Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

And what of those who live in an apartment which have utilities provided?  For a good bit of my time in college, I lived in an apartment building that had centrally provided radiant heat and no individual metering of utilities.  (I imagine it was too expensive equipment wise to retrofit the building for individual metering.)

Ah, interesting point, and one that leaves me conflicted about where to proceed to.

We could require utilities to provide cost-averaged carbon tax estimates, since I would expect a bump up in utilities would be passed on directly to the consumer.  It's where I'm leaning right now.  (I'm pretty sure I don't want the cash going to the management company.)

Or, I could just say that management companies will have to eat the carbon tax and try to deal.  Unfortunately, shared utilities is a darned good way to optimize waste of resources, so maybe sticker shock would do the environment a lot of good in that case.  Let me sleep on that one.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Seeing some of the patently ridiculous legislation in the queu yet no jury reform bill makes me wonder.

You mean you don't support Stem Cell Reserach (sic)?  Monster!

I'm wondering whether or not the PPT should have new, expanded power to better manage the queue—perhaps a new slot open to legislation at the PPT's discretion?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

In response to DWTL:

Expect every bill I make that has anything to do with money at all to completely disregard numbers, as a message to the uselessness money issues have become of the lack of action on revising/removing the budget. It is to remind us that under this system, trillions of dollars can be shifted without any effect on the game at all.

And even without a budget, expect me to vote against every single bill that deals with monetary issues without a price tag.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I just want to say that I am very supportive of Peter as a pick for Attorney General, and would like to encourage my representatives to vote in favor of his nomination.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The sitting Secretary of Forum Affairs declines to endorse or oppose the bill introduced by Senator Trondheim requiring special elections for all Class B vacancies.

He will, however, note that the status quo is simpler. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The sitting Secretary of Forum Affairs declines to endorse or oppose the bill introduced by Senator Trondheim requiring special elections for all Class B vacancies.

He will, however, note that the status quo is simpler. 

Let me clarify—I meant the status quo as in the original text of the PRA, assuming all was constitutional.  I still strongly support fixing the currently unconstitutional Sections 18 and 19 of the PRA.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Ukulele Musical Learning Standardization Act

Section 1: Each school district shall include in their musical curriculum the instruction of how to play a ukulele.
Section 2: Each school district may decide in which grade the ukulele instruction shall occur.
Section 3: School districts must provide a ukulele to each student for the duration of the unit.


This is vital legislation.

Is this constitutional?

Stupid yes, but it is constitutional if it's a requirement for obtaining federal education funding.

Though, um...generally it's the PPT who strikes down the frivolous legislation, and not the one who proposes it. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

That makes sense, but what about your other change? The point of tabling is to have it reach the Senate at some later date. If you want to kill it, get a vote for cloture.

As used in Atlasia, the point of tabling a bill is generally to kill it.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

That makes sense, but what about your other change? The point of tabling is to have it reach the Senate at some later date. If you want to kill it, get a vote for cloture.

As used in Atlasia, the point of tabling a bill is generally to kill it.

But that's not the correct use of tabling.

Take it up with real governing bodies, which do the same thing.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Amendment to End the Budget Requirement

   1. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is hereby repealed.

I was just going to suggest this myself. 

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Does anyone what charges can be brought against Gporter for taking the oath of office illegally and then trying to vote and introduce legislation?  I can't even find anything relevant other than the fact that he's not a senator.  I don't think there's ever been anyone dumb enough to that before

None of it will reach the floor in the next 19 hours, so the point is basically moot.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Allow me to make this known: I will generally support the decriminalization of a number of drugs which consenting adults can handle with an informed decision making process.

I will veto attempts to legalize the cruelest, most dangerous street drugs: Crystal Meth, Heroin, and Crack.  These are not drugs that bring "enjoyment" to the typical user.  These are life destroying drugs that encourage crime, and should be made as scarsely available as possible.

For the remaining drugs that can perhaps be put in the category of "lesser evils"—cannabis, steroids, and ecstacy, for example—let us follow the example of the final version of DWTL's "Decriminalization of LSD Act."

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Cannabis is legal in Atlasia IIRC.

So I figured, though I didn't catch it on a quick glance of the statute list.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Perhaps the "Legalization of Heroin Bill" will be scaled down in the senate, but I was disappointed with the compromises made in the Decriminalization of LSD bill because the government got nothing in return.  That was not a huge deal with LSD, but the tax and potential money to be made off heroin is not something to pass up.

That's blood money.  No thanks.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I would like to request someone introduce my mass transit bill into the Senate as newly edited.


Amended Mass Transit Infrastructure Investment Act of 2008

Whereas the revenue expected from the FY 2009 component ($5 per metric tonne of a total $10 per metric tonne tax) of the domestic Carbon Tax is expected to be an estimated $30 billion, and;

Whereas the Atlasian Senate finds that this environmental-based impact fee is best spent through investment in new mass transit options and research into alternative energy,

Therefore be it resolved that:

1. Funding Allocation. Atlasia shall dedicate 50% of the FY2009 carbon tax component ($2.5 per metric tonne or $15 billion in total), as a one time grant towards the new construction, upgrade, and maintenance of mass transit options.

2. Funding Distribution. Said funds shall be apportioned across the regions according to logistics, population, need, cost effectiveness, and potential to reduce carbon emissions.  Funds shall be distributed in accordance with recommendations from the Department of Transportation.