Budget Process Committee

[Badger]

I was supposed to take Badger's place on this committee. Has the window closed on me?

And with the LSATs over, I'd like to reintroduce myself to everyone. Hi!

No the window's not closed, but I think you need to get the Senate's approval first.

How'd the test go?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I felt good about it, but the logical reasoning sections were giving me problems on the practice tests, so I don't know, I tried to pick apart the argument's structures during the real thing which I wasn't doing before. That said, I owned the Logic games section. I'll know in November how I did.

Anyway, how do I go about receiving Senate approval? The process is all Greek to me.

[Badger]

I felt good about it, but the logical reasoning sections were giving me problems on the practice tests, so I don't know, I tried to pick apart the argument's structures during the real thing which I wasn't doing before. That said, I owned the Logic games section. I'll know in November how I did.

Anyway, how do I go about receiving Senate approval? The process is all Greek to me.

Like this:

Senators:

Since I've left the Senate for GM my position as one of the Senate's representatives on the Budget Committee is now open. Please nominate and confirm a representative at your earliest opportunity.

On that note I would ask the Senate to strongly consider confirming Senator Duke in that role. He's and experienced, level-headed person with an interest in such matters, and would accordingly be an asset to the Committee.

Sincerely, GM Badger

(link posted in Senate legislaiton introduction thread.)

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am unsure on how much of this has been depleted and spent. My take is many of those smaller amounts at bottom were depleted completely. Clause b is an enormous joke. $70 Billion for 18 months? What were you smoking Marokai? Anyway that is all gone by now. Despite it saying 18 months.

There might be some left of clause a but even that is debatable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This anywhere from 60% to 75% depleted.

Everything else is taxes.

So wait a minute. Are we all in agreement that the expenditures here are a one shot deal that affected the budget a year ago, but does not affect the current budget numbers with the exception of the total national debt and possibly the last 6 months of extended unemployment? IF so, let's get a consensus ASAP and move on.

Either way, Yank (or anyone) could you please ASAP offer alternative numbers to what I posted (feel free to copy and cross out/amend as necessary) to reflect what the prorated amounts being spent in the budget currently are? Thank you.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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?

[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.

[Badger]

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.

Remember Blue, the point here is what the budget actually is, not what we want it to be. That latter decision is up to the Senate and President. Since the wording regarding the permanency (or lack thereof) of increased food stamp funding in Clause C is no different than the other clauses which we all agree were set for a one time shot of increased funding, I'm afraid there's little basis here to say increased food stamp funding will continue to be increased under the ANRA. UNLESS......

Actually, the more I think about this the more I'm unsure. Unless explicitly stated (such as 18 months of extended unemployment benefits), was this an increase in spending or spending levels? The latter would assume the same amount is budgeted annually until the Senate and President change it. Some of the specific road/infrastructure programs would seem to be one shot deals (I think--with about 51% certainty ). What about the rest?

As instruction, what about the RL 2009 Stimulus Bill? Will spending levels revert to 2008 levels in all areas next year unless reauthorized? What about cuts in tax rates, both in RL and Atlasia? I assume those are permanent unless explicitly stated otherwise (e.g. see Section 5(a)), but......

Please chime in here as I'd like us to form a consensus quickly if at all possible and move this to a firm proposal and vote ASAP.

[Badger]

Attention Committee:

In order to speed up the process and encourage participation by all Committee members, I'm going to change the process of the reviewing the spending bills in the que.

When the Committee decides a previously passed spending bill has a substantial enough impact on the template budget to change the template's numbers (like we're now doing with the ARRA), instead of just opening it to general discussion by the whole Committee I'll assign that bill to a single committee member--if no one volunteers I'll pick someone at random--to prepare a proposal with specific changes to the template budget (i.e. how much a change in dollars spent, and in which spending category(s)). The whole Committee can then discuss the proposal, amend it, pass it, whatever.

As most or all of spending bills proposed are far less complicated than the ARRA, I'm going to be a harsh task master and expect the members report their proposal quickly---say around 72 hours after being assigned. If there are extenuating circumstances like a major RL conflict, I'll give you a pass and give the bill another committee member (including myself) to work on, but I intend on distributing the labor evenly among members so we'll get an assignment soon after we resolve the ARRA.

I believe this will speed things up so when if we approve one bill to revise the template budget's numbers, that bill can be assigned to someone and the Committee can immediately move on to the next bill in line. The Atlasian National Healthcare Act is next, and the rest of the bills for potential consideration are all listed in the que. Please consider now if there are any you would be interested in analyzing if the Committee decides to include it in the budget. In fact, feel free to call dibs on any bill now if you'd like.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

Remember Blue, the point here is what the budget actually is, not what we want it to be. That latter decision is up to the Senate and President. Since the wording regarding the permanency (or lack thereof) of increased food stamp funding in Clause C is no different than the other clauses which we all agree were set for a one time shot of increased funding, I'm afraid there's little basis here to say increased food stamp funding will continue to be increased under the ANRA. UNLESS......

Actually, the more I think about this the more I'm unsure. Unless explicitly stated (such as 18 months of extended unemployment benefits), was this an increase in spending or spending levels? The latter would assume the same amount is budgeted annually until the Senate and President change it. Some of the specific road/infrastructure programs would seem to be one shot deals (I think--with about 51% certainty ). What about the rest?

