Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 20, 2020, 10:34:42 pm
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Northeast Assembly Thread (search mode)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22 Print
Author Topic: Northeast Assembly Thread  (Read 329259 times)
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #50 on: October 07, 2009, 01:40:58 am »

Aye on the Lt. Governor's question:
"Shall the Assembly suspend voting on the override of the Governor's veto, until after debate on amending the SOAP has finished?"
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #51 on: October 07, 2009, 02:35:42 pm »

I have just introduced legislation in the New Legislation thread calling for an amendment to the constitution to address what I believe to be a major constitutional gap regarding veto overrides.  If possible, I would like to further suspend the rules to allow the Assembly to address the amendment, concurrent with debate on the SOAP, to expedite the process and allow its placement on the October ballot.

Aye

Even though I think we have the power to override vetoes under the current constitution by passing the same bill twice, we need to reform the process.  A simple majority vote (or even a 2/3rds vote since that's the same thing in an Assembly of 6) shouldn't be enough to override a veto.  I look forward to working with you on the amendment, which should also clean up the inconsistent use of Assembly/Legislature in Article IV.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #52 on: October 07, 2009, 07:04:52 pm »

Aye on all of the SOAP amendments, including the deletion of the veto override provisions.  If we want to override a veto under current law, all we need to do is reintroduce the bill the normal way and pass it again, in my opinion.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #53 on: October 14, 2009, 02:08:58 pm »

I've been away for a bit.  For the record, I would have voted against the override.

I don't have a problem with the text of the current bill, though I'm undecided on how I will vote.  I do think that the tax bill I tabled to bring up the SOAP needs to be brought back on the floor at some point.  I move that we consider it next.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #54 on: October 14, 2009, 04:04:31 pm »

It feels so lonely being one of the only people here with any sense of morals or values.

You have no morals or values. Also, you're a terrible Senator. And a terrible Northeasterner. You don't eve know the current law on this issue.

Section 3 of the current lawSadQuote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not clear that your proposal changes this section - you don't mention it by name in the bill.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #55 on: October 14, 2009, 04:16:08 pm »

The bill was supposed to say Section 3. The other part has nothing to do with age of consent.

I amend my own bill to read:

Amendment to the Northeast Pornography and Age of Consent Act


1. Section 3, Clause 1 is hereby amended to include "All those persons of 16 years of age or older not incarcerated for crimes shall have the right to give consent to engage in sexual acts with other persons of 16 years of age or older."

2. "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person of 17 years or younger is guilty of statutory rape." is amended to read "Any person of 21 years of age or older who engages in a sexual act with a person younger than the age of 16 is guilty of statutory rape."

And it's friendly.

Maybe made a typo but I think it still does the same thing anyways

You're still not deleting the first clause of Section 3.

I see why current law needs to be tweaked a bit - under the law, a college senior who just turned  21 can theoretically end up going to jail for having sex with an incoming freshman who has yet to turn 18.  I'm not sure a blanket change for 16-year-olds is necessary - though it is the most common age of consent in the US.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #56 on: October 15, 2009, 12:51:42 am »

Bump.

I think all is clear now, but we have to wait for another entire day because of rules...

Yeah - that's to make sure we all have a chance to see the legislation and propose changes - and know when we will hold a vote.  I was gone for about a day and missed the override vte since it passed by so fast.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #57 on: October 15, 2009, 10:40:31 pm »

The Veto Over-ride vote passed.

The question is:

That - Debate on the Economic Recovery Tax Bill 2009 be now resumed.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "no," I believe the Ayes have it.

Debate is resumed.

Actually, I think we're getting ready to vote on the age of consent bill.  I would appreciate it if my Economic Recovery Tax Bill of 2009 is taken up next, though.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #58 on: October 15, 2009, 11:26:55 pm »

Can we get a final vote now? There is no debate.

Rep. Kalwejt  hasn't said anything since the bill was brought to the floor.  One of the reasons we have a 48-hour debate period is to allow all of us time to check in and give input on a bill.  Not every Representative is constantly online when the real world dictates otherwise.

And I still don't think you've struck the old 12-year-old age of consent close-in exception to my satisfaction.   I think you need to say something like "Section 3, Clause 1 is deleted and replaced with the following . . ." instead of "Section 3, Clause 1 is hereby amended to include . . ."
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #59 on: October 17, 2009, 01:14:28 pm »
« Edited: October 17, 2009, 01:55:45 pm by cinyc »

Aye, because the bill drops the close-in exception for 12-year-olds.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #60 on: October 17, 2009, 02:30:50 pm »


Not FTR - the vote is open until 12:31 PM tomorrow unless everyone votes sooner (Smid, that is).
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #61 on: October 18, 2009, 01:33:25 pm »
« Edited: October 18, 2009, 01:46:21 pm by cinyc »

I have no problem with making unemployment benefits tax deductible... I think that's a great idea that saves people a lot of trouble down the road.  I'm a little bit concerned about the $1,000 giveaway.

