SENATE RESOLUTION: Appropriations Freedom Resolution (Debating)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SENATE RESOLUTION

To repeal the Paygo rule and allow more flexibility in the appropriation of funding in bills.

Be it resolved in the Atlasian Senate Assembled,

Appropriations Freedom Resolution

Section 1.

Article 2 shall be amended by striking section 7 with succeeding sections renumbered accordingly.

People's Regional Senate
Pending

Sponsor: Devout Centrist
Senate Designation: SR19:21

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to commence an advocacy and the other Senators have an additional 48 hours to post their initial questions, comments and concerns.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

DEVOUT I WILL MOTION TO TABBLE THIS!!! ADVOCACY!!!!

[Esteemed Jimmy]

SENATE RESOLUTION

To repeal the Paygo rule and allow more flexibility in the appropriation of funding in bills.

Be it resolved in the Atlasian Senate Assembled,

Appropriations Freedom Resolution

Section 1.

Article 2 of the New Senate Rules Resolution shall be amended by striking section 7 with succeeding sections renumbered accordingly.

[Former President tack50]

Not the formal advocacy but whatever:

This bill will bring back freedom and democracy and liberate the Atlasian Senate, which is currently held by the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein Paygo. The people of the Atlasian Senate will thank us as their liberators. Plus we will be able to take their oil. Bombing begins 5 minutes after this passes

[Devout Centrist]

This resolution would repeal ‘paygo’, a rule that requires any increase in spending to be matched with cuts in spending or an increase in taxes. Simply put, paygo is far too restrictive and hurts the legislative process. Oftentimes, bills may increase government spending by a small amount. This forces us to find something from the Federal budget to cut or some tax to increases in order to cover the increase. This isn’t very sustainable and it doesn’t make sense when the increase in spending is so minute. Paygo also restricts our ability to form consensus on many issues of Federal spending. It has transformed appropriations into a dog and pony show. This has only increased polarization

Paygo is not an effective way to reduce the deficit, either. While it may prevent the deficit from increasing, it has no guarantee of lowering the annual deficit. The Federal deficit requires a solution that actually achieves its goal. Both parties need to work together on comprehensive deficit reduction. Paygo doesn’t accomplish that goal.

I stand here opposed to paygo and opposed to austerity. We can find ways to reduce the Federal deficit without turning every bill in Congress into an exercise of finding something to cut or something to tax.

[fhtagn]

If your bill isn't good enough to find adequate funding, then it's obviously not good enough to become law.

You know what isn't sustainable? Continuously passing unfunded or massively underfunded bills. Labor doing exactly that was what go us to an over $900 billion deficit to begin with.

Repealing paygo is just admitting you are too lazy to properly write and fund your own proposals.

[Mr. Reactionary]

What bills would have passed but failed solely because of Paygo? I can't think of any.

[Devout Centrist]

Proposing the following amendment:

SENATE RESOLUTION

To repeal the Paygo rule and allow more flexibility in the appropriation of funding in bills.

Be it resolved in the Atlasian Senate Assembled,

Appropriations Freedom Resolution

Section 1.

Article 2 of the New Senate Rules Resolution shall be amended by striking section 7 with succeeding sections renumbered accordingly.

[Devout Centrist]

What bills would have passed but failed solely because of Paygo? I can't think of any.

That wording is rather strict; while many bills don't fail solely because of paygo, it is a contributing factor in their demise.

[Devout Centrist]

You know what isn't sustainable? Continuously passing unfunded or massively underfunded bills. Labor doing exactly that was what go us to an over $900 billion deficit to begin with.  

The deficit was inherited from irl, correct? The Atlasian deficit is a lot lower than the current Federal deficit. I would also like to point out the the real life House of Representatives has a paygo rule, too.

Need I also remind you that much of our deficit spending in the past happened because of the Korean Civil War.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You know what isn't sustainable? Continuously passing unfunded or massively underfunded bills. Labor doing exactly that was what go us to an over $900 billion deficit to begin with.  

The deficit was inherited from irl, correct? The Atlasian deficit is a lot lower than the current Federal deficit. I would also like to point out the the real life House of Representatives has a paygo rule, too.

Need I also remind you that much of our deficit spending in the past happened because of the Korean Civil War.

That is just factually innaccurate. Before the war even started we had the same deficit as the RL situation. 

The atlasian deficit is a lot lower precisely because we have had paygo in the House for almost two years and over a year in the Senate now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1. We did not pass a deficit funded tax cut in Atlasia
2. We have made sure that every bill since late 2017 has been funded
3. We have passed bills raising revenue.
4. We cut defense instead of increasing it.

That is why our deficit is lower than the RL situation. The idea that paygo is irrelevant to that is ridiculous to the highest degree. On what ing planet does it make sense to run on reducing the deficit and then the first thing you do is pull the damn plug and let the debt rush on in.

This doesn't liberate anything except liberate the Senators to be lazy, stupid and derelict in their duty! This resolution will put us all in the chains of China and Opec and any one else we will need to beg to buy our junk bonds.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would also like to point out the the real life House of Representatives has a paygo rule, too.

And they ignore it, we have not and that is precisely why we have not ballooned our deficit and instead have actually reduced it.

