HOUSE RESOLUTION: Paygo Rule Resolution amendment (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

Sponsor: 1184AZ
House Designation: HR1196

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The purpose of the current text of the Paygo rule was never austerity, it was simply meant to ensure that new programs are funded and that requirement can even be waived by I think 7 members.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

While I respect the goal of balancing the budget; measures like this just create an annoyance and don’t really account for the reality that deficits are very much a reality and are not inherently bad as long as government has a plan to pay them off. I do underused the override feature however even with that component a small minority of fiscal conservative could easily block overriding Paygo making this feature not that practical. This resolution would still ensure that any funding in bills must be covered by a department budget ensuring we don’t lose track of where funding is connected to.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Deficits are not inherently problematic given the circumstances. However, constantly creating new programs without dedicated revenues when the deficit is already rather high, if not a solution, at least causes people to think and force action along the lines of "Oh crap, if I don't do what I should have done when I wrote the bill, the House won't pass it."

[RFayette]

Deficits are not inherently problematic given the circumstances. However, constantly creating new programs without dedicated revenues when the deficit is already rather high, if not a solution, at least causes people to think and force action along the lines of "Oh crap, if I don't do what I should have done when I wrote the bill, the House won't pass it."

Agreed.  I think this is a good check on the tendency of the deficit to go up.

[Pericles]

Paygo has to be able to be overriden, this is just done to stop the spending that Atlasia needs.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Paygo has to be able to be overriden, this is just done to stop the spending that Atlasia needs.

Yes and if it comes to the Senate, I will only support it if we are able to override paygo.

[fhtagn]

Paygo has to be able to be overriden, this is just done to stop the spending that Atlasia needs.

Yes and if it comes to the Senate, I will only support it if we are able to override paygo.

The paygo resolution can already be overridden:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Pericles]

My impression is that override power is being eliminated, and anyway it should be a 2/3rds vote.

[fhtagn]

My impression is that override power is being eliminated, and anyway it should be a 2/3rds vote.

Well yes, this amendment would stop that (just noting the original resolution does have it), which is another issue with it, along with concerns raised by Yankee.

And there really isn't anything wrong with 3/4. If it's truly a necessary bill that requires an override, most if not all in the House would likely agree on it. And it absolutely should require that if it's something that is going to add to our spending.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

My impression is that override power is being eliminated, and anyway it should be a 2/3rds vote.

Well yes, this amendment would stop that (just noting the original resolution does have it), which is another issue with it, along with concerns raised by Yankee.

And there really isn't anything wrong with 3/4. If it's truly a necessary bill that requires an override, most if not all in the House would likely agree on it. And it absolutely should require that if it's something that is going to add to our spending.

A small right wing minority could easily block any attempt to override paygo. Also goverment should be truly flexible to go into debt when it sees it as necessary. Let's end this attack line that goverment debt is inherently problematic what is problematic is when we get into debt with no plan on how to get out.  

[Pericles]

I think a 60% threshold is best, or Paygo should be non-binding.

[fhtagn]

My impression is that override power is being eliminated, and anyway it should be a 2/3rds vote.

Well yes, this amendment would stop that (just noting the original resolution does have it), which is another issue with it, along with concerns raised by Yankee.

And there really isn't anything wrong with 3/4. If it's truly a necessary bill that requires an override, most if not all in the House would likely agree on it. And it absolutely should require that if it's something that is going to add to our spending.

A small right wing minority could easily block any attempt to override paygo. Also goverment should be truly flexible to go into debt when it sees it as necessary. Let's end this attack line that goverment debt is inherently problematic what is problematic is when we get into debt with no plan on how to get out.  

That's the thing, though. Most of the time there isn't a plan to get out. It's one thing to go a little bit into debt, but it's another when we are already $900 billion in the hole because of that kind of thinking.

I'm also not sure why you're making this about sides when the same can be said about a small left wing minority, or a small independent minority for something the "right wingers" want to override the resolution for. I get that you're on some weird hate spree for anything remotely right wing, but come on.

