Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Ebowed]

Bill to Raise the Retirement Age and Discouragement of Smoking Bill have both been withdrawn.

[Verily]

I actually find myself in agreement with DWTL over something here: The Judicial Term Limits Amendment needs to be amended such that the terms of the existing Justices would come up for reappointment in staggered, four-month intervals.

(As stated previously, I am supportive of this bill in general.)

You should feel free to contribute this to the actual thread on the amendment (and indeed to any of the matters currently before the Senate).

I was thinking about that, but if a Justice resigns in the middle of the year, everything gets screwed up.

You could have the new justice be appointed to finish the term of the old justice, rather like special elections to the Senate now.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I was thinking about that, but if a Justice resigns in the middle of the year, everything gets screwed up.

You could have the new justice be appointed to finish the term of the old justice, rather like special elections to the Senate now.

Indeed.

[Ebowed]

In order to streamline our legislative queue, I'm going to be combining a lot of bills into comprehensive reform proposals (i.e. all of the environmental bills will be put into one).  I am hoping this will be slightly more welcoming to any new Senators we might be getting with the conclusion of the election.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I might do something similar with some of the bills I've introduced.

[SPC]

Universal Health Care Bill of 2007

1. The federal government hereby establishes a single-payer universal health care program for use in the District of Columbia and all federal territories.
2. This program will be open towards any resident or citizen of the District of Columbia or any Atlasian federal territories regardless of previous health conditions, disability, citizenship status, criminal record, or economic status.  No person will be required to pay for access to health care.
3. All medical services, including preventative treatment and dental care, will be covered under this system.
4. All subsidies towards health maintenence organizations ('HMOs') are abolished.

A definition of what "universal health care" actually means should be provided in section 1, at least in my opinion.

[Frodo]

Universal Health Care Bill of 2007

1. The federal government hereby establishes a single-payer universal health care program for use in the District of Columbia and all federal territories.
2. This program will be open towards any resident or citizen of the District of Columbia or any Atlasian federal territories regardless of previous health conditions, disability, citizenship status, criminal record, or economic status.  No person will be required to pay for access to health care.
3. All medical services, including preventative treatment and dental care, will be covered under this system.
4. All subsidies towards health maintenence organizations ('HMOs') are abolished.

A definition of what "universal health care" actually means should be provided in section 1, at least in my opinion.

Isn't Section 1 explicit enough?  Isn't it self-explanatory?  Everyone here knows what 'single-payer' health care is.

[Jake]

I think he's more referring to what exactly is encompassed by "universal health care". Will medical facilities be taken over by the government and no one be charged for use, will the government be billed for medical expenses, will it cover luxuries like braces, Viagra, and plastic surgery, etc.

[SPC]

I think he's more referring to what exactly is encompassed by "universal health care". Will medical facilities be taken over by the government and no one be charged for use, will the government be billed for medical expenses, will it cover luxuries like braces, Viagra, and plastic surgery, etc.

Yes. That, and explaining that universal health care would mean that your medical services would be payed for by the government.

[Verily]

I think he's more referring to what exactly is encompassed by "universal health care". Will medical facilities be taken over by the government and no one be charged for use, will the government be billed for medical expenses, will it cover luxuries like braces, Viagra, and plastic surgery, etc.

Yes. That, and explaining that universal health care would mean that your medical services would be payed for by the government.

This last seems like pedantry on the wording. If the specifics of what "universal health care" means are included, why do we need to literally define the term? Nothing else is specifically defined; need we define "Atlasia" as well?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Indeed, it looks like it needs to be fleshed out a little bit more, since I would interpret "all medical services" to include things as plastic surgery.  (Though personally, I don't mind the inclusion of Viagra in a national health plan, if we have one.  I'm hard pressed to think of prescription drugs to not include.)

All medical serviced deem necessary to the health (and maintenance thereof) of the patient, perhaps?

I'd suggest you take a look at John Conyer's HR 676 and crib some notes.

[Peter]

I should like to state for the record the following:

Today I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Chief Justice and Justice Opebo in their opposition to the Judicial Term Limits Amendment. As a former Justice of the Court, a former Attorney-General and one of the architects of the Second Constitution I find the notion that jurists should be subject to an examination which will undoubtedly be politicial to be abhorrent.

I will fight this amendment, and indeed any of the proposed other versions which include anything which does not recognise the judicial term as a lifetime appointment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hear, hear

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Speaking purely for my own sake and not in my capacity as SoEA:

Carbon Tax Residential Relief Act

§1. Findings
   (c) The Carbon Tax, while a strong, powerful mechanism for lowering Atlasian carbon dioxide emissions, is a regressive tax that could potentially cripple lower-income taxpayers while having virtually no effect on the richest of taxpayers;
   (d) The Carbon Tax is an incentive only to those with the means to change their fuel consumption habits.  Those whose incomes place them in the lower-to-middle income tax brackets have little ability to switch to a more fuel efficient manner of home heating, install solar panels, purchase better insulating windows, and pursue similar fuel-saving ideas;
   (e) Similarly, it is a finding that those least able to pay for electricity bills and home heating fuel are also the least likely to waste fossil fuels out of an inability to afford such waste.

I reject utterly the assumption that the poor have insufficient income as to be able to make any choices concerning their energy usage.  I'll grant that their discretion is limited and they have less ability to respond to sudden changes in pricing.  That is one reason why the carbon tax is slowly phased in over 10 years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These two chapters effectively remove any incentive the Carbon Tax provides to reduce CO₂ emissions to a large segment of the Atlasian populace.  It would be far better to deal with the concerns of the gentleman from Massachusetts to increase the EITC, increase the personal exemption and/or reduce the rate of tax in the lower tax brackets to ameliorate the effects upon the less well off that Mr. Moderate complains of.  Not only would such alternatives preserve the intended effect of the carbon tax to spur individual efforts to reduce CO₂ emissions as a common incentive for all Atlasians, they would not require the added bureaucratic burden that the proposed tax rebate forms would impose.  Do we really need to add an additional line to Form 1040, plus create two additional tax forms to be filed by a large number of Atlasians?


In summation, while I share to some degree the concerns of Mr. Moderate, there are better ways of dealing with them, which I have mentioned above.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I could be persuaded to take a second look at the income requirements, but I feel the bill is a strong one.  Let's keep things in perspective here: in 2005, residential energy consumption accounted for only 21% of CO2 emissions.  This leaves the carbon tax unchanged as it effects a minimum of 79% of emission sources.  In reality, since the tax credit only off sets part of the energy consumption of part of the residential sector, you could see the carbon tax unchanged in perhaps 85%–90% of emissions.

In addition, it should be noted that the credit only covers the "average" emission of carbon dioxide for a family.  (Actually, it covers slightly less than average.)  If a family is making the decision to run the air conditioner at 68 degrees, set the oil heat at 78, and heat a swimming pool with electric elements, you better bet that they're going to go over the 35-dollar-multiple exemption and have to pay for excess usage.  This helps put pressure on the abuses, gives incentive to curb carbon emission growth, and creates incentive for developers of new housing to design more ecologically friendly structures—already quite the growth industry here in "liberal Massachusetts."

The bureaucratic burden here is minimal: I think I can speak for most taxpayers that one or two extra lines on the 1040 are not a big deal—especially if those two lines are saving you $70–$700 per year.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What about the discrimination in your proposal against those who heat their homes with electric power?  At least down in the Sun Belt, using an electric heat pump for both heating and cooling is fairly standard as you save the cost of installing a separate heating system.  As for the bureaucratic burden, one reason out tax code is so complex is because of a whole bunch of "one little extra item won't hurt" ideas.  Since your concerns can be dealt with without adding yet another "one little extra item", it would be better to do so without doing so.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

What about the discrimination in your proposal against those who heat their homes with electric power?  At least down in the Sun Belt, using an electric heat pump for both heating and cooling is fairly standard as you save the cost of installing a separate heating system.  As for the bureaucratic burden, one reason out tax code is so complex is because of a whole bunch of "one little extra item won't hurt" ideas.  Since your concerns can be dealt with without adding yet another "one little extra item", it would be better to do so without doing so.

Well, part of the problem with the other methods—lowering the lowest tax tier and boosting the EITC—isn't a guaranteed fix for the problem.  Participation in the EITC is only around 80%, and a number of people whom this tax would hurt aren't even making enough money to pay considerable amounts of income tax as it is.  (Those I'm most concerned about here have effective tax rates at or below the 10% level.)  It's also a very discriminatory credit: those with children get benefits nearly 10x higher than those who don't, and have significantly higher income limits.

In response to your concerns about electrical heating, I could insert a friendly amendment creating a two-tier electricity deduction.  Electric companies already have a separate tiered rate for those consumers who have electric heat (at least I know they do in the Northeast, as unpopular as that is an option), so creating a, say, $35 (non-heat)/$70 (heat inclusive) rebate could be an easily implemented solution.  The Carbon Tax statements can clearly designate what benefit taxpayers can claim to eliminate confusion.  [And, of course, those claiming the heat-inclusive electricity credit would be unable to double dip into the heating fuel exemption.]

I know it's inelegant to start adding lines to the tax code, but honestly, it's in response to a bill that...added lines to the tax code.  I still feel, that of the options thus introduced to combat the problem, my bill is the best way to effectively target relief to the people the Carbon Tax catastrophically affects.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, part of the problem with the other methods—lowering the lowest tax tier and boosting the EITC—isn't a guaranteed fix for the problem.  Participation in the EITC is only around 80%,

Do you expect this credit to have any better rate of participation?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it avoided adding anything to the individual tax code.

I also thought of another problem.  How do roommates go about splitting the tax rebate you're offering?

[SPC]

Small Business Relief Act of 2007
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745) is repealed.

Right to be Reproduced Act
Reproductive Rights Act (F.L. 18-1) is repealed.

Unproven Research Funding Elimination Act
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (F.L. 18-7) is repealed

Illegal is Still Illegal Act
Illegal Immigrant Act (F.L. 18-8) is replealed.

Irrelevant in Atlasia But Needs To Be Eliminated Act
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81) is repealed.

Can't really say I oppose any of these bills. I hope they pass.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Would the "Illegal is Still Illegal Act" also revoke the citizenship of anyone who has applied for citizenship in the time since going so became legal on May 19? Because the Senate has no rights to revoke citizenship.

I don't think so, as that would be a violation of ex post facto law.

Then I question what, in fact, the Illegal is Still Illegal Act is meant to do -- punish those who were not sufficiently rapid in submitting paperwork or those who the federal government dallied in issuing citizenship to?

I presume the intention is to reduce the flood of people who have been coming here since the bill passed, now that we effectively have no immigration limits.  In my capacity as CEO Emeritus of RegionCorp, I hope this bill does not pass.  RegionCorp has been able to reduce its labor costs considerably since this bill happened.  Now if we could only get rid of those pesky minimum wage laws that the Regions have.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Any way of moving the Jury Reform bill up the glut?

[Sam Spade]

Any way of moving the Jury Reform bill up the glut?

Hmmm...  I hadn't noticed how gluttinous the docket had become.  I'll see what I can do.

[Ebowed]

Hi,

The Energy Policy Reform Bill has become the Enviromental Policy Bill of 2007.  The bill can be accessed here.  As a result, the following bills have been withdrawn:
* Snowmobiles in Public Parks Bill
* Water Purity Bill
* Light Bulbs Bill

The Tax Reduction for College Tuitions Bill has become the Education Reform Bill of 2007.  It can be accessed here.  As a result the following bills have been withdrawn:
* School Vouchers Bill

The Removal of Discrimination in Blood Donation Bill has become the Equal Rights Bill of 2007.  It can be accessed here.  As a result the following bills have been withdrawn:
* Racial Profiling Bill

[Јas]

Thanks Ebowed for the heads-up.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Well, part of the problem with the other methods—lowering the lowest tax tier and boosting the EITC—isn't a guaranteed fix for the problem.  Participation in the EITC is only around 80%,

Do you expect this credit to have any better rate of participation?

I would imagine so, though I certainly can't guarantee it.  The EITC requires a more complicated calculation, where this new rebate would be a simple carry-over line item.

I know it's inelegant to start adding lines to the tax code, but honestly, it's in response to a bill that...added lines to the tax code.

But it avoided adding anything to the individual tax code.

I also thought of another problem.  How do roommates go about splitting the tax rebate you're offering?

The roommate thing is simple.  The rebate goes to the person listed on the electric bill.  Roommates can arrange to split the credit the same way they split the electric bill.