Budget Process Committee

[Marokai Backbeat]

With Badger and Yankee, as well as myself and Inks appointed to this Committee, and Al confirmed as GM, should this be going anywhere now?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Alrighty, now what?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I certainly think making it a constitutional requirement or any constitutional provision whatsoever would be a very very bad move. That's what caused so many problems in the past. Our goal here, if I'm thinking right, is to craft a new budget process that is flexible, more simple, and not something that would cause a huge constitutional crisis and block Senate work.

There's nothing that stops the Senate from just randomly coming up with a budget whenever it feels like, so something just by ordinary legislation is perfectly appropriate and fits the goals of what we're trying to do IMO.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay, of course.

[Marokai Backbeat]

NAY

^^^

The peanut gallery is angry.

You support making the budget a constitutional requirement? That was a mess the last time it was done.

[Marokai Backbeat]

OK. For the record I just typed a long e-mail with links to several on-line budget sims with suggestions on how to incorporate some aspects into an Atlasian budget process. I'd copied the post (scrolled over the text and hit cntl-c) several times for safety. Took me most of the afternoon to research, review and type. Then as I'm making one last cut and paste of a link  before finishing my final sentence and sending, I accidentally hit the backspace button twice.

With my cursor only set to paste the last website link I'd just copied.

I've been wanting to get this god damned think posted for literally weeks. WEEKS!!

I'm so f-ing pissed right now I could spit.

I'm going for a walk.

I know how that feels, Badger. That sucks.

[Marokai Backbeat]

hmm need to think on it. I think you should incorporate some more Historical facts about Atlasia. For instance there was involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan but that was finished by 2005 I think. A veterans would do nicely here!!!


As for taxes, have you used the rates established last year in the "Fiscal Responsibility Act"?

I also think expenditures are rathey low and the deficit would be larger, in the relm of $700 to $1.1 Trilion dollars. I said less meaning somewahere like 20 to 30 percent less not 70%.

Exactly my question, Yank. Still being relatively new to Atlasia (and Atlasia organizing its legislative history more akin to oral tradition than codification) I'm quite unsure as to what historically Atlasia has done that (again noting emphasis) needs to change these numbers. Please feel free to suggest what adjustments you feel are needed to adhere to Atlasian history, because I sure can't.

Incidentally, why would the deficit be that much higher if Atlasia avoided the worst of the recession and (presumably) didn't pass as extensive a stimulus program (if any)? I'm open to suggestions here. Although I want to keep numbers as close as possible to a real world scenario to start, I kinda like the idea of a really high deficit to give those sad sack b#$tards in the Senate a real challenge.

Oh, wait....

Since when is a $1.4 Trillion dollar stimulus not "extensive". I am sorry, when did you get active here again?

I don't recall our stimulus being that large, and Lief and I were the principal authors. I don't even think we topped a trillion dollars on it. (According to the totals in the Wiki) What made the stimulus so effective though was us eliminating most of the stupid tax breaks in the real-life stimulus.

For Badger, here are the links to our previous recovery Act: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/2009_Atlasian_Relief_and_Recovery_Act

The debate thread over the stimulus is here. It was fun, Yankee can attest.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=98994.0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe we estimated during the debate over the National Health Care Act that it was deficit neutral. I don't remember being exactly pleased over all the frenzied efforts to cover every penny, but I do remember that costs were dealt with, so I don't really think it adds to the deficit much, if any, in the long term. We also eliminated Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP, if I recall, to transfer the costs to that one single program designed for everyone.

For Badger, the wiki link to that: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_National_Healthcare_Act

And the very, very fun debate thread over it. Another thing that Yankee (and Vepres if he happens to pop in) can agree was a treat.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=99368.0

Exactly my question, Yank. Still being relatively new to Atlasia (and Atlasia organizing its legislative history more akin to oral tradition than codification) I'm quite unsure as to what historically Atlasia has done that (again noting emphasis) needs to change these numbers. Please feel free to suggest what adjustments you feel are needed to adhere to Atlasian history, because I sure can't.

Here's a wiki link to the act on taxes that I wrote soon before I left the Senate: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Fiscal_Responsibility_Act

Here's the senate debate thread (Vepres put up an amusing fight in this one): https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=105642.0

Here's Purple State's evaluation of the Act when he was GM assessing the revenue from it:

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Fiscal Responsibility Bill: This legislation, sponsored by Senator Marokai Blue (JCP), seeks to streamline and restructure Atlasian income tax brackets.

The current bill would create new brackets for individual's income above $367,700, $1 million and $2.5 million, respectively. This would equate with a tax rate increase for the higher brackets and a tax rate decrease for the lowest brackets, with most rates remaining the same.

