Pacific Legislature Official Thread

[Platypus]

aye on oth amendments. I would also like to offer one, bringing the five year penalty in section 2. down to 18 months.

[Platypus]

aye on the first two amendments, nay on the third

[Platypus]

def. nay on option three then. There are more 'mental conditions' then depression, you know.

[Platypus]

that some mental conditions are significantly bad for abortions granted on mental health to be acceptable.

[Platypus]

which is why people should vote nay.

[Platypus]

i believe my amendment passed, John

[Platypus]

I vote aye.

And John, smile

[Platypus]

fiscal years start 1st July

[Platypus]

I vote in favour.

[Platypus]

Nay
Abstain

[Platypus]

ad. red: how many jobs, approx., will be cut by this? 5% might seem smalll, but with regional government being a huge employer in the Pacific, that'll affect a lot of lives. How many?

sal. red. add a lower limit. IE, all regional governmental employees earning over, say,. $30,000 a year (adjusted for inflation) shall have...blah blah blah, although less then 5% for those earning less then $31,500 etc.

consolidation act-No, thanks. Rather, consodlidate each department in a different place. IE, have education in seattle, taxes and rev enue in nevada, health in portland, etc etc.

Otherwise, thousands of people who couldn't afford or don't want to live in San Francisco would lose their jobs, which is far worse then the loss of a potential 5 billion, which would of course be nice. But money will still be made through consolidation. As is, there is no way I can support this bill (it's not an act until it passes, btw).

gambling revenue...I think this is OK, but there are some things that must be considered: 1. Las Vegas. How would this affect tourism? 2. Will the government become 'addicted' to gambling revenue, as has happened in other countries?

1, I don't really know. 2, it's likely; very few governments try and stop gambling addiction if they need the revenue to keep the budget in the black. So, to limit the harm of this, I suggest we ban all gambling that relies on chance rather then skill (or a combination of the two). IE, sports betting, most card games etc. would be legal, but things like the pokies illegal.

[Platypus]

I still won't vote for it. It's going to destroy the economies of cities like Olympia, Santa Fe, Salem, Carson City and Juneau; and significantly affect other cities.

[Platypus]

I'd be happy to support the gambling revenue amendment bill, but I believe we should, at or near the time of passage, pass a bill limiting gambling in the region to games that include an element of skill only.

Re: salary reduction. There has to be a lower limit. Sam can make up numbers with an educated guess if he has to; but we shouldn't be taking 5% off someone who only earns, say, $20,000.

[Platypus]

1. Numbers of people lose lose their jobs, please.

2) Did you ask sam for an estimate if a lower limit is imposed of, say, $30,000?

3) For reasons i've already stated, I won't support this; it'll hurt the economies f many small, government towns in the region and obviously the people who live in them.

4) I'll support that.

[Platypus]

Fair enough. Would you consider amending the legislation once his numbers are received?

[Platypus]

I think $30,000 is a reasonable amount. It's not good that we'd be reducing wages of those under, say $40,000; but sometimes tough choices have to be made.

Can I also ask for an estimation of how this will affect the economies of cities and towns such as Juneau and Olympia, where government is a/the major industry? Just an opinion would suffice.

[Platypus]

My $30,000 thing was for the second act, and I think it fits better there; if the ones earning less then $30,000 include people who 'should' be fired, then let them be.

Either way, it's safeguarded, so I support 1, 2 and 4.

And whilst the consolidation act wouldn't have a negative effect on the general regional economy, I don't want to see more ghost towns. I won't be supporting three, personally.

[Platypus]

1 and 2 are satisfactory. I think i've been pigheaded enough, honestly. It'd be better in 2; it works in 1.

[Platypus]

1. Aye
2. Aye
3. Nay
4. Aye

[Platypus]

I'm hopeless at legalese, but could we pass a bill banning all gambling on games of luck (or, only allowing those games with an element of skill)? Perhaps with the exclusion of Nevada; if it's necessary.

[Platypus]

if we're going to have a budget dependant on gambling money, let's at least make it gambling money that isn't totally dirty. Games of pure chance-with a very low chance of winning-are the most addictive and most destructive, especially things like pokie machines. I have no problem with allowing games of skill-poker, sports bettingm, etc., even if there is also luck involved. But pure luck games, especially those with a very low chance of success, should be banned. The government shouldn't be rasing revenue that way.

Lotteries could be exempted, because it's not like you put in $500 a day on lottery tickets.

[Platypus]

if we can't fill 1 position, how can we fill two?

Otherwise, reasonable proposal.

[Platypus]

Aye

[Platypus]

(they ayes have it...)

I will be suggesting a couple of bills shortly, inluding a version of the water purity bill.

[Platypus]

I'll suggest them, you propose them. Fair?