As instruction, what about the RL 2009 Stimulus Bill? Will spending levels revert to 2008 levels in all areas next year unless reauthorized? What about cuts in tax rates, both in RL and Atlasia? I assume those are permanent unless explicitly stated otherwise (e.g. see Section 5(a)), but......

Please chime in here as I'd like us to form a consensus quickly if at all possible and move this to a firm proposal and vote ASAP.

Not exactly. One of the biggest complaints against the Stimulus bill from Conservatives is that some of the items won't be completely spent til 2017 and 2018. But it is outside of the normal process.

And no, spending levels would not revert to 2008 levels because there was an omnibus spending bill passed right after the Simulus that hiked regular spending across the board by 10% to 12% and then another round of appropriation bills for next fiscal year which hiked those levels a second time on top of the the omnibus increases. This is why it is fair to say that Obama did indeed balloon the deficit by increasing the normal appropriations by double digits while inflation was -2%. Bush only increased them by 4% and 5%. Even aside form incorporating the war spending, Tarp, FDIC and bailouts for Fannie and Freddie and even the Stimulus, the there is about $200 to $250 billion in deficit spending that should lie squarely at the feet of Obama, Reid and Pelosi and can't be blamed on Bush.

Maybe Marokai would know if the social spending in the RL stimulus bills was a permnent increase or a tempoary increase.

I would note, the Food stamps we recieve are still at the levels they were increased to by the Stimulus. So I don't know whether its permenent increase in the annuall levles or whether its temporary and congress has just been extending it. I raid something about it was supposed to expire in January 2010, but this is October of course and the Food stamps atleast hasn't expired.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

feeble

[Badger]

feeble

I agree, Yank. Again, if you could offer some alternative figures from mine for changes to the budget template, that would help things immensely.

C'mon folks, lets get over this hump for the ARRA and the other bills should go much much quicker. BUT it needs to have contributions from everyone on the Committee.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Where exactly are we at on the ARRA?

[Badger]

Where exactly are we at on the ARRA?

Review the last few pages of the thread.

Seriously, we're determing how much of the spending allocated under the ARRA changes the figures in the template budget, and under what categories. I previously drafted some changes to the template based on the ARRA's contents (but haven't had time to finish the last several lines of the ARRA in the draft; HINT, HINT again, folks). Yank has indicated that the drafted increases in spending should be reduced/prorated as much of the funds allocated by the ARRA have already been spent and thus would only partially affect this year's budget.

The key here is numbers, people, numbers. I'm asking Committee members to propose some specific changes to the spending categories in the template based on the ARRA as I did. Whether you believe the changes in spending are prorated or not, your producing figures for even one section of the ARRA would be a great (re)start.

Regarding prorating the ARRA's current effect on the budget as Yank suggested, wouldn't spending on unemployment be significantly higher now as the jobless rate has also significantly increased since 2006 on which this template is based (not nearly as bad an increase in Atlasia as the RL unemployment rate, but still)? I realize that's not directly related to the ARRA, per se, but perhaps this is an appropriate time and place to consider it nonetheless. Thoughts?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would unemployment spending and welfare spending be higher then 2006? Yes they would. The problem is that is not necessarily part of the ARRA. The part we are stuck at is deciding whether the ARRA temporary boasted levels in a one shot deal, or if in regards to the welfare changes and such, were they permenent increases in the levels of spending on those items.

Aside from the ARRA, the spending on the "autamtic stablizes" would have risen considerably due to the recession and the year after the recession is usually the peak in such spending and trough in tax revenues. Thats not at issue. Whats at issue is whether these numbers in the ARRA were a temporary increase in those recession induced levels or perment increases. If its an increase in the spending level, then the cash level wouldn't run out and hence the permence becuase you just add that to the annual amount. If temporary spurt, then the levels would rise and then go back down, either as the time expired or the cash ran out. My initial thought was temporary increases that would have run out with the cash running out. In which case the marginal change produced by the ARRA at this point is 0%. But then I thought about it more and thought about my personal experiences and the likilihood of the permence of these line items increased. Then the Marginal change would be some % higher then normal levels (which remember are higher automatically but thats not part of the ARRA).

I can't just spit out numbers without the basis to go on.

If its option one, then some % is left and the rest has been spent out; if option two, you don't prorate you add them 100% to the levels in the template.

You tell me which. If its the first one then my previous numbers and probably yours too, are close to accurate. If not, then you don't need any percentages or proration. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is as dead as Robert Byrd.

[Badger]

This is as dead as Robert Byrd.

Not for long. I'll be PMing Committee members soon with a short cut proposal.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am fine with adopting the template as it.


I think Debt would have to be higher then the 2006 debt amount for the simple fact that we had a deficit in 2009 according to then GM Purple state of over $1 trillion (total number escapes me presently). I would say $10 to $12 Trillion minimum.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm fine with adopting the template proposal as well.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

$12 trillion should be the max we go on the debt ceiling. Let's get it under control!

[Badger]

$12 trillion should be the max we go on the debt ceiling. Let's get it under control!

I would tend to agree Duke, but let's not forget that we're here to determine what the debt already is, not what is should be. If we're forced to conclude previous governments have exceeded that amount, it'll be up to the Administration and Senate to get it under control, not us.

With that and with the discussion previously made, I move for a vote to adopt the template budget as representative of the current Atlasian budget, including all previous acts passed previously in Atlasian history.

I'll start:

AYE.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE



Yea, this has nothing to do with debt ceiling. We are deciding what Atlasia has already accumulated. Think Gameplay, not intra-game issues.

[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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE