NE2: Another Budget Improvement Amendment (Law)

[cinyc]

Another Budget Improvement Amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Governor Dallasfan65

Debate on this bill shall remain open for 72 hours, or until around 4:00PM on March 28, unless modified or extended.  The sponsor, Gov. Dallasfan65, is encouraged to speak on behalf of the bill within the next 36 hours.  If he does not, the bill will be tabled because there is other proposed legislation in the proposed legislation thread.

The floor is open for debate.

[Deus Naturae]

I support this. We need to keep some funds in reserve for times of crisis, but at a certain point (such as when the relief fund has accumulated a large amount of money) it seems criminal to continue to hoard taxpayer money. In addition, 20% is a considerable amount which should be flexoble to change depending on the situation.

I don't want to derail this bill, but why do we have such specific things as required budget fixtures? It doesn't really make sense to refit government buildings to run on clean energy more than once, let alone every single budget...

[sentinel]

I support this. We need to keep some funds in reserve for times of crisis, but at a certain point (such as when the relief fund has accumulated a large amount of money) it seems criminal to continue to hoard taxpayer money. In addition, 20% is a considerable amount which should be flexoble to change depending on the situation.

I don't want to derail this bill, but why do we have such specific things as required budget fixtures? It doesn't really make sense to refit government buildings to run on clean energy more than once, let alone every single budget...

I don't think we should pass a bill restructuring the budget while we're debating the current one.  Just a potential logistical issue to look out for there.

Also, refitting government buildings to run on more clean energy is vague. Not that I have a problem with it, but I think Deus is wrong in implying upgrades and associated maintenance is a one time expense and not an on going project. Like bridges and roads, there is upkeep associated with assets no matter who owns them.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

OK.

So to talk about why I drafted this up.

Currently, the law requires that we appropriate 20% of each budget surplus toward a Disaster Relief Fund. On its face, this seems like a good hedge against natural disasters. However, we haven't had a major disaster (that I know of at least) since Hurricane Sandy. So, I think what would be appropriate is to merely advise that we allocate a percentage of the surplus toward the DRF.

Secondly, we don't have a clear idea of the exact sum in the Disaster Relief Fund. Cincinnatus did an estimate, and has it at around $10 billion. So, with this amendment, we would have a good idea with each budget trimester how much we have in the DRF, which would give us more discretion.

I support this. We need to keep some funds in reserve for times of crisis, but at a certain point (such as when the relief fund has accumulated a large amount of money) it seems criminal to continue to hoard taxpayer money. In addition, 20% is a considerable amount which should be flexoble to change depending on the situation.

I don't want to derail this bill, but why do we have such specific things as required budget fixtures? It doesn't really make sense to refit government buildings to run on clean energy more than once, let alone every single budget...

I don't think we should pass a bill restructuring the budget while we're debating the current one.  Just a potential logistical issue to look out for there.

Also, refitting government buildings to run on more clean energy is vague. Not that I have a problem with it, but I think Deus is wrong in implying upgrades and associated maintenance is a one time expense and not an on going project. Like bridges and roads, there is upkeep associated with assets no matter who owns them.

I agree that there's upkeep, not only because of maintenance but also because of improvements in technology.

That being said, the current numbers are a bit gratuitous to be done continually. So, much like we did with the current budget being debated, I think it's appropriate that we pear down funding from the previous baseline. (Of course, exceptions can be made for new scientific breakthroughs.) I think they should be kept in the budget even if only a token amount is spent.

To address your concerns about this budget interfering with the current budget, I'm open for an amendment that doesn't implement this law until July (which is probably a good idea.)

[cinyc]

Whoops.  I thought debate on this bill was closing on Saturday, not today.  My apologies for opening the vote late.

The debate period has ended.  Seeing no amendments, it is time to vote on the bill as originally drafted:

Another Budget Improvement Amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This vote will remain open for the earlier of 48 hours or when all Representatives have voted.

[Deus Naturae]

Aye

[cinyc]

Aye

[sentinel]

Abstain

(I'd vote for it but I thought we were amending it to go into effect after this budget passes? Busy week so I don't have  chance to write it)

[SWE]

Aye

[cinyc]

Abstain

(I'd vote for it but I thought we were amending it to go into effect after this budget passes? Busy week so I don't have  chance to write it)

No formal amendment was offered.  My hands are tied to the proposed text.

[cinyc]

48 hours has passed since the voting period was opened.  By a vote of 3-0 with one abstention and 1 absence, the bill passes and goes to the governor's desk for his signature or veto.

[cinyc]

Governor Dallasfan65 has signed this bill into law.