SENATE BILL: Saving Over Spending Act of 2012 (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Scott

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You have 24 hours to advocate for this bill, Scott.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This legislation was originally crafted by real-life Representative Bobby Schilling (R-IL) as a way to address his nation's growing deficit.  To put it simply, the bill gives federal agencies of government the incentive to spend less and to spend wisely, unlike the status quo which often leads to "hurry-up spending," which has often resulted in the purchase of millions of dollars worth of goods and services that demonstrated no actual need for.

For any amount saved by an agency, 50% will be put towards the deficit, and the other half will be left to be spent at the agency's discretion in the next fiscal year.  The GM will be responsible for tracking and reporting to the Senate how much money this project saves.

I hope that this bill can receive bipartisan support, as it is an effort to reduce our deficit without hurting crucial services that our constituents need.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I find this a very reasonable and common sense approach...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Itching to use UC here.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'll ask for UC on this one as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Good thing you included the word "for" in there, Ben.

I ask unanimous consent to waive the minimum debate and cloture requirements to proceed to a final vote. Senators have 24 hours to object.

[LastVoter]

Good thing you included the word "for" in there, Ben.

I ask unanimous consent to waive the minimum debate and cloture requirements to proceed to a final vote. Senators have 24 hours to object.

Object

[tmthforu94]

Good thing you included the word "for" in there, Ben.

I ask unanimous consent to waive the minimum debate and cloture requirements to proceed to a final vote. Senators have 24 hours to object.

Object

Why?

[LastVoter]

Amendment:
To curb wasteful spending by making 50 90 percent of year-end savings in salaries and expenses available for an additional fiscal year, and to use the remaining 50 10 percent for the purpose of deficit reduction.

[LastVoter]

Can someone explain what incentive is there to save when you just lose half of the funding you saved? You have to give most of the funds that are saved back to the agency that saved money for this to be even remotely feasible.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Can someone explain what incentive is there to save when you just lose half of the funding you saved? You have to give most of the funds that are saved back to the agency that saved money for this to be even remotely feasible.

If the agency spends too much money, then it won't have any carry over in the next fiscal year.  The more it saves, the more it can keep, the more that can be allocated toward the deficit.  It is a simple, common sense way to encourage federal departments to spend wisely, and then enjoy the benefits of those savings by keeping half.

To put it in simple terms- if you save $5.00 and keep $2.50, you'd be much better off than if you were to save $1.00 and only keep $.50, so you would be incentivized to save more.

Your amendment is unfriendly.

[LastVoter]

Can someone explain what incentive is there to save when you just lose half of the funding you saved? You have to give most of the funds that are saved back to the agency that saved money for this to be even remotely feasible.

If the agency spends too much money, then it won't have any carry over in the next fiscal year.  The more it saves, the more it can keep, the more that can be allocated toward the deficit.  It is a simple, common sense way to encourage federal departments to spend wisely, and then enjoy the benefits of those savings by keeping half.

To put it in simple terms- if you save $5.00 and keep $2.50, you'd be much better off than if you were to save $1.00 and only keep $.50, so you would be incentivized to save more.

Your amendment is unfriendly.

Agency A: Spends $5.00
Agency B: Spends $3.00, gets to spend $1.00 next year.
Doesn't seem like a good incentive.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Can someone explain what incentive is there to save when you just lose half of the funding you saved? You have to give most of the funds that are saved back to the agency that saved money for this to be even remotely feasible.

If the agency spends too much money, then it won't have any carry over in the next fiscal year.  The more it saves, the more it can keep, the more that can be allocated toward the deficit.  It is a simple, common sense way to encourage federal departments to spend wisely, and then enjoy the benefits of those savings by keeping half.

To put it in simple terms- if you save $5.00 and keep $2.50, you'd be much better off than if you were to save $1.00 and only keep $.50, so you would be incentivized to save more.

Your amendment is unfriendly.

Agency A: Spends $5.00
Agency B: Spends $3.00, gets to spend $1.00 next year.
Doesn't seem like a good incentive.

That... makes no sense.

[Napoleon]

Wouldn't they have $6 in this scenario?

[LastVoter]

Wouldn't they have $6 in this scenario?

I gave a flawed example, but my point was that the agency that was saving money would end up with less money in the end if I read the bill correctly.
here is a better example: both agencies are given $5 each year, b saves
a: 5 5 5 to spend
b: 5 3 6 to spend

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Wouldn't they have $6 in this scenario?

I gave a flawed example, but my point was that the agency that was saving money would end up with less money in the end if I read the bill correctly.
here is a better example: both agencies are given $5 each year, b saves
a: 5 5 5 to spend
b: 5 3 6 to spend

Say I give you $10.00.  You spend $6.00 and save $4.00.  I subtract $2.00 and then give you another $10.00 in the next fiscal year, and you still have the remainder of your savings.  Then you would have a total of $12.00- a net gain of $2.00.

In your scenario, even if Department A doesn't spend any of the $5.00 it has, it would have $7.50 in the next year, assuming that this department receives the same amount it did before.

Hell, even if a department's budget is cut somewhere along the line, it would still be much better off if it had saved during the previous year.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

When the vote on Senator Seatown's amendment comes up, I urge my colleagues to vote it down, as it almost completely defeats the purpose of this legislation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Senators this amendment is now at vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

NAY.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Nay

[LastVoter]

Aye.
The bill makes no sense whatsoever.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.
The bill makes no sense whatsoever.

Only because you don't seem to understand it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Aye.
The bill makes no sense whatsoever.

Only because you don't seem to understand it.

It is a bit confusing. Maybe you could make the language simpler.

[LastVoter]

Aye.
The bill makes no sense whatsoever.

Only because you don't seem to understand it.

There is a silent majority. The way I understand it is that this Senate bill just wants to have a certain office hand over money for no remuneration only to be cut just as much later(If your and most of Senate's agenda is followed in the future).