Talk Elections

Sponsor: Clarence

I want it to be known that I sponsored this bill as a favor to Polnut- I strongly oppose it. With the exception of emergency notification the government has NO place in broadcasting and what makes this bill even more egregious is the fact that it comes with a tax increase.

Mr. President- the people don't need a tax increase and they certainly do not need it for THIS... I strongly oppose this bill

I want the President hauled up here to defend this. He has 24 hours. >:D

I'm leaning towards nay, but maybe President Polnut can change my mind.

That tax comes to about $30 Billion.

This is a common factor across the globe to provide entertainment/news without being driven by advertising.

We can easily reduce the costs.

Look at the BBC does anyone doubt the value of the BBC? This is an opportunity for Atlasia to not just provide support for Atlasian arts and culture but also to provide an avenue to export them abroad.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick of cheap, tacky television based upon nothing more than shock, sensationalism and dumbing down our national discourse.

I'm fully prepared to defend the values behind this Bill, as well as the benefits.

I would however prefer not to focus the argument on emotional/theoretical arguments about the role of government in broadcasting.

Mr. President- you say you are "sick of cheap, tacky television"- so am I. The difference is I do not want the taxpayers to have to chip in to give me a new channel. If the people do not like TV as it is- demand for a new station will create one...I do not believe we are elected to judge the quality of television programs and add to the bloat of government if we see a lack in that quality

Certain language in the bill seems to imply that non-ANB broadcasting would be prejudiced by this (I'm thinking of 'television or radio' under 'Advertising' and the uses of 'one national television network' and 'one national radio station'). Could the President clarify this? If this is the case I believe that this bill would limit free speech and would like to see it reworked, though I support the ideas behind it.

Yes, I am opposed to the advertising section. Why shouldn't non-national broadcast channels be able to advertise?

That is certainly ridiculous.

I don't see the point of having the government do this. Why do we need a public news organization, which will tie up money albeit not that much, when we have no shortage of private ones?

I am definitely on the fence on this one.  I would like the President or someone else to lay out why this is essential and specifically how this will improve things for people before I vote for this bill.  Otherwise, I fear that this will put an unnecessary burden on middle-class taxpayers.  And frankly, letting businesses advertise would make this particular service cheaper, so I see no reason why that shouldn't be allowed.

I will be addressing all points raised shortly.

As to Clarence's points.

The first is if this were 30/40 years ago, you'd probably be right. However, what is very clear is that over that period television has become driven by profits... consider this, the average number of commercial breaks and the length of those breaks have increased over those periods, also, the production costs of television have been forced down. So advertising increases and production costs/values reductions.

We haven't seen a commercial network established for a quarter of a century, you think that's because of a lack of demand? No, this is one area where the faith in the market has failed miserably. Two things that have occurred that make your primary view a touch flawed, the rise of cable television and the internet.

Cable is a system that does indeed have room for market activity, if enough people demand a station on... bolivian goat herding it'll arise. If they need more money, they just hike subscription rates... hardly fair on the people who have a hard time paying for such luxuries now.

The Internet is the other thing, both with piracy and the availability of cheaply made, but easily available programming the idea that public demand for a new high-quality network will bring it about is frankly highly optimistic.


I believe I have made plain why I believe we should do this. I'm very happy to investigate the nature of the levy, but to suggest that we as a government have no role in this is frankly ideological and not balanced out by evidence.

Consider this Board will be governed by public nominees, are any of the network or cable channels governed by the public good? The reason why advertising should not be permitted is to avoid the temptation of what has happened to commercial TV now. An hour program is at best... 42-43 minutes long, you need 15 minutes of advertising to pay for less than an hour of television. The quality of the programming should not be undermined by the need to attract advertisers.

A national broadcaster will create high-quality programming that not only reflects Atlasian culture and supports their creative industries of this country, but also be a tremendous opportunity to export those products abroad.

So I ask the Senate, the ones with the open minds :P, to consider the value of a national broadcaster whose sole-role is to create programming in the national interest, a network where all Atlasians have a stake in it, governed by public nominees and not driven by advertising revenue.

Consider that Atlasia is one of the few developed nations without such a thing?

Atlasia does have small public or community networks but surely we can handle the creation of a such a network here.

