Discussion of Budget

[Democratic Hawk]

Let's get the Twelfth Senate into motion.

Does the Senate wish to pass a budget before considering other legislation?

Per the Fourth Amendment:
The Senate must approve each and every Budget before considering any bill or constitutional amendment. However, the Senate may, by a vote of two-thirds of its number, waive this requirement.

In accordance with the Fourth Amendment of the Second Constitution , I move that the Senate vote to waive it's requirement to approve the Budget

I feel that given the outstanding legislation from the Eleventh Senate that we address such first, before approving the Budget

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Whatever the decision of my esteemed colleagues, I will be happy with it. If it is the decision to approve the Preliminary Budget now for the Budget FY 2007, that's fine as long as we get on with it sharpish .

There is so much to be done carried over from the Eleventh Senate. And I, for one, am mindful of that. Not to mention new legislation that has been introduced for the Twelfth Senate

I, myself, have introduced no pet projects as of yet; so have no vested interest in our approving the Budget being waived. There are a few points I intend to raise regarding the Preliminary Budget and I'll do that in due course. I ran as someone who was committed in principle to balancing the budget and intend to work with you towards doing that. I ran on 'fiscal responsibility' and that's jolly well what I intend to be. I owe that to my electorate; while, simultaneously, doing my utmost to protect my District's, and wider Atlasia's, socio-economic interests. I, for one, will never abdicate my responsibilities

All, I urge is that Senators get on with the job be it the Budget or outstanding legislation, as you may decide

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Senator TexasGurl has proposed the following:

Budget proposal

The budget shall be unchanged from here except the following:
*F.L. 3-5 Shall be repealed.
*F.L. 5-2 Shall be repealed
*F.L. 5-8 Shall be repealed
An additional 10% shall be cut from 1. Defense and Security Dept. - $619.531 billion

I'd like to ask the Senator, whether or not her proposed additional 10% cut from the Defense and Security Dept. Budget is separate to the cuts that would be made should F.L. 3-5; F.L. 5-2; and F.L5-8 be repealed?

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I must concur with Senator MasterJedi. The defense budget cuts proposed by the Senator are unacceptable because:

1) They are not in the national interest from both a defense and economic standpoint
2) They are not in the socio-economic interests of District Four

Defense contractors are major employers throughout my District, and many other parts of Atlasia too, and I trust fellow Senators are mindful of that in considering these proposals; and since my District contains three of the poorest states of the Union, I'm concerned that such cuts would only serve to exacerbate what is already a far from good situation. Should defense companies go under, that will serve only to generate unemployment and higher levels of welfare dependency. That is something, I, for one, will seek to avoid

Furthermore, I ran as a defense candidate in my election campaign and I owe it to my electorate to be a 'Defense' Senator

The 1.4% cut in Sam's Preliminary Budget for the Dept. of Defense and Security is within reason though I'd like to know if there is any reason for the Homeland Security S.D. budget being cut to the extent that is has?

However, I'm open to modest compromise. Anything I consider too drastic in terms of defense budget cuts, however, for the reasons, I've outlined above, will not receive my support

It is my intention to look at the Preliminary Budget in its entirety. More on that later

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

The 1.4% cut in Sam's Preliminary Budget for the Dept. of Defense and Security is within reason though I'd like to know if there is any reason for the Homeland Security S.D. budget being cut to the extent that is has?

The cut is not a really a cut per se.  It is simply stating that the Hurricane Katrina Appropriation Bill (F.L. 9-1) of $10 billion applies to FY 2006, and doesn't apply to FY 2007.

That's how the Homeland Security Dept. is cut by 1.4%.  Looks a little fuzzy in the math, but appropriations for FY 2006 are for FY 2006, etc. etc.

Thanks Sam . I'm happy now that I know the reason why

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Oh and i withdraw my proposal.

A good call , Senator. Your proposed cuts were simply too much. I calculated them to be in the region of $95bn. Cuts on that scale would only create socio-economic trauma with the jobs of thousands of people employed in the Defense Dept. (and related agencies) and by defense contractors at risk. That is something, I'd wholeheartedly seek to avoid

If thousands of jobs were lost, it would increase unemployment and lead to higher welfare spending. Is it not better for the economy, that we have the optimum amount of economically active Atlasians?

