The Budget Process Renewal Committee Act [on President's desk]

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Badger
Placement: Slot 4

[Purple State]

I support this wholeheartedly and have a few small recommendations to improve it.

First, it only gives us ~20 days to work it all out. While it shouldn't be allowed to dither, it may take more time; perhaps a clause allowing the Senate to provide a brief extension if necessary?

Also, the President should be allowed to appoint whomever he wishes. Personally, I would like someone like Peter involved in this, but Peter does not currently hold a position in the executive branch.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I support this measure. I think it will add more vigor and discussion to the game.

[Хahar 🤔]

The committee would certainly fail, FWIW.

[bgwah]

This sounds boring. Sorry to sound so negative, but most players in an election/government simulation are going to want to simulate, you know, fun stuff.

And the biggest criminal in Atlasian history is correct (broken clock is right twice a day etc.), the committee would probably go nowhere.

[Hans-im-Glück]

This sounds boring. Sorry to sound so negative, but most players in an election/government simulation are going to want to simulate, you know, fun stuff.

And the biggest criminal in Atlasian history is correct (broken clock is right twice a day etc.), the committee would probably go nowhere.

I see it the same way.

[tmthforu94]

I like the idea of a budget. My only fear, however, is that it won't be very effective. And agreeing with bgwah, this seems really boring.
If other people are committed to it though, it has my support.

[k-onmmunist]

I agree with the idea of a budget but it should be kept relatively simple.

[Hash]

It's true that it'd be cool if I knew how much playmoney I had at the DoEA, but the fact of the matter is that people don't give a sh**t.

[Badger]

I support this wholeheartedly and have a few small recommendations to improve it.

First, it only gives us ~20 days to work it all out. While it shouldn't be allowed to dither, it may take more time; perhaps a clause allowing the Senate to provide a brief extension if necessary?

Also, the President should be allowed to appoint whomever he wishes. Personally, I would like someone like Peter involved in this, but Peter does not currently hold a position in the executive branch.

I'm perfectly fine with both of these suggestions. I wrote 20 days just as a starting suggestion based on a random guess for the time required. Any suggestion as to how long should be allowed for the committee's recommendation, PS? FWIW I believe any extension can be granted as needed by the Senate by passing an amendment to the act if necessary. Either way it simply requires a consenting majority vote.

Regarding the issue that "people won't care", am I truly that much in the minority in finding the entire issue of the budget politically fascinating and the potential source of much debate? After all, what political issues gather more forum debate---regarding either RL or Atlasia---then taxes, government spending, and controlling the national debt? In RL these are huge issues to most Atlasia posters, myself included.

Currently taxing and spending decisions are made in a near vacuum, with only the broadest and vaguest picture of what the government collects revenue, spends it (let alone how), and incurs debt. For any individual proposal regarding spending and/or taxes, at best there's occasionally a limited and isolated cause and effect analysis from our time strapped GM. Resultingly, there's rarely much demonstrated consequence for spending more for "x" or granting a tax credit for "y".

When such decisions are put in the overall context of an overall budget, suddenly the consequences are much more tangible--and thus controversial.  Every spending increase or tax reduction now must be accounted for one of three ways: cutting spending elsewhere, raising taxes to raise/replace the revenue, or incurring more debt. When faced with those hard realities, I believe this will only increase debate over such proposals. And increased debate generally means increased interest and participation.

Regardless of whether this prediction is correct or not, is there any reason not to at least try? I agree that a budget process needs to balance being simple enough not to bog down and bore the Senate in minutia ("The amendment is passed that funding to expand Highway 72 in the SE Region shall be raised 12% instead of 11%. Now on to the Senator from the Midwest's resolution regarding funding increases for maintenance on Highway 58B...."  ), yet not being so simplistic that no one has reason to care or debate over what the budget contains. For that reason a committee to work on creating such a process is the first step.

Let it be determined by the Senate, Executive and GM working together: Can it be done in a way that improves the game? I firmly believe so, but even those who might doubt it have no reason to oppose our trying.

[Bacon King]

I think it's worth a shot, at the very least, to try to bring the budget back.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I agree with Bacon. We should at least try.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Blegh, a budget. Look forward to alot of work that is either hilariously unfeasible or an end result no one ultimately cares about.

[Хahar 🤔]

"A lot" is two words.

[bgwah]

"A lot" is two words.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=19934.0

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At Purple State's suggestion, I'm offering the following (obviously friendly) amendment. Does 35 days from first meeting sound sufficient, PS?

[bullmoose88]

Two things:

1.  Can someone who remembers the last budget process we had chime in here to give a reasonably accurate account about what went right/wrong?  I am having some trouble in recalling the lessons from the last budget.  My apologies.

2.  I've read the points my colleague Badger has made and in many respects I wholeheartedly agree with them.  My experience in government simulations, going back almost 10 years, has taught me that without a budget or spending consequences, the game becomes unplayable because the left naturally tends to dominate--I think there would be very few people who would choose the fiscal right over the left when money is infinite and only does good.  Spending restraints/forced choices and consequences makes the game a bit more even for fiscal moderates or conservatives and would spice up the debate.

That said, the last budget situation--as best I can recall and hence why I'm looking for some forum historians to chime in--still didn't work right.  I suggest two reasons why this might've been the case:

a) The senate's pace and deliberations over budget given the time span of the game really can cause problems.  This in and of itself isn't a wholly bad thing.  Delay or the threat of delay is a neat mechanism, but it can throw some things completely out of whack considering how fast things move in relation to real time.

b)  Even with a budget, and a GM who will write stories about budget failures or misappropriated money (or the lack of money), the consequences and restrictions on budgeting and bad budgets still seem insufficient.  Our pretty small voting electorate the nature of our electoral politics (elections here are really biased in favor of outside reputation, personal relationships etc) tend to insulate us from the political consequences of a bad budget.  Furthermore, not a single one of us will actually feel the brunt of a budget.  My fantasyland income won't be taken away at a higher rate because of a budget, nor will I have to worry about my future fantasy social security retirement benefits.  Sure the GM might write a story or two about how parents are happy their children are doing better because of money in schools, or seniors are enraged about less prescription drug benefits...but not a single one of those NPCs vote and not one of us feels the pains of controlled spending.

This doesn't mean we can't try a budget again, but it just seems to undermine one of the big pros the budget has for enacting it again in the face of many cons.

[Badger]

Two things:

1.  Can someone who remembers the last budget process we had chime in here to give a reasonably accurate account about what went right/wrong?  I am having some trouble in recalling the lessons from the last budget.  My apologies.

2.  I've read the points my colleague Badger has made and in many respects I wholeheartedly agree with them.  My experience in government simulations, going back almost 10 years, has taught me that without a budget or spending consequences, the game becomes unplayable because the left naturally tends to dominate--I think there would be very few people who would choose the fiscal right over the left when money is infinite and only does good.  Spending restraints/forced choices and consequences makes the game a bit more even for fiscal moderates or conservatives and would spice up the debate.

That said, the last budget situation--as best I can recall and hence why I'm looking for some forum historians to chime in--still didn't work right.  I suggest two reasons why this might've been the case:

a) The senate's pace and deliberations over budget given the time span of the game really can cause problems.  This in and of itself isn't a wholly bad thing.  Delay or the threat of delay is a neat mechanism, but it can throw some things completely out of whack considering how fast things move in relation to real time.

b)  Even with a budget, and a GM who will write stories about budget failures or misappropriated money (or the lack of money), the consequences and restrictions on budgeting and bad budgets still seem insufficient.  Our pretty small voting electorate the nature of our electoral politics (elections here are really biased in favor of outside reputation, personal relationships etc) tend to insulate us from the political consequences of a bad budget.  Furthermore, not a single one of us will actually feel the brunt of a budget.  My fantasyland income won't be taken away at a higher rate because of a budget, nor will I have to worry about my future fantasy social security retirement benefits.  Sure the GM might write a story or two about how parents are happy their children are doing better because of money in schools, or seniors are enraged about less prescription drug benefits...but not a single one of those NPCs vote and not one of us feels the pains of controlled spending.

This doesn't mean we can't try a budget again, but it just seems to undermine one of the big pros the budget has for enacting it again in the face of many cons.

Excellent analysis, Bullmoose. I'll try to respond to the cogent points you make in paragraphs a & b:

a) Again, a very good analysis. My hope is that the budget will actually encourage debate and participation by its very existence. Right now, other than grilling nominees for office, action by senators is generally confined to either introducing and championing legislation of ones own, or commenting/critiquing/amending legislation presented by others. If occasionally there is a lull in inspiration among senators, we get dead time and inactivity. By making the budget a regular recurring event, it becomes an occasion when participation is called for, and I can't see even the less active members of the Senate sitting out of such an important matter of taxes, spending and government debt.

Obviously the first budget will be the hardest to manage and develop, thought it should be relatively easier when later budgets merely involve modifications (even substantial ones) to the established template. Of course, time constraints will be an important consideration for the process committee to address.

b) You're absolutely right. I've considered the exact same realities of the limits of influence by "NPCs" affected by our sim budget. But outside of the legislation governing forum members (e.g. voting and election regulations, criminal sanctions for on-line violations), the same could be said for any legislation passed in Atlasia regarding RL issues.

This is in one way a curse as you noted since it insulates us from tangible political ramifications of our decisions. But at the same time it allows officeholders at all levels of Atlasia greater leeway and creativity in pursuing political and economic theories that, regardless of whether they work or not, would not be politically feasible in RL legislatures. (This fantasy buffer is the primary reason the SE government hasn't been defenestrated by mobs. )

As you correctly noted in paragraph 2, though, the existence of a budget forces us to put spending and tax decisions in context of a limited pot of revenue (not to mention deciding how big of a pot to collect). It certainly won't remove all limitations on having to deal with the impact of our decisions, but it will undoubtedly at least help in that regard.

[Purple State]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At Purple State's suggestion, I'm offering the following (obviously friendly) amendment. Does 35 days from first meeting sound sufficient, PS?

I would word Section 2 like this:

2) Said committee will begin meeting no more than ten days after enactment of this legislation, and shall prepare a report recommending the procedure and frequency of the government's budget process, and present same to the Senate, no later then thirty days after the Committee's first meeting, for due consideration and further action by the Senate. The Senate may provide extensions as needed if petitioned by a majority of the committee.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Done and done.

[Bacon King]

With 24 hours past, it's been adopted as friendly.

[Bacon King]

Anybody have anything else to say?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1.  Can someone who remembers the last budget process we had chime in here to give a reasonably accurate account about what went right/wrong?  I am having some trouble in recalling the lessons from the last budget.

The process was extremely complicated, took a long time and was also painfully dull. There were other problems; the Senate was operating from a position of almost total ignorance (attempting to work out the numbers proved to be a major problem and eventually a lot of bullshitting took place - from everyone) and the public didn't care about it anyway. There was also a provision that called for the budget to be balanced; this led to the opposite of your claim about inevitable-left-domination-in-games-like-this. Because massive cuts were required by the constitution, because all government programmes became labels with fantasy-money attached to them (and nothing else) it became easier just to cut away at everything without much thought; admittedly this was also during the zenith of Vulgar Libertarian domination over Atlasia, but a lot of people who could hardly be described in such terms went along with all of that. The budget also had to be done before the Senate could do anything. Yeah. That didn't help either.

The lessons are that if we are to have a budget (and I'm still not sure about that - which is why I've not co-operated with these proposals so far - we are fundamentally an election-sim and not a government-sim... certainly not a bureaucracy-sim... and anything that takes away from that damages the game) then it has to be simple, has to be relatively quick, can't have any hidden ideological booby-traps, must have a very clear and obvious connection to the rest of the game, and must not take priority over everything else.

It was also hell to repeal. Once some of us realised what had gone wrong (and most of us - myself very much included - were not innocent with regards its creation) we had to fight for a long time, and through a lot of defeats, to get our way. In the process a lot of things (including the independence of Senate procedures) were damaged.

[Peter]

I would speak in favour of this amendment - when was the last time the Senate actually passed a budget - I believe it may have been around Easter 2005, over 2 years ago (though one may have slipped through since then). Whenever the Senate had to consider a budget, very few Senators took part because they saw the vast numbers as daunting and time-consuming (totally understandable).

One of the reasons why the budget might have worked at the beginning was that there were a number of workhorses around Atlasia generally - Sam as GM, Emsworth as VP, etc. who were willing to put in hours to prepare a budget that was then given little more than a second glance by Senators (myself included). This lack of gratitude ultimately means that nobody would be willing to compile such data again (realistically our figures were quite basic compared to reality, and it could not easily be made much more simple in my view)

One of the reasons I was also attracted by a budgetary process was the possibility of a government shutdown if there was a standoff without funding - theoretically we haven't passed a budget in so long, the government probably has run out of money. Without the actual reality of a shutdown, the impetus to pass a budget is removed.

Its another empty Constitutional provision - there is absolutely no impetus for the Senate, or the executive, to produce a set of accounts (however detailed they need to be), and undoubtedly, if produced, they will turn out to be the work of one or two members, and will then be passed very quickly by the Senate because nobody cares (either in the Senate or in the populace).

Ultimately, the one great thing about the original budget provisions was that it forced the Senate to consider them and would not allow the Senate to move on to other business until it had passed something (though again, it generally turned out being the work of the GM). What then happened was that the Senate got pissed about the fact that it kept getting delayed by this inconvenient requirement, and instead voted that the budget requirement could be waived by a 2/3d vote. Initially this provision was brought in to allow the Senate to move on when the GM had not produced data, and for a while a few of us kept the Senate honest. Eventually, however, the Senate took it upon itself that it could simply waive the requirement even when data had been produced, and now the Senate doesn't even bother waiving the requirement - it just gets on with other business.

To pretend that any sort of incremental reform will work is what Einstein told us is INSANITY - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Much like Ebowed, I can almost guarantee this will never produce a set of accounts, and whats more, we'll have the same characters who support this, and then do nothing when the time is due, who will then come back next year and express support for yet another stage of "incremental reform".

Consign this to the dustbin of history. For all our sakes.

I'll just read the above into the record - an attempt to get rid of the Budget requirements in 2007. The requirement was finally repealed in 2008, after 3 years of no budgets had gone by. It remains my fundamental belief that a budget would add nothing to gameplay as budgets would only be the work of 2/3 players and would simply be rubber-stamped by others rather than genuinely debated.

[Badger]

I would speak in favour of this amendment - when was the last time the Senate actually passed a budget - I believe it may have been around Easter 2005, over 2 years ago (though one may have slipped through since then). Whenever the Senate had to consider a budget, very few Senators took part because they saw the vast numbers as daunting and time-consuming (totally understandable).

One of the reasons why the budget might have worked at the beginning was that there were a number of workhorses around Atlasia generally - Sam as GM, Emsworth as VP, etc. who were willing to put in hours to prepare a budget that was then given little more than a second glance by Senators (myself included). This lack of gratitude ultimately means that nobody would be willing to compile such data again (realistically our figures were quite basic compared to reality, and it could not easily be made much more simple in my view)

One of the reasons I was also attracted by a budgetary process was the possibility of a government shutdown if there was a standoff without funding - theoretically we haven't passed a budget in so long, the government probably has run out of money. Without the actual reality of a shutdown, the impetus to pass a budget is removed.

Its another empty Constitutional provision - there is absolutely no impetus for the Senate, or the executive, to produce a set of accounts (however detailed they need to be), and undoubtedly, if produced, they will turn out to be the work of one or two members, and will then be passed very quickly by the Senate because nobody cares (either in the Senate or in the populace).

Ultimately, the one great thing about the original budget provisions was that it forced the Senate to consider them and would not allow the Senate to move on to other business until it had passed something (though again, it generally turned out being the work of the GM). What then happened was that the Senate got pissed about the fact that it kept getting delayed by this inconvenient requirement, and instead voted that the budget requirement could be waived by a 2/3d vote. Initially this provision was brought in to allow the Senate to move on when the GM had not produced data, and for a while a few of us kept the Senate honest. Eventually, however, the Senate took it upon itself that it could simply waive the requirement even when data had been produced, and now the Senate doesn't even bother waiving the requirement - it just gets on with other business.

To pretend that any sort of incremental reform will work is what Einstein told us is INSANITY - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Much like Ebowed, I can almost guarantee this will never produce a set of accounts, and whats more, we'll have the same characters who support this, and then do nothing when the time is due, who will then come back next year and express support for yet another stage of "incremental reform".

Consign this to the dustbin of history. For all our sakes.

I'll just read the above into the record - an attempt to get rid of the Budget requirements in 2007. The requirement was finally repealed in 2008, after 3 years of no budgets had gone by. It remains my fundamental belief that a budget would add nothing to gameplay as budgets would only be the work of 2/3 players and would simply be rubber-stamped by others rather than genuinely debated.

You mean just as in real life?

I genuinely understand some of the concerns raised here, but I believe the problems cited---specifically making the ramifications of decisions on taxes, spending and debt more tangible in their consequences and therefore more controversial---a budget would help more than the current status quo. I don't think making it a constitutional mandate is wise, and hope the process committee won't recommend that.

At any rate these are issues that can and should be addressed by the committee in developing a budget process that is feasible yet somewhat realistic. If the Senate passes this measure, we're saying that--regardless of whether the Senate became disinterested in the process a few years ago--we're interested now in having a more realistic and consequence filled decision on taxes and spending.