That's a lot of money.  Like, a lot of money.  Especially when you multiply it by the population of the Northeast, and especially when you consider that we're just the regional government.

Well, we can discuss lowering it if you think it's too much.  But, as drafted, if our tax rate is 5% (which would be about right for a Northeast US state), it will have the effect of exempting the first $20,000 in taxable earned income (after deductions - which the Northeast might not even have) from tax.  It was supposed to be the rough equivalent of not taxing the first $25,000 in unemployment compensation.

What is our tax rate?  Best I can tell, it's a flat 5.5% - meaning the bill would exempt the first $18,182 in earned income from taxes.

My statement on the tax bill is back on page 13, here.  Basically, this bill is partially in response to GM Purple State's suggestion that we provide tax relief to help the Northeast weather the recession.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #62 on: October 18, 2009, 02:40:45 pm »

I've been crunching the numbers.  Yeah - $1,000 seems a bit high.  According to the GM, our budget was balanced at $780 million.  Our population is 77 million.  Assume half of our citizens would be eligible for this credit.  (Assume the others aren't because they are minors who don't work, citizens who earn too little to take full advantage of it, or only have investment income which isn't eligible for the credit).  A $1,000 credit would cost about $38.5 billion - or 5% of expected tax revenues.  That's too high, even though we're likely to get $7 billion in stimulus funding.

A $250 credit seems about right - under my assumptions, it would cost about $9.6 billion, or 1.2% of expected  tax revenues - and would be partially offset by stimulus funds.  

I doubt the investment tax credit will cost a ton - maybe a billion - and we might get some sales taxes revenue on increased purchases and increased corporate taxes in the future.   Plus, it will put people to work making and buying stuff.  

The cost of exempting the first $25,000 in unemployment benefits from tax will depend on the unemployment rate.   As of right now, with 7.5% unemployment, it might cost us $4 billion in lost tax revenue (assuming half of our citizens are in the workforce) - IF all unemployed citizens collect $25,000 in the first place.  Hopefully, most get jobs and never come close.

The GM said we'd probably have to go into temporary deficit with our stimulus efforts - and if we don't, sales tax revenues would fall next year anyway, putting us into deficit.

I'd appreciate other input before further amending the bill.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #63 on: October 18, 2009, 07:30:47 pm »

I can't vote for $1,000, but I think I would vote for a more reasonable $400.  I'd like enough to provide a stimulus, but not too much so we break the bank.  Fiscal responsibility and prudency is one of the strengths of this region—I'd like to keep it that way.


Maybe instead of all taxpayers we can direct the tax credit to whatever brackets are considered upper middle class and down from there.

That won't save much and would run contrary to the traditional flat tax we have in this region.  People shouldn't be penalized for making a good living - remember, this credit is only on earned, not investment income.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #64 on: October 19, 2009, 01:10:49 pm »
« Edited: October 19, 2009, 01:13:15 pm by cinyc »

Wait... we use a flat income tax in the Northeast ?? This absolutely needs to be changed.

As best I can tell, we do - but the Wiki for Northeast legislation hasn't been updated since 2007.

I will accept Mr. Moderate's amendment to lower the Making Work Pay tax credit to $400 as friendly.

The bill on the floor, as amended:
1. Investment Tax Credit
(a) All individual and corporate taxpayers shall be entitled to a tax credit equal to the full amount of any capital expenditure made during the 2009 tax year that would otherwise have been required to be depreciated over time under the Northeast Tax Code.
(b) This tax credit shall be subject to recapture if a taxpayer sells or otherwise disposes of the capital asset subject to this credit before the end of the period during which such capital asset would have been required to be depreciated under the Northeast Tax Code but for the provisions of Section 1(a).
(c) The Northeast Tax Commissioner shall have the power to issue regulations preventing the abuse of Section 1(a).

2. Making Work Pay Tax Credit
(a) All individual taxpayers shall be entitled to a $400 tax credit against earned income in the 2009 tax year.
(b) The availability of this credit shall not be subject to any income limitations otherwise provided in the Northeast Tax Code.
(c) This credit shall not be refundable.

3. Taxation of Unemployment Benefits
The first $25,000 of unemployment benefits received during each of the 2009 and 2010 tax years shall not be subject to tax under the Northeast Tax Code.

