SAM News Corp. Comment and Debate thread

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

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)

Oh, its amusing alright, I was just letting everyone know "I told ya so".

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

Wish I had a screen shot of that nasty little sh**t Proce claiming that I don't have regard for the facts, but he must have deleted it right before I tried to quote it.

[The Duke]

Right back at you, Governor.  Try spelling my name right the next time you hurl profanity at me.

It doesn't matter what your name is.

[The Duke]

Since Sam says not to do this here, I won't do it beyond this post.

What I said and what Sam said were obviously not addressed to any individual.  My comment was addressed rather to a collection of people who are ideologically opposed to free trade, and do not understand the global nature of economic interaction.

You are a paranoid nutjob and assumed we were talking about you specifically.  You came back with a sarcastic insult against Sam and a personal insult against me, which you chose to later delete.

I called you on your bullsh**t and you couldn't take the heat so you've gone off the deep end with a bunch of whatever.

The fact is that you've always been a leading attacker of the alleged FEC, and this was why you wrote your multi-post report about FEC related activities (Though it should be noted, you found no actual evidence of anything involving the FEC, all you did was to out Ben Meyers.  What society has gained from that little vendetta of yours remains unclear) making it quite clear you are now the leading FEC conspiracy theorist on these boards.

It should also be noted, and you can verify this if you like, that my page on the FEC for the Wiki was written last night, long before you decided to attack me.

As for my "beloved" in your words Taiwan Protection Act.  My position is not different at all from Colin Wixted's position and the position of many others.  We should not have unrestricted trade with countries that pose a threat national security.  If I support the embargo on North Korea or sanctions on Iran am I being inconsistent about trade?  Of course not.  When Guatemala develops a nuclear weapons program, Senator, then you can expect me to oppose CAFTA.

[The Duke]

I'm sorry, I thought we were told not to post this here anymore.  Must have been my imagination.

[The Duke]

I'm sorry, I thought we were told not to post this here anymore.  Must have been my imagination.

Which is why I PM'd you.

I'm not going to enter a PM debate with you.

[The Duke]

You think that's a good enough excuse?  Okay, so you were wrong, and my rebuttal was correct.

Whatever.  Its like talking to a 4-year old.

[The Duke]

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.

Those numbers for the MW budget sound about right if memory serves.

Whenever you get to doing the Pacific Employee salary cut numbers I asked for, that would be appreciated.  Obviously, we have some time, as the legislature is otherwise occupied for now.

[The Duke]

Sales tax revenues off?  Pacific has no sales tax.
Wages falling?  Pacific about to institute $7 minimum wage.

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

Salary cuts for all employees except highway patrol and teachers, yeah.

Staff reductions were to be administrators only.

Don't feel too rushed, I found something for the legislature to vote on for this week, so you've got plenty of time if you need it to look stuff up.

[The Duke]

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

[The Duke]

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?

[The Duke]

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?

[The Duke]

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.

[The Duke]

I'm back to annoy you about budget stuff.  Sorry.

If isntead of conslidating all government agency's headqauretrs to San Francsico, we did it in Sacramento where there is a lot of infrastructure for the bureacracy already in place (buildings, mainly), are there any addiutional savings?  Moving to San Fran was a savings of 1%, and our previous discussionsa are on the earlier pages of this thread.

Thanks.

[The Duke]

I'm back to annoy you about budget stuff.  Sorry.

If isntead of conslidating all government agency's headqauretrs to San Francsico, we did it in Sacramento where there is a lot of infrastructure for the bureacracy already in place (buildings, mainly), are there any addiutional savings?  Moving to San Fran was a savings of 1%, and our previous discussionsa are on the earlier pages of this thread.

Thanks.

California is, I believe, roughly 1/4 of the Regional budget.  Although the California state buildings, et al, will already be in Sacramento, there will have to be additional building and land buying, etc., just not as much as in San Francisco.  Also, the cost will be slightly cheaper (eminent domain, etc.).

I'm going to say 1.25%, or roughly $2.5 billion dollar savings, if the move were made to Sacramento.

$3.1 billion or so would be 1.25%.  $2.5 billion is 1%.  Budget is $256 billion.

[The Duke]

Ironically, I believe I would be the first Jewish Atlasian Secretary of State.

I think M was a jew, though I'm not sure.

He was.

[The Duke]

The Senate proposes a 90% cut in education spending.  How will we prepare kids for high tech jobs if we do this?  The Senate proposes slashing scientific research.  How will we maintain our technological superiority if we do this?  They propose cutting many defense programs, weakening the military and making us less safe at the exact moment that global terrorist groups are surging in strength, with attacks in Jordan, Paris, and Iraq.  Then the Senate provides the capstone, a policy so ludicrous I wondered at first if the bill was not introduced in jest: A bill to sell off NASA to the highest bidder.  Excuse me?  The sale of sensitive technologies to the highest bidder, in such a way that we'll be unable to control the spread of the world's most advanced satellite, missile, and other space technology to rogue states like Iran and North Korea and near peer competitors like China?

To be perfectly fair, "the Senate" has proposed absolutely nothing.  DanielX proposed the above.  I just crunched the numbers and showed him what would be the immediate effect to the budget.  Quite frankly, I think that what DanielX is proposing is completely out of the question, but I am not one to take that as an excuse to be obstructionist and unhelpful.  My drafting of the effects of his plan should not be taken as tacit support of his proposal.

Understood that you don't support that particular proposal, but the majority of Senators, whether you yourself are included or not, have shown great zeal in the past for cutting programs that I don't always think should be cut.  I applaud any Senator who stands up for what's right, and that means I applaud you if you intend to vote to block DanielX's proposal.

[The Duke]

The Senate proposes a 90% cut in education spending.  How will we prepare kids for high tech jobs if we do this?  The Senate proposes slashing scientific research.  How will we maintain our technological superiority if we do this?  They propose cutting many defense programs, weakening the military and making us less safe at the exact moment that global terrorist groups are surging in strength, with attacks in Jordan, Paris, and Iraq.  Then the Senate provides the capstone, a policy so ludicrous I wondered at first if the bill was not introduced in jest: A bill to sell off NASA to the highest bidder.  Excuse me?  The sale of sensitive technologies to the highest bidder, in such a way that we'll be unable to control the spread of the world's most advanced satellite, missile, and other space technology to rogue states like Iran and North Korea and near peer competitors like China?

To be perfectly fair, "the Senate" has proposed absolutely nothing.  DanielX proposed the above.  I just crunched the numbers and showed him what would be the immediate effect to the budget.  Quite frankly, I think that what DanielX is proposing is completely out of the question, but I am not one to take that as an excuse to be obstructionist and unhelpful.  My drafting of the effects of his plan should not be taken as tacit support of his proposal.

Understood that you don't support that particular proposal, but the majority of Senators, whether you yourself are included or not, have shown great zeal in the past for cutting programs that I don't always think should be cut.  I applaud any Senator who stands up for what's right, and that means I applaud you if you intend to vote to block DanielX's proposal.

Quite frankly, I've been thinking of introducing a Constitutional amendment throwing out the requirement for a balanced budget.  It seemed like a good idea at the time that made fiscal sense, but at this point I really have to kind of wonder whether a balanced budget is preferable to either a large tax hike (which may very well require tax hikes ad infinitum in later budgets, given that they'd probably at least make some sort of dent in the GDP) or practically abolishing public education among other things (even if libertarians would swear by the notion that this would somehow help education in the country).

Glad to hear that some folks are coming around.  If I remember, only me and Lewis Trondheim voted no on the budget amendment, so its been a long hike back.