The cost factor will be very small on most people, and we can work to bring that down to the minimum, but also consider that many of the highest-quality programs are on premium cable, the most expensive channels. So have we gotten to the point that the only people who deserve such programming are those that can afford it? And those who cant need to make do with revenue-driven drivel and risk the consequences of internet piracy?

So just to get this straight, no advertising for non-national broadcasting shows will be allowed on the the public TV channel and radio station, correct? The way it is written now, it seems like you ban advertising for non-national broadcasting shows on all TV channels and all radio stations.

I certainly wouldn't want that... apologies for the confusion.

Yes, this would ONLY apply to the national broadcaster.

After much careful consideration, I have decided that the pros outweigh the cons of this legislation and I will be supporting it.

That the way it is currently written doesn't align with your intent on that, unless I am misreading the current text. I am willing to withdraw my amendment for a text you find acceptable that clears up the confusion on this matter.

I agree that an amendment purely to clarify the text without changing the meaning of it is a necessity.

I apologise for the confusion I would request an amendment along those lines.

I propose the following amendment.

Why have an analog signal at all?

Would the management board be composed of "real" Atlasians or "NPC" Atlasians?  (If the former, that's ridiculous and I think it should be scrapped or changed to NPC Atlasians.)

Does NPR, or the equivalent, just not exist in Atlasia?

Also, how much revenue would actually be raised through the proposed tax?

Senators have 24 hours to object to Senator Scott's Amendment.


I agree with Senator ILV's sentiments regarding the playability of this board. It should definately be NPC.


Also, what about an Atlasian equivalent to PBS? Was it abolished?

Amendment to solve that playability issue:

I support the amendment but oppose the bill...

I appreciate Polnut's response to my concerns but I do not belive the government should be creating a station because the President doesn't like what's on television...and CERTAINLY there should not be a tax increase to crate it...

It's not as simple as that, and you know that. It's about support for the Atlasian creative industries that isn't reliant on commercial revenues, as well as a way to export to the rest of the world. I appreciate the Senator's position, but would urge him to reconsider his position and perhaps read-up on the history of public broadcasting in the rest of the world, but retain full respect regardless.

I support Senator Yankee's amendment for the record.

Senators have 24 hours to object to the playability amendment offered your esteemed, benevolent, madman in control.


I am still patiently awaiting a reponse to ILV's and my concern regarding the existing of cross over institutions from the US.

Aren't all institutions carried over unless explicitly changed (see the NUDA debate)?

Oh, I can speak there now.
I will oppose this bill in the any form.
Why?
1 - I oppose any new taxes
2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.

Really, Pingvin? This is a democratic republic here, not China. PBS isn't brainwashing Americans IRL.

"Hate speech" term is often used by liberals to censor "radical conservative" commentators.

And 'liberal-biased' is often used to slander media outlets that aren't Fox News.

()

Yes, but we may have changed PBS somewhere down the line.

And so my point is proven. 'Liberal' is a dirty word nowadays, as it has been slammed in the faces of the average Atlasian by right-leaning outlets.

Now, back to my original point: how has the government, IRL, been brainwashing people with PBS or NPR, which it does not control?

I respect the Presidnt's point about supporting arts or programs that may not be commercially sustainable...but I believe now is a time to think of how we can have less gov't, not more...and more only in the event of a national emergency. I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...

So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.

I'm not ideologically opposed to this bill, but I don't see a compelling reason why we need government-funded broadcasting when there is no shortage of private options already available. Why do we need this?

()
()

I believe I've given a number of strong reasons, given that, I doubt I can do anything to convince you.


I understand concerns about the first but I completely and utterly reject the second as pure, ill-informed paranoia.

This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows

But in real life, no one's ever lost an election because they used your tax dollars to fund PBS and NPR.

PBS is a mostly local-run, not national, and is mostly funded by donations- not taxes

This is a levy, which can be reduced, and if the people are soooo reactionary to consider a MAXIMUM 0.5% levy, some assault on rights, freedoms etc etc... then we have much bigger problems.

And for the record I don't believe such hyperbole.

I believe we can reduce the costs, and so reduce the levy, I continue to respect the issues MOST of the Senators opposed have presented, but I also think there is a degree of closed-mindedness to the benefits.

But it is federally funded.

And anyway, would cutting more important things than this really be worth saving a few people a few tax dollars?

I would like to invite sympathetic Senators to work with the administration to develop amendments for a graduated levy and lower levy.