Effective Date
This Act shall be effective for income received during the 2009 and, where specified, 2010 tax years, regardless of whether earned before the date hereof.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #65 on: October 19, 2009, 03:23:09 pm »

Since I'll be leaving office tomorrow, I'll leave it up to one of you good folk to pick up my sponsored legislation on the floor.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if the Assembly expands to 8 members...
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #66 on: October 19, 2009, 10:16:20 pm »

Technically, all bills should be reintroduced on the proposed legislation thread for the new session.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #67 on: October 19, 2009, 10:36:08 pm »

Technically, all bills should be reintroduced on the proposed legislation thread for the new session.

Sounds good to me. But just as an FYI, Constitutional Amendments are going near the top of consideration list. Smiley

Sponsors should make sure to introduce them first, before sponsoring other legislation, then.  I will make sure the current tax bill gets back to the floor ASAP, and will be introducing Mr. Moderate's Veto Override Amendment should he not win reelection.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #68 on: October 19, 2009, 10:44:14 pm »

The following have been duly elected:

Antonio V
Hamilton
Kalwejt
Smid
Cinyc
Fezzyfestoon

With the Assembly size increased to Eight, the Governor needs to appoint two Reps. Smiley

The New Assembly starts at Midnight, or about 17 minutes.

Why wouldn't the election determine the other two new members?
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #69 on: October 19, 2009, 10:48:39 pm »

They didn't accept write-ins therefore those votes aren't valid.

Dr. Cynic voted for himself, which I thought was the equivalent of accepting write-ins.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #70 on: October 19, 2009, 11:20:45 pm »

They didn't accept write-ins therefore those votes aren't valid.

Dr. Cynic voted for himself, which I thought was the equivalent of accepting write-ins.

I'm not sure if we have that rule. We could. And I'm not sure if those who don't meet quota are rejected.

I'm not even sure we have an acceptance of write-ins rule - that's a federal thing. Article V, Section v of the New Northeast Constitution only says "Candidates for the Legislative Assembly will be given until the second Friday of the month in which he or she wishes to run in an election thereof to announce his candidacy. This is to be done by officially declaring his or her's candidacy in the Candidate Declaration Thread. "    It says nothing about write-ins.  

The old Northeastern Voting Regulations only says "In order to be listed on the ballot, a candidate must have announced an intention to run 7 days before the day appointed for the election to begin. If the candidate has not announced an intention before this deadline and wishes to run, that citizen should have write in candidacy status. " - but that pre-New Northeast Constitution law arguably only applies to the Governor's race and is probably superseded by the New Northeast Constitution.

The law requiring acceptance of write-in votes is a federal one, not a Northeastern one.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #71 on: October 19, 2009, 11:29:45 pm »
« Edited: October 19, 2009, 11:32:08 pm by cinyc »

In that case, we should work on amending this to resolve this confusion. Write-ins should have to be accepted.

And what about quota issues? I don't think they are addressed either.

Quota issues meaning what?  Tallying of votes? The New Northeast Constitution expressly adopted Sections 4-17 of the federal Proportional Representation Act, unless this Assembly decides otherwise.

Note that we didn't adopt Section 3 of the PRA, which would have adopted the federal write-in rules through the back door.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #72 on: October 19, 2009, 11:49:06 pm »

it is precedent in the Northeast to need write ins to be confirmed through votes. Just look at the February 2009 Lt Governor race, where the top vote getter did not win.

Votes for themselves?
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #73 on: October 19, 2009, 11:59:31 pm »
« Edited: October 20, 2009, 12:03:17 am by cinyc »

it is precedent in the Northeast to need write ins to be confirmed through votes. Just look at the February 2009 Lt Governor race, where the top vote getter did not win.

Votes for themselves?

Yeah

Well Dr. Cynic did that.  Connor Flynn/Montag may have if Rocky is for some unknown reason (to me) him.  Mr. Moderate did not.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,877


« Reply #74 on: October 20, 2009, 01:50:12 pm »

The following have been duly elected:

Antonio V
Hamilton
Kalwejt
Smid
Cinyc
Fezzyfestoon

With the Assembly size increased to Eight, the Governor needs to appoint two Reps. Smiley

The New Assembly starts at Midnight, or about 17 minutes.

So there are 3 ProCons, 2 JCP-ers and, now, 1 LFN?



I'm an independent.  It's 2/2/1/1, pending the election of Dr. Cynic and Conor Flynn.  If those two are deemed elected, the composition should be 2 PCP, 2 JCP, 2 LFN (+Dr. Cynic), 1 DA (+ Conor/Rocky/Montag/whatever he's calling himself these days) and 1 independent.

The composition of the first Assembly at the time of nomination was 2 PCP, 2 JCP, 2 independents.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22 Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC