out of over 7000 votes. I was than appointed Commissioner, where you can not allow partys to guide you, but only your own views, and what is best for the people. Again, I believe my posting record reflects an independent mind, that is best for our District, and the nation.

[SPC]

Okay, I will be asking the next question. Ernest can answer both questions:

As a Senator, how would you defend the Atlasian taxpayer?