End of the Budget Amendment [Tabled]

[Sam Spade]

Per my powers to push forward emergency legislation (I forget which clause), I'm putting this Amendment to the top of the heap (Al, your Jury Reform Bill will be next).

End of the Budget Amendment

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is hereby repealed.

(Sponsor: Lewis)

[Sam Spade]

Oh, and a motion with 1/3rd support of Senators can overturn this ruling (it's 1/3rd, isn't it).

Anyway, I will likely amend to create a clause similar to what I did with the State of the Forum address.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'd very much like to see us "mend it, and not end it."  Without a budget, there's absolutely no reason to even pretend we're a fiscally responsible governing body.

The whole process needs overhaul, I feel, but I think we can handle something like this once a year.

[Јas]

FTR, Senators interested in actively pursuing a budget as mandated by this provision should note that the thread for discussion of the current budgetary process is still open here.

And Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (i.e. the Budget provisions) is here.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(Al, your Jury Reform Bill will be next).

Ah, good, good.

[afleitch]

I'd very much like to see us "mend it, and not end it."  Without a budget, there's absolutely no reason to even pretend we're a fiscally responsible governing body.

The whole process needs overhaul, I feel, but I think we can handle something like this once a year.

I agree. If Senators and candidates are often obliged to 'cost' any proposal they put before the electorate and again within the Senate, then we should be obliged to put forward a budget that takes these expenditures into account. Otherwise legislation, with no cost attached and no matter how expensive, is legitimised.

Having no budget and scant consideration for financial cost makes for bad legislation.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'd very much like to see us "mend it, and not end it."  Without a budget, there's absolutely no reason to even pretend we're a fiscally responsible governing body.

The whole process needs overhaul, I feel, but I think we can handle something like this once a year.

I agree. If Senators and candidates are often obliged to 'cost' any proposal they put before the electorate and again within the Senate, then we should be obliged to put forward a budget that takes these expenditures into account. Otherwise legislation, with no cost attached and no matter how expensive, is legitimised.

Having no budget and scant consideration for financial cost makes for bad legislation.

I certainly like the idea of Senators having to "cost"—or at least divine a good faith estimate (to be effectively ratified upon the bills passage)—each piece of legislation they put forward.  Obviously, this hasn't been an issue with most bills we've dealt with lately, but I've tried to be keenly aware of the fiscal impact of the bills I've proposed.

What I would like to see is (1) a GM named (I'm guessing we don't even have one at this point) to tell us the total tax revenues and expenses of Atlasia, even if it's just to say it's identical to that of the United States; and (2) debate in the Senate about whether or not to cut programs, raise taxes, or debt spend.  And then, moving forward, we could use the real world U.S. estimates adjusted by the costs/revenues unique to Atlasia.  I think this is all very doable, and not as hard as anyone really thinks.

Back when I was campaigning for the Senate, I created a spreadsheet with the financial impact of every bill ever passed by Atlasia.  I'll see if I can dig it up over the next 24 hours—if so, I'll post the link in the budget thread and see if that can be the starting point for some debate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

a GM named (I'm guessing we don't even have one at this point)

No, there is no GM anymore. The last one (ie; me) abolished the position (which I still think was the correct decision. The GM experiment was worth having, but it was still a failure).

There is, however, an unoccupied position going by the title "media regulator". From what I remember, I decided to make this "media regulator" responsible for official economic statistics. Or at least the regulation of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Impossible, for various different reasons.

One of which is the fact that the economy of Atlasia crashed and burned on several different occasions (the causes of which varied from our nasty little habit of having a civil war every five seconds to simple neglect) and nothing was ever done to help it to recover.

Btw, the process of the budget was absolute hell and extremely dull to boot. Of course, my memories of it all are, perhaps, coloured by the fact that the time in which the Senate did budgets was also the time in which Vulgar Libertarianism* was the official ideology of this place.

Doing the budget was also rather pointless; the game functioned well enough (better actually) before it, and has functioned fairly well (most of the time) after it. I'm not really opposed to the principle of having a budget, but it would have to be nothing like the old system, which was, probably, one of the worst things ever to hit the game (and as one of the people that suggested it (sort of) and one of the majority that voted for it, I'm happy to accept my share of the blame for the fiasco that was the budget. See, that's the problem with being here for so long. No chance of clean hands, even if you aren't corrupt).

*A reference to Vulgar Marxism.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

a GM named (I'm guessing we don't even have one at this point)

No, there is no GM anymore. The last one (ie; me) abolished the position (which I still think was the correct decision. The GM experiment was worth having, but it was still a failure).

Okay, so then some kind of amendment is still needed here: the budget process is constitutionally required to revolve around a position we don't have anymore.

Btw, the process of the budget was absolute hell and extremely dull to boot. Of course, my memories of it all are, perhaps, coloured by the fact that the time in which the Senate did budgets was also the time in which Vulgar Libertarianism* was the official ideology of this place.

But it doesn't have to be, especially if the debate is shifted away from raw numbers and more towards general economic policy—which Atlasia definitely needs to have.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But it doesn't have to be, especially if the debate is shifted away from raw numbers and more towards general economic policy—which Atlasia definitely needs to have.

True enough. But I think in order to do that the budget system would have to be much simpler than current/former setup.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

But it doesn't have to be, especially if the debate is shifted away from raw numbers and more towards general economic policy—which Atlasia definitely needs to have.

True enough. But I think in order to do that the budget system would have to be much simpler than current/former setup.

I don't think there's any arguement there that we should work towards a simpler budget setup.  That's why we need someone to be plying us with economic data—honestly, the most important figure are not the raw budget numbers, but the size of the deficit/surplus.  And I know there's been some crazy stuff going on in Atlasia to alter the figures (and that's another debate as to whether or not we should effectively "reset" our history, especially the ridiculous stuff), but a good "financial estimator" can just try their best to work it in.

By approaching the budget from that angle, rather than a revenue-minus-spending-equals-x angle, I think we could simplify things greatly.

And by costing out bills here going forward—I don't think it's unreasonable for Senators to have to give estimates of how much they'd cost the public if passed—coming up with next year's estimate will be a matter of simple math.

[minionofmidas]

Very interesting debate. I could live with amending the process... but for now I'm still in favor of officially scrapping it, and tell realism to go swallow razor blades.

[afleitch]

Very interesting debate. I could live with amending the process... but for now I'm still in favor of officially scrapping it, and tell realism to go swallow razor blades.

I've drafted a tax bill which I've now held off from introducing now this is on the table. I've done my best to cost the bill, taking guestimates based on US data as to how much it would cost, and how that matches with economic growth and so on. I don't see the point, if this amendment passes, of doing any costing on it at all - just proposing the tax cut and to hell with the cost and impact on our expenditure.

But if I were to introduce the bill without any figures on the cost (on the basis that without a budget there would be no need) I know the first question I would be asked ; 'What's it gonna cost'

If people can ask questions about how much a bill will cost they should be able to ask how much the government costs.

[minionofmidas]

Very interesting debate. I could live with amending the process... but for now I'm still in favor of officially scrapping it, and tell realism to go swallow razor blades.

I've drafted a tax bill which I've now held off from introducing now this is on the table. I've done my best to cost the bill, taking guestimates based on US data as to how much it would cost, and how that matches with economic growth and so on. I don't see the point, if this amendment passes, of doing any costing on it at all - just proposing the tax cut and to hell with the cost and impact on our expenditure.

But if I were to introduce the bill without any figures on the cost (on the basis that without a budget there would be no need) I know the first question I would be asked ; 'What's it gonna cost'

If people can ask questions about how much a bill will cost they should be able to ask how much the government costs.

