Mideast Assembly Thread

[HappyWarrior]

I personally would like to get rid of the lowering of the corporate tax as well as the cuts to the capital gains taxes.  These cuts are not workable in the current economy from what I've seen.

[HappyWarrior]

AYE

[HappyWarrior]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

[HappyWarrior]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

[HappyWarrior]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

by using their farms for the research, however that means they are active. I was just clearing that up for any possible confusing that if a farm was involved in R&D over a regular year if that counted. Though I'm not sure many farmers at all would be affected at all. But in the algae bill we gave incentives to R&D

This bill in its entirety seems to be harmful to farmers as well as beneficial mainly to large corporations.

[HappyWarrior]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

by using their farms for the research, however that means they are active. I was just clearing that up for any possible confusing that if a farm was involved in R&D over a regular year if that counted. Though I'm not sure many farmers at all would be affected at all. But in the algae bill we gave incentives to R&D

This bill in its entirety seems to be harmful to farmers as well as beneficial mainly to large corporations.

it restricts bailouts to large corporations and ends waste. Why should we pay farmers to NOT work? I'm for helping them out TO work, but it makes no sense to me to send them money in return for letting their fields sit without crops or animals

By the way, this is the only thing that has been done recently to my knowledge about subsidies.  https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_Agriculture_Reinvestment_Act

Also to qualify for subsidies they must plant, they can't just get the money and do nothing with it.

[HappyWarrior]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

by using their farms for the research, however that means they are active. I was just clearing that up for any possible confusing that if a farm was involved in R&D over a regular year if that counted. Though I'm not sure many farmers at all would be affected at all. But in the algae bill we gave incentives to R&D

This bill in its entirety seems to be harmful to farmers as well as beneficial mainly to large corporations.

it restricts bailouts to large corporations and ends waste. Why should we pay farmers to NOT work? I'm for helping them out TO work, but it makes no sense to me to send them money in return for letting their fields sit without crops or animals

By the way, this is the only thing that has been done recently to my knowledge about subsidies.  https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_Agriculture_Reinvestment_Act

Also to qualify for subsidies they must plant, they can't just get the money and do nothing with it.

but since we don't have an actual budget, I'm including this to reassure ourselves of something we should be doing in the first place. No use wasting money when we can be cutting the defecit and creating jobs instead.

This would get rid of the jobs of farmers, rather than adding new jobs.

[HappyWarrior]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

by using their farms for the research, however that means they are active. I was just clearing that up for any possible confusing that if a farm was involved in R&D over a regular year if that counted. Though I'm not sure many farmers at all would be affected at all. But in the algae bill we gave incentives to R&D

This bill in its entirety seems to be harmful to farmers as well as beneficial mainly to large corporations.

it restricts bailouts to large corporations and ends waste. Why should we pay farmers to NOT work? I'm for helping them out TO work, but it makes no sense to me to send them money in return for letting their fields sit without crops or animals

By the way, this is the only thing that has been done recently to my knowledge about subsidies.  https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_Agriculture_Reinvestment_Act

Also to qualify for subsidies they must plant, they can't just get the money and do nothing with it.

but since we don't have an actual budget, I'm including this to reassure ourselves of something we should be doing in the first place. No use wasting money when we can be cutting the defecit and creating jobs instead.

This would get rid of the jobs of farmers, rather than adding new jobs.

yes, cutting the jobs and pay to those that do not work anyways.

The only subsidies paid to farmers to not grow crops are paid to individuals to not grow tobacco, which my federal bill eliminated, in essense this would do nothing.

[HappyWarrior]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

by using their farms for the research, however that means they are active. I was just clearing that up for any possible confusing that if a farm was involved in R&D over a regular year if that counted. Though I'm not sure many farmers at all would be affected at all. But in the algae bill we gave incentives to R&D

This bill in its entirety seems to be harmful to farmers as well as beneficial mainly to large corporations.

it restricts bailouts to large corporations and ends waste. Why should we pay farmers to NOT work? I'm for helping them out TO work, but it makes no sense to me to send them money in return for letting their fields sit without crops or animals

By the way, this is the only thing that has been done recently to my knowledge about subsidies.  https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_Agriculture_Reinvestment_Act

Also to qualify for subsidies they must plant, they can't just get the money and do nothing with it.

but since we don't have an actual budget, I'm including this to reassure ourselves of something we should be doing in the first place. No use wasting money when we can be cutting the defecit and creating jobs instead.

This would get rid of the jobs of farmers, rather than adding new jobs.

yes, cutting the jobs and pay to those that do not work anyways.

The only subsidies paid to farmers to not grow crops are paid to individuals to not grow tobacco, which my federal bill eliminated, in essense this would do nothing.

then why are you afraid of it? It just reassures us for sure that farmers are paid to be active farmers and not inactive since we cannot be 100% sure without a real budget.

Because I have a problem when a portion of legislation does essentially nothing.  By the way I will be writing a bill establishing a regional budget soon.

[HappyWarrior]

By the way I will be writing a bill establishing a regional budget soon.

WOOT!!

I hope to have it passed by the end of my next term.

[HappyWarrior]

NAY

[HappyWarrior]

My current budget creation bill, which will be a constitutional amendment:

Article VIII-Regional Budget

Section 1: Budgetary Procedure

1.  During each Gubernatorial term a budget shall be passed by the Assembly in regards to Regional spending
2.  This budget shall include all regional spending which is not specifically addressed and set by the present or a previous Assembly
3.  All budgets should also address tax rates in the Mideast region.

This is the present incarnation, I am planning to add to this.  At least a second section.  This is just what I have at the moment.

[HappyWarrior]

On the final vote for Growth. In. Jobs. And. New. Economy. (GI JANE):

The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 2.  The AYEs have it.  The bill is transmitted to the Governor for his veto or signature.

Unaffordable and goes way overboard in limiting necessary government services during the midst of a recession. I sincerely hope the Governor will veto this and return it to the Assembly for amendment into a more affordable measure.

[HappyWarrior]

ABSTAIN

[HappyWarrior]

Article VIII-Regional Budget

Section 1: Budgetary Procedure

1.  During each Gubernatorial term a budget shall be passed by the Assembly in regards to Regional spending.
2.  This budget shall include all regional spending which is not specifically addressed and set by previous legislation.
3.  All budgets should also address tax rates in the Mideast region.
4.  Following a gubernatorial veto of any budgetary legislation, the Assembly must establish a 2/3s marjority to override this veto, just as with any legislation.
5.  No further spending may be addressed by the Assebly until the passing of the regional budget.

Section 2: Budgetary Precedence

1.  Upon passage of the first budget, all previous laws in relation to spending shall be overridden unless specifically mandated by the budget.

This is what I have at present time.  Any ideas for what I can add?

[HappyWarrior]

Do we actually think it possible to get a budget through every few months? Half the assembly's time would be on it...though it is VERY much needed

I'm inclined to agree with A-Bob on this. Half of the session would be over with by the time we had it completed. I'd rather have it once a year, but twice a year would also work for me.

I think that would be very reasonable. Now would bills past take effect in the next budget or immediately? That must be addressed

That is addressed, anything that you want included must be included in the first budget and subsequent budgets would simply be adding or taking away from the original is the intent, if you understand what I am saying.  However when addressing the idea of doing a new budget every few months, it may take up quite a bit of time but I think in the end that time is certainly worth it for such an important item as a regional budget.  Also I doubt it will take that long so long as regional officials are actively involved.

[HappyWarrior]

I'd like to announce that I will be running for Speaker of the Assembly.

[HappyWarrior]

Thank you everyone for making me the new Mideast Speaker of the Assembly.  Now I believe the first order of business is that any bills people want considered must be submitted or resubmitted if they were submitted in the previous session.

[HappyWarrior]

Is anyone going to post their bills?

[HappyWarrior]

Well I guess we can now start debate on the Animal Protection Act and probably after 48 hours I will bring it up to a vote.

[HappyWarrior]

Would everyone be open to beginning the vote now on the animal protection act?

[HappyWarrior]

The Animal Protection Bill, having not been debated for more than 48 hours is hereby brought to a vote:

AYE

[HappyWarrior]

By a vote of four in the affirmative, 0 in the negative, and one abstention this bill is passed and hereby sent to the Governor for his signature or veto.

Animal Protection Act

1. The Mideast recognizes animal cruelty as the following: a. Wilfull neglect b. Malicious killing c. Beatings d. Animal Fighting ie Dog fight, cock fight for sport.

2. The Mideast doesn't recognize the following as animal cruelty: a. Hunting for food or sport as regulated by local environmental protection laws b. Killing Animals for food.

3 No person shall:

   (a) Torture an animal, deprive one of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beat, needlessly mutilate or kill, or impound or confine an animal without supplying it during such confinement with a sufficient quantity of good wholesome food and water;

   (b) Impound or confine an animal without affording it, during such confinement, access to shelter from wind, rain, snow, or excessive direct sunlight if it can reasonably be expected that the animals would otherwise become sick or in some other way suffer. Division (3)(b) of this section does not apply to animals impounded or confined immediately prior to slaughter.

   (c) Carry or convey an animal in a cruel or inhuman[e] manner;

4. Any person under the age of 18, who is found guilty of animal abuse is required to undergo psychological evaluation to determine if the child needs individual or family counseling. If found sane said person shall serve a maximum of 1 year in juvenile jail. Parents or Guardians of said person under 18, are liable for all cost for the evaluation/counseling/fine.

5. If a person over the age of 18 commits animal abuse, said person shall serve a maximum of 1 year in jail and/or 5,000 dollars fine.

6. Except as otherwise permitted by Paragraph 7 below, the use of animals for testing of non-medicinal products related to ordinary grooming and care including, but not limited to cosmetics, non medicinal soaps, perfumes, colognes, non medicinal shampoos, conditioners, toothpastes, mouthwashes, and other toiletries not specifically prescibed by a licensed medical practitioner, is banned.

7. A producer of the items described in Section 6 above may apply to the Atlasian Regional Department of Commerce for a licensed exemption from this rule if the following can be demonstrated:

a) The product or substance in question cannot be feasibly tested or made safe in accordance with existing food and drug testing regulations for human use or consumption by using methods excluding the use of non-animal testing; or

b) Such animal testing procedures are certified by the Department of Commerce to not cause undue, prolonged pain or suffering of the tested animals, and that any animals ultimately exterminated as a result of such testing are specifically bred and raised for purpose of such testing rather than wild caught.

c) For determination of "feasible" pursuant to section 7) (a) above, a non-animal testing procedure that does not raise the estimated wholesale cost of producing said item by over 50% is presumed feasible.

8. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or prohibit the use of animal testing as otherwise permitted by law in legitimate scientific or medical research not directly related to the commercial development of such products described in Section 6 above.

9. An organization, business or individual proprietor who violates Section 6 above may be fined up to $500k $500,000 per violation.

[HappyWarrior]

HW, are you still working on our regional budget creation bill? I'm not being pushy, just still wanted to make sure we are going to be pushing for a real budget.

Mostly my planned bill is the one a few pages back.  Just waiting for the right moment to introduce it.

[HappyWarrior]

Since it seems that for now nobody else has any bills to submit I will submit this for the Governor.  There will now be 48 hours for debate.

Weighted Grades Amendment

Whereas: The Mideast government feels we need to take extra steps to encourage high school students to take challenging courses so that they may reach their full potnetial.
Be It Resolved:
Section One:
1. All public and charter schools in the Mideast region shall conform to a 4.0 grading scale system.
Section Two:
1. For every advanced placement course (AP) or honor course taken by a Mideast student in grades 9-12, student shall have an additional .25 to their overall GPA for the semester, assuming they receive a grade above C in the course.