For a progressive, like yourself, to propose budget cuts that would potentially threaten thousands of Atlasian livelihoods, I was a little dismayed

I intend to make my thoughts known on the Preliminary Budget this evening but if I were to propose cuts, it's only appropriate I start with myself:

I, Senator Dave 'Hawk', hereby, request that I be permitted to waive my right to draw both a salary and expenses in my capacity as District Four Senator

This is made in accordance with F.L. 10-1: Government Employees Pay Cut Act: Section 4

I assume this refers to elected federal office holders. If this helps towards safeguarding the livelihoods of a handful of Atlasians, it will be worth it

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm happy to approve this Preliminary Budget as it stands. A 1.4% cut in defense spending is within reason though it is mostly as a result of Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts, which were for the FY 2006 only

I'm presiently working on legislation, however, that if approved and signed into law would have a profound impact on the Housing and Urban Development Sub.- Dept.. I've earmarked a provisional $5bn of funding, which I hope will be appropriated from the budget as it stands. I don't, particularly, want to increase spending or taxation. I've also earmarked a provisional $2bn from the Labor Sub-Dept. budget to fund an Amendment to the Welfare Reform Act, which I will shortly be introducing

Given that the major departmental spending increases are in the Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration Sub-Dept (aside from the Treasury Sub.-Dep), I urge that the Senate seek ways and means thrrough legislation with the goal of keeping costs to the tax-payer down, while safeguarding the entitlements of the most needy Atlasians

Should the Senate reject Senator Bell's motion to accept the Preliminary Budget as it stands, I'll be willing to listen to any reasonable proposals that any of my esteemed colleagues shall put forward

With due respect to Senator TexasGurl's previous proposal, defense budget cuts totalling around $95bn were not reasonable. A number of industries are heavily reliant on defense spending and cuts to that extent would cause socio-economic trauma for the thousands of Atlasians who work in defense-related industries. The maximum cuts in defense spending I'd, possibly, be willing to accept is 2.5% tops (including the 1.4% as it stands) and, if enacted, I'd seek that efforts be made towards diversifying local economies, wherever they are located, where the defense sector is a major employer. Furthermore, the fact that we are at war and our national security is under threat from global terrorism, such cuts would not serve the national interest

Therefore, I vote Aye on Senator Bell's motion to approve the Preliminary Budget as it stands for the FY 2007

'Hawk'

BTW, I hope my request to waive my salary and expenses as a Senator has been permitted

[Democratic Hawk]

1.4 is not even close to enough.

Most of the states in District 1 may enjoy higher than average state per capita personal incomes, most of mine don't. All of the states you represent bar Maine (34) is in the national top 25. In District 4, only Virginia makes the top 10 and Florida just scrapes in the top 25 (at 24), while Alabama, South Carolina and Mississippi are in the bottom 10

The defense and its related industries are major employers in my neck of the woods- and I 'd say it's pretty important in parts of yours too. Connecticut, Maryland and Massachusetts just might be able to cushion the negative impact of defense cuts, but I don't think most of the states I represent could

I'm thinking of the little guy who works hard to support his family, here

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

1.4 is not even close to enough.

Most of the states in District 1 may enjoy higher than average state per capita personal incomes, most of mine don't. All of the states you represent bar Maine (34) is in the national top 25. In District 4, only Virginia makes the top 10 and Florida just scrapes in the top 25 (at 24), while Alabama, South Carolina and Mississippi are in the bottom 10

The defense and its related industries are major employers in my neck of the woods- and I 'd say it's pretty important in parts of yours too. Connecticut, Maryland and Massachusetts just might be able to cushion the negative impact of defense cuts, but I don't think most of the states I represent could

I'm thinking of the little guy who works hard to support his family, here

'Hawk'

It is not our bussiness to be in the corporate welfare bussiness, perhaps it is time for the military-industrial complex to wean itself from atlasias teat.
We do not need a 500 ship navy.
we do not need another dozen B-2 bombers.
And we sure as hell do not need another division every year just so the arms industry can get even bigger profits.

Aye and the more profit they make, they more they can reinvest in Atlasia. Might be an idea to give them incentives to diversify their economic activity

But, if you want to see thousands join the ranks of the economically disadvantaged, that's you're prerogative. Not exactly progressive is it?

Might as well just hive off $95bn off the defense budget and put it on straight into welfare. Atlasia will be worse off, if anything from both a defense standpoint and a socio-economic one

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not talking about a 95bln cut i withdrew it but 1.4% is ludicrous especially with no one having the guts to raise taxes.

First of all, we'll see if Senator Bell's motion to approve the Preliminary Budget is passed or not, then we'll take things from there

I don't intend to propose any tax increases but if any are proposed, I'll consider them on their merits. I'd been thinking of a tax cut. Given that most pipe tobacco smokers are elderly, I think the 4% National Sin Tax is too high

We should really be focusing on doing what we can to foster economic development and regeneration. I'm working on an idea at the moment but I want to consult with the governors before I introduce it. I'm investigating the feasibility of other ideas too

'Hawk'