SAM News Corp. Comment and Debate thread

[Sam Spade]

This is the thread for any discussion to occur relating to GM issues.

If there are any requests, questions or complaints to me, please post them here also as I will keep track of everything posted here as well.

[Sam Spade]

I suppose this would be the best place to put this.

Atheists, Libertarians Win Senate Battle

I do not like the implication that Senators who supported the bill were Atheists.  (I realize this was not directly stated, but the implication is very strong.)  Despite the thoughts of some, Christianity is, I believe, a religion that promotes freedom of religion, no matter what we think of the opposing religions.  However, removing "under God" was not my main focus in getting the bill passed; in fact, it was not a focus of mine at all.  I strongly opposed governmental sanction of a pledge, period.

I firmly believe in the Christian God, as I'm sure does Senator PBrunsel, who also voted in favor of the bill.  This implication of only Atheists and Libertarians supporting the bill is further evident in this section of the article:

Atheists and civil libertarians were at the forefront of making this law a reality, as both Senator Ebowed and Vice-President Emsworth placed it at the forefront of their legislative agenda, and with passionate debate along with some strong-arm tactics passed the legislation which only a month before seemed doomed to failure.

Further, I must ask what strong-arm tactics were used by the supportive side: the only thing I would consider close to that is the motion to table requested by Senator DanielX, from the opposing side.

At first, VP Emsworth and Senator Ebowed, along with other supporters of this legislation, wanted to reduce the pledge to the 1923 wording

I firmly opposed removing "under God" from the Pledge, and I opposed any other changes to the wording such as the "under Dave" amendment.

Hmmm...  The last part will be corrected.

The first part and second parts stand as a bit of opinion getting into a news article. 

It naturally happens (here as in all news articles) and I intend for it to be that way. 

As a little FYI:  the GM is entirely impartial, but will push things slightly one way or the other depending on any number of factors.  I am a reactive GM, but will not hesitate to be proactive if I spot something where proactivity is necessary.  Scenarios will occur here and there.

Where I differ from John Ford is that in most legislative and foreign policy cases, I will take into account the opinions and natural reactions of the Atlasian population and the world as a whole, as opposed to just those citizens who have registered as voters here.

As to where that will lead things, it's up for you to guess. 

[Sam Spade]

I bask in the glow of my own greatness.  In my endless forsight, I voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment to the first constitution and warned against including similar provisions in the new Constitution.

The Pacific Region, which unlike the Federal Government has no balanced budget requirement, actually has a balanced budget AND the flexibility to deal with crises.

Oh well.

I would think that you, of all people, would find it highly amusing that the person who got the balanced budget requirement in place and opposed tax raises fervently would now be writing scenarios which will cause either one or both of those things to happen.

At least I find it amusing, and it proves that I treat this position in a non-partisan manner (I hope)

[Sam Spade]

Shaking the cage, are we Sam?

Well, you wouldn't expect me to be a boring GM, now would you? 

[Sam Spade]

Sam, how much is the salary of the Midwest Governor and Lt. Governor?

Given the salaries of typical high-level government officers, I'll say this:

Governor:  $250,000 a year
Lt. Governor:  $150,000 a year

Of course, with graft and kickbacks you could earn a whole lot more.

[Sam Spade]

Sam, how much is the salary of the Midwest Governor and Lt. Governor?

Given the salaries of typical high-level government officers, I'll say this:

Governor:  $250,000 a year
Lt. Governor:  $150,000 a year

Of course, with graft and kickbacks you could earn a whole lot more.

So us cutting our salaries wouldn't help that much?

Nope.  Issuing like a 5-10% decrease in salaries among government employees in the Midwest would help, however the workers would probably not like that.  The unions wouldn't either.

[Sam Spade]

I'm assuming not a lot of heavy duty trade is done between Atlasia, Spain and France. Besides, couldn't a company buy a good in Britain from France and sell it here, negating any tarrif because of the EU?

Siege

This is not an EU action, though there is always the possibility France might engender such.  The goods trade between France and the US is estimated to be $14 billion exports (US to France) $13 imports (France to US).  I don't have Spain's numbers right now, but they're lower.

Of course, expanded trading with Great Britain is a possibility.  It won't do everything, but let's see how the market reacts first.

[Sam Spade]

Me and Jas, the only Government officials of the Midwest to my knowledge, (am I wrong about that?) have both agreed in a radical decrease in our salaries, I’m talking about 5-0 dollars per hour.

If there is no other legislation that authorizes different offices and branches of government and bureaucracy to be created, then that is correct (I am not exactly that familiar with Midwest law).

However, as Midwest Governor you do have control over all state branches of government and bureaucracy within you Region.  I am sure that is a huge mass of employees.  How many I don't know.

Here's the problem.  You're talking about a Regional government that has billions of dollars in revenue from the state governments it controls.  John Ford did a number on that in an earlier article, but I don't remember the exact amount.

A cut in your salary would be merely a drop in the bucket in comparison.  Besides, government officials and employees don't get paid that much anyway.

Still, the best thing to do to actually have some impact in that area, is to cut government employees' salaries or benefits, redo the pension system or layoff government employees from the staffs.

[Sam Spade]

Please take this off my comment and debate thread.  It doesn't belong here.

[Sam Spade]

These same investors have privately told the Planet that the present Senate is unknowningly trying to put the Atlasian economy at a severe disadvantage worldwide and some have privately questioned whether some elected Senators have any idea how an global economy works at all.

How subtle of you.

Accurate, too.

And I like how you didn't respond to any of the other points.  You think Sam's point about me not knowing anything of the global economy is accurate?  What about the thing about your beloved Taiwainese Defense Protection Act slowing down trade between Atlasia and China?

I made no point about you not knowing anything about the global economy.

[Sam Spade]

How many I don't know.

Precisely our problem.  We don't know how many employees there are.  We don't know how much they are being paid.  We don't know how to get this information.

Yep, I know.  Here's what I'll do.  When I officially get back on Saturday, I will work out the stuff for Cheezewhiz and John Ford on the Regional budget issues.

[Sam Spade]

I wish the GM would give me the data on the distribution of children in the Southeast by income levels he promised to give.
I'm also gonna need (and this should be easier) average per student spending in public schools in the SE.
This last one is more important, so if you have this, give them before the others.

Ok, Bono.  I'll get to it tonight, promise.

[Sam Spade]

I wish the GM would give me the data on the distribution of children in the Southeast by income levels he promised to give.
I'm also gonna need (and this should be easier) average per student spending in public schools in the SE.
This last one is more important, so if you have this, give them before the others.

Ok, Bono.  Here you go with the last question.

Population aged 5-17 in the SE:
15,264,000 - total

Average spending per student in the SE:
$7,675.60 - total

I'll see what I can do on the first question.  The population stats will help me figure out the other number.

[Sam Spade]

I wish the GM would give me the data on the distribution of children in the Southeast by income levels he promised to give.
I'm also gonna need (and this should be easier) average per student spending in public schools in the SE.
This last one is more important, so if you have this, give them before the others.

Ok, Bono.  Here you go with the last question.

Population aged 5-17 in the SE:
15,264,000 - total

Average spending per student in the SE:
$7,675.60 - total

I'll see what I can do on the first question.  The population stats will help me figure out the other number.

THanks.

Bono, I'll give a little more help.  I miscalculated one of the numbers.

The real number is $6,886.60.

Sorry.

[Sam Spade]

How many I don't know.

Precisely our problem.  We don't know how many employees there are.  We don't know how much they are being paid.  We don't know how to get this information.

Yep, I know.  Here's what I'll do.  When I officially get back on Saturday, I will work out the stuff for Cheezewhiz and John Ford on the Regional budget issues.

Much obliged

Thanks!

Ok, this isn't going to be perfect, but it'll be close.

Amazingly, most states in the Midwest (and in the country at-large) don't like to give out employee salary information or pension numbers.  Kansas seems to be the only state that does, so I'm basing some of this off that.

If I am estimating correctly, the total budgets of the 10 Midwest states come to being about $150 billion.  (John Ford can correct me here if he wants to).

Government employee spending (in Kansas at least) comes to being roughly 16% of the state budget.

So, if you were to cut state government employee salaries by 5%, according to my math, you would save $1.2 billion.

Once again, I'll listen to objections, because I may have calculated this wrong.

[Sam Spade]

When debate ends on the abortion bill in my legislature, I'm going to introduce a bill to cut salaries of administrators by 5%.  Cuts will no affect other state employees, like Highway Patrol and Teachers.  Do you have a preferred method of figuring cost savings?

I also plan to push for a consolidation bill for bureacracy, do you have a preferred method for figuring costs of eliminating a headaurters for each Gov't Dept. in each State Capital and expanding the central offices in Sacramento California to handle the expanded workload?

If left to my own devices, I'd figure a 5% cut in the Administrative Costs departmen of the government for the pay cuts, and maybe a 1%-2% cut in the costs of the other Departments for the consolidation.

I'll get you answers tomorrow.

[Sam Spade]

Sorry, I've been so out-of-touch.

You can figure the consolidation savings as being $2 billion dollars.  I think I've figured the Pacific budget is roughly $200 billion dollars (more than the Midwest because of California, obviously), and I'm going with a 1% savings for consolidation, rather than 2%, because of the possible infrastructure building needs with such a move.

As to the cuts in admistration, my best guesses at figuring the cost savings would put such a 5% cut in administrators at being $800 million dollars.

If you think this is unreasonable or strange, let me know.  But based on the figures I can find on the web, this is the way I'll calculate it.

[Sam Spade]

Sorry, I've been so out-of-touch.

