End of the Budget Amendment [Tabled]

[afleitch]

Aye.

[Јas]

Tally on Sam's Amendment
Aye: 5 (Sam; Verily; Moderate; Brandon; afleitch)
Nay: 4 (Ebowed; Earl; Lewis; Al)
Yet To Vote: 1 (Rob)

[Rob]

Nay.

[Sam Spade]

With 5 votes in favor and 5 against, the VP gets to do his duty.

[Јas]

With 5 votes in favor and 5 against, the VP gets to do his duty.

I'm afraid I don't see how this proposal would rectify the issues regarding the budget. Indeed, I'm not sure in practice how this would change matters at all, except that this provision would seem easier to ignore than the current provisions which at least force the budget onto the Senate agenda every 4 months.

I'd be more inclined to give those who support retaining the budget a chance, if they provided some effort to work within the current provisions - I'd note that there still has not been a single comment in the current Budget thread since the waiver vote in July.

Nay

[Јas]

FTR, the current budget discussion thread is here.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'd be more inclined to give those who support retaining the budget a chance, if they provided some effort to work within the current provisions - I'd note that there still has not been a single comment in the current Budget thread since the waiver vote in July.

I'm honestly not sure how to proceed with the budget within the current bounds of the constitution, which is why I was hoping Senator Spade's amendment here would actually unlock the process.

[Sam Spade]

I'm tempted to reintroduce my amendment again, since this thing is likely in purgatory.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'm tempted to reintroduce my amendment again, since this thing is likely in purgatory.

Well, we're likely to get the status quo—which here is the worst case scenario.  I'd like to see those in favor of passage try and come up with a compromise amendment, because there's no way this is going to get to the needed seven votes here without some change.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Strike "detailed" from your draft, Sam, and it's worth debating.

There has to be a bit of realism - and realism involves, here, admitting that we aren't capable of doing an actual budget unless we play this game full time. Just as it involves admitting we aren't capable of simulating running the US of A on current levels of commitment.

This comment should be bumped

[Sam Spade]

Strike "detailed" from your draft, Sam, and it's worth debating.

There has to be a bit of realism - and realism involves, here, admitting that we aren't capable of doing an actual budget unless we play this game full time. Just as it involves admitting we aren't capable of simulating running the US of A on current levels of commitment.

This comment should be bumped

Alright, I missed this.

Lewis, to hopefully get somewhere here without too much hassle, I'll ask you if you could post a version of the amendment I proposed that you would personally find acceptable.

[Sam Spade]

bump for Lewis.

[minionofmidas]

Well... when I reintroduced this piece of legislation of DWDL's, I had no idea how controversial it was going to prove. Given that the budget has in practice been dead and buried for 18 months, it's not as if I really should have guessed, either. As far as I was concerned, all this amendment did was do away with that ridiculous waiver vote. Well, so it goes...

Having said that... there are of course some good arguments to be made for having some sort of budget process - one adapted to the needs of this game, that is - ie a pretty simple one. Far simpler than the failed experiment of 2005*.
Another thing that has only become apparent to me during the debate now is how closely related my two bills currently on the Senate Floor really are. The relation is by no means straightforward.

If we seriously mean to put the way the game is played on an internally consistent basis, that would include reintroducing some form of a budget - but not the failed experiment of 2005 -, reintroducing a GM or perhaps small team of GMs, and as a necessary prerequisite to make that work, doing away with the IMHO utterly grotesque notion that the USA ceased to exist in february 2004 and was taken over by a gaggle of high school kids, as well as any  old gm stuff directly dependent on that discredited hypothesis. (Ideally, the federal-regional balance of power should also be adapted to Atlasian realities, but that's an unwinnable battle I suppose.)

But if that's not happening, what incentive do I have for working for a compromise here? If this amendment fails, we'll either just keep passing those ridiculous waiver motions, or two Senators will cobble together a "budget" based on the fantastic notion that it is to apply to the USA  - rather as if Taiwan was passing budgets for the whole of China - that will not be read by any non-Senator except the President, and that even the vast majority of Senators will more or less boycott, myself certainly included.

So, sorry, I can't just "post a version of your amendment that I would personally find acceptable".

* What we'd need is an estimate of how much money is coming in and how much running costs our government has. For gaming purposes, it would be cool if there were at least initially an amount of money that the Senate can spend during the fiscal year (which of course needn't be a year) without having to raise taxes or borrow. I said "at least initially" because of course, if the Senate passes any bills that spend money in more than one year, this would affect future years' budgets.

[Sam Spade]

Well, based on what you're saying, perhaps the sensible option is to table the bill until we can get such estimates.  Because the present legislation appears to be going nowhere, presently.

[Sam Spade]

In the hope of getting Al's Jury Reform Bill up to the table, I am going to motion to table this legislation:

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Aye.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

So long as this gets brought back sooner rather than later, I'll vote aye as well.

[Speed of Sound]

Youre tabling an attempt to fix a tabling problem? Hmmmm....the senate. Ugh.

[Sam Spade]

Youre tabling an attempt to fix a tabling problem? Hmmmm....the senate. Ugh.

My fix doesn't have the votes to pass and neither does the present legislation.  There appears to be no movement for another solution and I had wanted to get Al's Jury Reform legislation up before he left.  All good reasons, in my book.

Though this will be coming back...

[Speed of Sound]

Youre tabling an attempt to fix a tabling problem? Hmmmm....the senate. Ugh.

My fix doesn't have the votes to pass and neither does the present legislation.  There appears to be no movement for another solution and I had wanted to get Al's Jury Reform legislation up before he left.  All good reasons, in my book.

Though this will be coming back...

Wasnt so much the action of the tabling, so much as the need for it because an agreement cant be found.....again....-_- We really need a GM.

[Ebowed]

Nay

[Verily]

Aye on motion to table

[Brandon H]

I like the idea of a team of GMs but it's hard enough to find one GM. Finding several members to form a team may be impossible.
---
Aye on the tabling

[Јas]

Tally on Sam's Motion to Table
Aye: 4 (Sam; Moderate; Verily; Brandon)
Nay: 1 (Ebowed)
Yet to Vote: 5 (afleitch; Al; Earl; Lewis; Rob)

[Hatman 🍁]

aye

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye

This is an issue that the game has to deal with, eventually, but this probably isn't the best place for it. Public debate is needed.