Are you saying that left wingers are bad at writing bills and are incapable of considering funding for their expensive plans? Because what you are saying can easily be seen to suggest that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would point out that in real life, paygo is often instituted by the Democrats and it is the Republicans who waive and violate it to pay for their unfunded tax cuts. Just saying!


I was thinking ahead when I passed paygo. My goal was to force all new spending programs to have a dedicated revenue stream our offsets otherwise. The waiver was instituted because of a recognition that disaster relief and stimulus programs would be necessary at times. It was placed at 7 to make sure it was only waived when absolutely necessary as opposed to being waived whenever it is inconvenient (as in people are too lazy to create a funding mechanism). I would point out that I created a funding mechanism for healthcare legislation, the most difficult and wide sweeping bill the post reset Congress has passed and then went back and beefed it up and it still wasn't enough according to the GM.


We have a $900 billion dollar deficit, which is the product of Congress not paying attention to what is funded and what is not. This is not just fiscal conservatives who would be aghast by this, even a Keynesian (who was actually adhering to Keynes approach) would be troubled by these levels of deficit. Keynes called for surpluses (spending cuts and tax hikes) during economic prosperity.

[Pericles]

Though unemployment is at 7% so the economy isn't that prosperous.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Though unemployment is at 7% so the economy isn't that prosperous.

I didn't say we were in prosperity, I was just reminding people that even Keynes was opposed to perpetual deficits and if you create on going programs that spend money, they need to be funded unless they are disaster relief or counter-cyclical stimulus.

[Pericles]

Though unemployment is at 7% so the economy isn't that prosperous.

I didn't say we were in prosperity, I was just reminding people that even Keynes was opposed to perpetual deficits and if you create on going programs that spend money, they need to be funded unless they are disaster relief or counter-cyclical stimulus.

Of course, but Keynes said that you need to deficit spend to reduce cyclical unemployment. When unemployment is at 7% that's not the time to make cutbacks, and the real cutbacks should be made when the rate is at 4%.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Though unemployment is at 7% so the economy isn't that prosperous.

I didn't say we were in prosperity, I was just reminding people that even Keynes was opposed to perpetual deficits and if you create on going programs that spend money, they need to be funded unless they are disaster relief or counter-cyclical stimulus.

Of course, but Keynes said that you need to deficit spend to reduce cyclical unemployment. When unemployment is at 7% that's not the time to make cutbacks, and the real cutbacks should be made when the rate is at 4%.

Well then why hasn't the unemployment rate gone down?

The reason is because this deficit spending is not an extra boost to stimulate the economy, it is because long term and existing programs are underfunded or unfunded.

I am not saying we should cut the programs here, I am saying we should make sure all new programs have a dedicated funding stream with the option to waive such requirement for emergency/deflationary situations.

[Pericles]

Well I'd dispute whether appropriate stimulative deficit spending has actually occurred. Most programs should be funded but at the same time you don't want the stimulus to help in one area and hurt elsewhere by harming the economy with its funding.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well I'd dispute whether appropriate stimulative deficit spending has actually occurred. Most programs should be funded but at the same time you don't want the stimulus to help in one area and hurt elsewhere by harming the economy with its funding.

Again, I am not saying we should cut existing programs here as this procedure has nothing to do with existing programs, I am saying that all new programs should be funded long term unless they are emergency or counter-cyclical stimulative measures.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I move to assume sponsorship.

I would point out that the unemployment rate became elevated originally not because of a defined economic crisis, but a GM mechanic in 2016 that raised the rate substantially in response to an activity crisis in a single region.

[Bidenworth2020]

I support this, though I personally support it either being non-binding or having a two-thirds override.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Seeing no objection, I am now sponsor.

I support this, though I personally support it either being non-binding or having a two-thirds override.

When I get home from work today, I plan to offer an amendment with a 2/3rds override.

[RC]

I support this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This amendment moves the exemption to the bottom of the paragraph so that the whole section may be waived by it, and it is reduced from 3/4ths to 2/3rds. This maintains the requirements for a funding mechanism but combines it together with AZ's text requiring a specific federal department budget.