You can figure the consolidation savings as being $2 billion dollars.  I think I've figured the Pacific budget is roughly $200 billion dollars (more than the Midwest because of California, obviously), and I'm going with a 1% savings for consolidation, rather than 2%, because of the possible infrastructure building needs with such a move.

As to the cuts in admistration, my best guesses at figuring the cost savings would put such a 5% cut in administrators at being $800 million dollars.

If you think this is unreasonable or strange, let me know.  But based on the figures I can find on the web, this is the way I'll calculate it.

Total Pacific Budget is $256 billion exactly, so $2.5 billion would be that 1% cut.

Is the $800 million for just releasing 5% of administrators or is that a salary cut, too?  Because I was going to do one of those as well.  A 5% salary cut, to be exact.

$2.5 billion is a ok figure with me, John.

As to the administrators, cutting 5% of them would save slightly less than a 5% salary cut.  Say $600 million dollars for the 5% cut in administrators, $800 million for the 5% pay cut.

My rationale behind this is that I have to include potential buyouts of retirements and future pensions on the regional budget, as well as the momentary increase in unemployment benefits.

[Sam Spade]

Sorry, I've been so out-of-touch.

You can figure the consolidation savings as being $2 billion dollars.  I think I've figured the Pacific budget is roughly $200 billion dollars (more than the Midwest because of California, obviously), and I'm going with a 1% savings for consolidation, rather than 2%, because of the possible infrastructure building needs with such a move.

As to the cuts in admistration, my best guesses at figuring the cost savings would put such a 5% cut in administrators at being $800 million dollars.

If you think this is unreasonable or strange, let me know.  But based on the figures I can find on the web, this is the way I'll calculate it.

Total Pacific Budget is $256 billion exactly, so $2.5 billion would be that 1% cut.

Is the $800 million for just releasing 5% of administrators or is that a salary cut, too?  Because I was going to do one of those as well.  A 5% salary cut, to be exact.

$2.5 billion is a ok figure with me, John.

As to the administrators, cutting 5% of them would save slightly less than a 5% salary cut.  Say $600 million dollars for the 5% cut in administrators, $800 million for the 5% pay cut.

My rationale behind this is that I have to include potential buyouts of retirements and future pensions on the regional budget, as well as the momentary increase in unemployment benefits.

Hmm, I'm surprised.  The Midwest saved over a billion dollars with a 5% pay cut, I was hoping for more savings.  That's the way the ball bounces I guess.

Are you talking about a 5% pay cut among administrators (which is what I took it to mean) or a 5% pay cut amongst all employees of the state (Regional) governments, as I did with the Midwest?

That's where the difference is.

[Sam Spade]

A 5% pay cut among all employees in the Pacific Regional government would be $2 billion dollars in my figures.

[Sam Spade]

Oh, saw your last post.  Does that include cuts for teachers and highway patrol, or no?

Yes, it does include those cuts.

[Sam Spade]

Oh, saw your last post.  Does that include cuts for teachers and highway patrol, or no?

Yes, it does include those cuts.

And is it possible to find out what the savings would be without cutting salaries of highway patrol and teachers?

After doing a little research, I'm going to say $1.5 billion.

[Sam Spade]

Oh, saw your last post.  Does that include cuts for teachers and highway patrol, or no?

Yes, it does include those cuts.

And is it possible to find out what the savings would be without cutting salaries of highway patrol and teachers?

After doing a little research, I'm going to say $1.5 billion.

Sweet.  Thanks a lot for all the work, as a former GM I know the pain in the rear that can be budget research.

If I can pass these cuts, I get to start having some real fun.

How's my regions economy by the way?  Obviously suffering the national recession, but I get the feeling we've weathered it better than other regions.

Yes, you have.  The Regional budget updates probably won't happen this week, maybe next week.

I'm also impressed the Pacific seems to be the first Region to finally consolidate services and administrative concerns under one central command.

If I were governor, that would be the first thing I would do to save funds.

[Sam Spade]

Sam did you see what I posted about the Social Security Reform bill?

Still waiting. 

It's coming tonight.  I got behind on the Friday Business update.

[Sam Spade]

I would like to officially respond to this criticism from last night's misleading episode of Larry King: Sort of Alive and Kicking and Married to a Mormon:

Some of my opponents have proposed to expand the powers of the Presidency. It has been suggested that the President should be able to introduce legislation directly. To be frank, I do not believe that this step will be necessary, if the President is sufficiently active in the first place. As Vice President, I have found that Senators have always been willing to introduce proposals I have recommended. Negotiation between the President and the Senate, I believe, would improve the quality of our government. But if the President could merely instruct the Senate to consider any particular bill, negotiation would be discouraged.[/i]

Larry King:  Yep, we certainly don't need another Alcon, do we folks?

(laughs)

It is completely untrue that I was a lazy President who relied upon the effort of others in the Senate and various other external matters.

I'd kick your ass, but I'm kinda tired, so I'm probably going to get Peter Bell to instead.  He's still on payroll, I think.

Please kick Larry ass instead.  I'm only the editor and CEO.