Previous estimates by the Office of the GM calculated between $250 billion and $600 billion in gained revenue as a result of these changes. Given the overall nature of marginal income tax, as well as the relative revenue gained through individual, rather than corporate, income taxes, the office is now prepared to predict a total revenue in-flow of $500 billion as a result of the new taxation brackets.

This would greatly help in reducing the budget deficit over the coming years. In conjunction with eventual spending cuts and other tax reforms, the Atlasian budget could reach neutrality in two years and bring the debt to zero shortly after a ten year time horizon.

Hope I helped shed some light for you, badger.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Oh well, whats $600 Billion dollars between friends. I seem to recall us passing multiple bills which could be considered "Simulative" in nature, without a means of funding them. Especially mine dealing with credit lines and business loans in August/Septemberish. So somewhere between $1.0 Trillion and 1.1 Trillion dollars. Its still either equal to or greater then the US stimulus in RL.

We did spend alot with other things, and some of it wasn't paid for, true.

The Home Energy Assistance Administration Act that I penned nearly year ago for instance was something that passed without any expressed means of paying. PS didn't actually issue any reports on this IIRC, and the only cost estimate was me just guesstimating that we'd spend as much on this as we do on food stamps.

But Afleitch's Public Housing Act is one thing we did pass that was paid for. In some way at least. We passed an increase in the estate tax to pay for it.

The taxes levied by the amended version are adequate to render this bill essentially deficit neutral.

But we spent several billion more on another thing that was passed to expand internet access.

So yeah, there's a bunch of stuff to take into account.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I think, and forgive me if I'm offbase on any of my assumptions, that while it would be a pain in the ass to create a very detailed budget right now while including all the major things we've passed recently, I think it would be the right thing to do for comprehensiveness-sake.

I don't really think we should be encouraging the proposal of several different budgets, though. Honestly, I think all the budget should be is a running tally of everything we pass, and not something that is routinely adjusted. If we want to adjust things, we should do it in individual pieces of legislation, and then that can be reflected in the budget. I think that's an easier way to run the budget, which can be adjusted from time to time based on economic circumstances in regard to how much welfare costs vary and how much tax revenue varies, but is mostly just a tackboard for what we're spending already, instead of trying to turn everything upside down through the budget process instead of the normal legislative process.

It should be noted of course that I came into this committee much of the same mind as Al. Skeptical of the budget process and seeking how to make it as simple and unintrusive as possible.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Relax, Yankee, I'm not giving up on this Committee. Far from it! I'm just stating my thoughts on how to make this a simple as possible, since, like Al said, I don't think people care enough about the budget to want to see three different versions of it proposed.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I've confused myself with Badger before. So you're forgiven.

[Marokai Backbeat]

What are we voting on again? The template?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye, I'm sorry everyone. Tornadoes hit the area and power has been knocked out for alot of people. I was, sadly, one of them.

Anyway, thanks for the patience.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'll bring up these for consideration to be taken into account somehow:

Make Internet Sales Fair Act
Break the Chains Act
Social & Economic Development Zone Improvement Act (This one will be tricky, but the elements of wage subsidization and blanket infrastructure funds should probably be included.)
The Reasonable Military Funding Act
Student Loan Reformation Act
Home Energy Assistance Administration Act
Public Housing Act
Internet Infrastructure and Access Expansion Act
Prison Reform Act
Green Power Act
Hiring Incentives Act


I'm sure there's stuff I've missed and I'm sure Badger now hates me.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye.

Sorry everyone, stuff going on here at home yet again.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Badger, I wrote that under the assumption that "crisis" funds were for something like disaster relief. FEMA money, money to protect the shores in case of an oil spill, money to help prevent flood damage, random stuff like that. I can only assume that's what it would mean. And as Yankee said, they've probably been depleted by now anyway.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'd say they're all temporary, yes. Although the food stamp part is a little vague. I probably meant to write that as a permanent increase in benefits, but didn't write a time limit on it either.

Either way I'd agree none of that has a significant impact on the budget and doesn't need to be given much, if any, consideration.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'd say they're all temporary, yes. Although the food stamp part is a little vague. I probably meant to write that as a permanent increase in benefits, but didn't write a time limit on it either.

Either way I'd agree none of that has a significant impact on the budget and doesn't need to be given much, if any, consideration.

Considering you wrote it, I think it would be best to follow your advice on the matter. Should then drop Section 1 from consideration?

I'd like to strike everything but clause C and consider it permanent, if it's just up to me. We can just use the current American stats for how much food stamps cost and just expand that by 20% or something. No big deal.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye.

And do you really need everyone to vote to move forward? Sorry I haven't exactly been paying close attention. (I think we're all guilty of that.) I'll start focusing more on this from now on.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye

Though I'm assuming of course that this isn't any sort of 'official' move. We're just putting together a mockup to hopefully be later made official by the Senate, since we certainly don't have the authority to just tinker with the debt ceiling.