Nope- and you have made my point for me...there are MANY more important things so why add a burden to the people for this..." a few tax dollars" add up, kid

And President Polnut- you can call it whatever you want- for all intents and purposes a levy = tax

I also resent your description of me Polnut as "close-minded" considering I was the one who sponsored this bill upon your request...

I'm not calling you closed-minded, but I think you have displayed a degree of closed-mindedness to this Bill, I see a difference, but understand if you don't and I apologise for the inference. I appreciate your sponsorship of it, but it's not like you didn't express a clear position from day one and have not shifted.

I didn't expect you too and I appreciate what you've presented in the debate, regardless of how much I disagree with you.

I propose an amendment to reduce the taxes associated with this bill. I highly doubt we would have needed as much money as the original bill was asking for.

Hence why I'm wanting to look at amendments like yours. I support this amendment FTR.

Unless I missed something Scotts and my amendment's have passed.


I take it we will never get an answer to question of ILV and myself as to WTF happened to NPR and PBS in this game?


Senators have 24 hours to object to Sbane's amendment.

As a former small business owner- I had many years where my business took in more then $350K and I took home less then $50K... let's not even discuss the double taxation that many small business owners (sole proprietors) face and just pretend their business income is thir personal income...

A restaurant owner takes in 400K let's say... your levy would take away $2000...that means a lot for a small business. All employees and the owner have to take that out of their salaries...prices would have to be raised potentially- $2000 for a non-necessary part of gov't doesn't seem like a fair price for me

The President seemingly forgets small businesses that will be affected by a corporate income levy- many of which make more then $350K but would still be heavily affected by this levy

I'd be happy to see an amendment to address your concerns, but if the only position you're willing to have on this is "levy=tax" and "this isn't necessary" then I'm afraid we don't have much room to move.

I move to amend the .5% to .000000000000000001% and change $350,001 and up to $100,000,001 and up

I move to dismiss that as unrealistic.

I am striking the amendment as functionally impractical because it doesn't reference which of two sections the first part is changing. The current bill has 0.5% tax in two different places.


The Senator may re-introduce the amendment, specifying what it amends.

Maybe so, but even if that were the case, my preference would be to have a vote held on the amendment rather than to just have me strike it based on my personal opinion and biases with that regard.

Well, you can do that, but I'm dismissing it in my mind-chamber from which I type. Currently, I am the King of the Mind-Chamber and have (symbolic) authority on everything.

Clarence?



And Sbane's amendment has 25 minutes left before passage. I will need to declare it so after it expires which probably will be after seven or eight sometime.

Sbane's amendment has passed.

I am sorry- what was wrong with that amendment htat I put forward?

It was too unclear as to what it amendment when it said "0.5% tax is replaced with ...." There are two instances of "0.5% Tax in the bill. You need to specify which one you are amending which can be done in several ways.

You say, "Section.... is amended as follows:" or you can and past the text and then strike it with with the strike through feature: ().

How do I use the strike through feature?

It is the S with a line going through it below the Message icon setting.

I am afraid I will have to ask that amendment be re-introduced correctly no later then tomorrow.

That amendment was somewhat facetious... I cannot support any levy on anyone for this cause

We done here then?

I believe so- neither side is moving an inch... but it has been a productive and fun debate

Senators, the Atlasian National Broadcaster Bill is now at final vote, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

NAY


Might as well have the traditional Christmas color combination here. :P

Aye.

Aye

NAY

Nay

Nay

;D Yup

You said something about wanting a close vote, Alfred? :P

And it has occurred. 5-4 and MoPo ;).

I hate 5-4-1 votes. Can't do a damn thing to them unless someone switches or the time runs out.

Vote on final passage of The Atlasian National Broadcaster Bill:

Aye (5): Alfred T. Jones, ILV, Nathan, sbane, and Scott
Nay (4): Clarence, NC Yankee, Pingvin99, and TJ in Cleve
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): MoPolitico


With five votes in the affirmative, four votes in the negative, one Senator not voting, and time having expired, The Atlasian National Broadcaster Bill has passed the Senate and is presented to the President for executive action.

---

()

I will be introducing a repeal bill as soon as the new Senators are sworn in

I'll be strongly advocating that the President veto such repeal, if and when it passes the new, more rightist Senate.

Ooh things are getting interesting. How will the right play their hand? We shall wait and see. :)

I am approximately...thirty-seven steps ahead of them with every move. Bring it.