Well yeah, that's exactly the kind of makes-sense-at-first-three-or-five-glances-but-is-tried-tested-and-has-been-found-too-light kind of argument for having a budget that I meant by "realism".

[afleitch]

Very interesting debate. I could live with amending the process... but for now I'm still in favor of officially scrapping it, and tell realism to go swallow razor blades.

I've drafted a tax bill which I've now held off from introducing now this is on the table. I've done my best to cost the bill, taking guestimates based on US data as to how much it would cost, and how that matches with economic growth and so on. I don't see the point, if this amendment passes, of doing any costing on it at all - just proposing the tax cut and to hell with the cost and impact on our expenditure.

But if I were to introduce the bill without any figures on the cost (on the basis that without a budget there would be no need) I know the first question I would be asked ; 'What's it gonna cost'

If people can ask questions about how much a bill will cost they should be able to ask how much the government costs.

Well yeah, that's exactly the kind of makes-sense-at-first-three-or-five-glances-but-is-tried-tested-and-has-been-found-too-light kind of argument for having a budget that I meant by "realism".

I don't really think that answers my point. If anything is 'too light an argument' then it was what you just said

[Verily]

Very interesting debate. I could live with amending the process... but for now I'm still in favor of officially scrapping it, and tell realism to go swallow razor blades.

Well, in that case, I propose we establish a complete welfare state and eliminate all taxation.

[Ebowed]

Very interesting debate. I could live with amending the process... but for now I'm still in favor of officially scrapping it, and tell realism to go swallow razor blades.

Well, in that case, I propose we establish a complete welfare state and eliminate all taxation.

Not a bad idea, except for the eliminating taxation part.

[Verily]

Very interesting debate. I could live with amending the process... but for now I'm still in favor of officially scrapping it, and tell realism to go swallow razor blades.

Well, in that case, I propose we establish a complete welfare state and eliminate all taxation.

Not a bad idea, except for the eliminating taxation part.

Well, if we have no budget, there's no need to actually fund government programs... so why not have all of them and no taxes!?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Very interesting debate. I could live with amending the process... but for now I'm still in favor of officially scrapping it, and tell realism to go swallow razor blades.

Well, in that case, I propose we establish a complete welfare state and eliminate all taxation.

Not a bad idea, except for the eliminating taxation part.

Well, if we have no budget, there's no need to actually fund government programs... so why not have all of them and no taxes!?

In this case, I propose negative taxation rates.  Think of what it would do to get the economy going!

[Јas]

I'd reccomend to those Senators who wish to reform the process, that some form of amendment should be put forward, otherwise this will eventually come up to vote in its current form.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'd reccomend to those Senators who wish to reform the process, that some form of amendment should be put forward, otherwise this will eventually come up to vote in its current form.

I've been tossing the matter over in my head...I'm going to try and come up with an amendment for this bill by the afternoon.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Sorry for the delay in getting around to the amendment, but after looking over matters, I'm not sure a constitutional amendment is necessary to reform the budgetary process.  As such, I'm not introducing anything as an amendment...yet.  Here is my proposed framework:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This should streamline the process quite a bit, and turn a chore into a more agreeable Senate debate.

The only question is what to do in the absence of a GM.  Perhaps the Senate could find its own version of Alan Greenspan every March to give us the financial data picture of the nation?[/list]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I believe that I declared that the Regulator would count as "GM" for legal purposes. So a Media Regulator needs to be found.

[Sam Spade]

I would personally suggest that something simple be inserted into the Constitution to allow the Senate to legislate a budget process, get rid of Article 8 and then subsequently pass something akin to what Mr. Moderate has done through statute.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I would personally suggest that something simple be inserted into the Constitution to allow the Senate to legislate a budget process, get rid of Article 8 and then subsequently pass something akin to what Mr. Moderate has done through statute.

I'm fine with that, though I'd prefer Article 8 be gutted, saying little more than that the Senate is required to pass a budget each fiscal year.