[Devout Centrist]

I'm not about to gratify such hyperbolic allegations of 'junk bonds' and unfounded fears about foreigners holding Atlasian debt. Paygo hurts deficit reduction. It forces members of Congress to find obscure ways of raising revenue or lowering spending to pass even the most minute spending increases.

If we're serious about deficit reduction, I urge my colleagues to start working on a pathway to a balanced budget. Federalists administrations have neglected deficit reduction just as much as other administrations have. I would be willing to work on reducing the Federal deficit; Paygo does not and has not accomplished that!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm not about to gratify such hyperbolic allegations of 'junk bonds' and unfounded fears about foreigners holding Atlasian debt. Paygo hurts deficit reduction. It forces members of Congress to find obscure ways of raising revenue or lowering spending to pass even the most minute spending increases.

If we're serious about deficit reduction, I urge my colleagues to start working on a pathway to a balanced budget. Federalists administrations have neglected deficit reduction just as much as other administrations have. I would be willing to work on reducing the Federal deficit; Paygo does not and has not accomplished that!

This is factually inaccurate when Federalist administrations have reduced the deficit compared to RL, we have raised revenues, we cut defense spending and we have avoided deficit funded tax cuts. We also avoided drastic cuts to health care. How can you state with a straight face such a bold face incorrect assertion that Federalists have neglected deficit reduction?

Again, paygo requires that new programs be funded. The notion that you can move towards a balanced budget while removing the safeguards that prevent us digging the hole deeper is ridiculous. Until now this had bipartisan support, it was championed by the Democrats in RL for instance.

Futhermore how does requiring programs be funded by definition, how does that worsen the deficit?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SENATE RESOLUTION

To repeal the Paygo rule and allow more flexibility in the appropriation of funding in bills.

Be it resolved in the Atlasian Senate Assembled,

Appropriations Freedom Resolution

Section 1.

Article 2 of the New Senate Rules Resolution shall be amended by striking section 7 with succeeding sections renumbered accordingly.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Devout Centrist]

I'm not about to gratify such hyperbolic allegations of 'junk bonds' and unfounded fears about foreigners holding Atlasian debt. Paygo hurts deficit reduction. It forces members of Congress to find obscure ways of raising revenue or lowering spending to pass even the most minute spending increases.

If we're serious about deficit reduction, I urge my colleagues to start working on a pathway to a balanced budget. Federalists administrations have neglected deficit reduction just as much as other administrations have. I would be willing to work on reducing the Federal deficit; Paygo does not and has not accomplished that!

This is factually inaccurate when Federalist administrations have reduced the deficit compared to RL, we have raised revenues, we cut defense spending and we have avoided deficit funded tax cuts. We also avoided drastic cuts to health care. How can you state with a straight face such a bold face incorrect assertion that Federalists have neglected deficit reduction?

You have put forward ways that the Federalist Party has prevented the deficit from skyrocketing and while the situation is better than irl, the fact remains that your party has controlled the Presidency for almost 2 years. At this time, we are still running a half trillion dollar deficit. Paygo may be effective at preventing large increases in the deficit, but it does not guarantee deficit reduction.

Again, paygo requires that new programs be funded. The notion that you can move towards a balanced budget while removing the safeguards that prevent us digging the hole deeper is ridiculous. Until now this had bipartisan support, it was championed by the Democrats in RL for instance.

Except that, again, we haven't been doing that. Paygo looks good on paper, but it has made passing small spending increases ridiculously difficult. There have been no benefits aside from the potential to avoid large increases in the deficit. Correct if I'm wrong, but before the reset, Atlasia had a balanced budget. I'm willing to write a bill that puts on the path to a balanced budget if both sides are willing to work for it.

[fhtagn]

~$900 billion deficit down to ~$500 billion deficit

"yOu GuYs ArEn'T rEdUcInG tHe DeFiCiT"

Get back to us when you give us an actual proposal that will realistically do better, because factually speaking, cutting it almost in half is a pretty big deal. You keep saying "there are ways" but refuse to make the effort to point them out to convince people why repealing paygo is necessary.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There is an inconsistency here. Earlier, it was said that we need to repeal paygo, "because it causes austerity". Yet at the same time they are complaining because we didn't eliminate the deficit completely, which would have been you know austerity.

Part of the reason we didn't go more aggressively towards reducing the deficit was for the sake of the economy and avoiding anything that would cause a recession, but we did still cut the deficit in half.


Also I would point out the Austerity issue was raised when we instituted this in 2017 and as I stated back then this was not aimed at all spending. It was aimed at long term appropriations and entitlements, making sure they had dedicated revenue streams.

It was never meant to apply to emergency measures and counter-cyclical stimulus. This is not a balanced budget amendment, it was carefully composed by myself on the house side at least precisely to ensure that was still possible.

[Devout Centrist]

Get back to us when you give us an actual proposal that will realistically do better, because factually speaking, cutting it almost in half is a pretty big deal.

All in due time

[fhtagn]

Get back to us when you give us an actual proposal that will realistically do better, because factually speaking, cutting it almost in half is a pretty big deal.

All in due time

You're proposing something with no proof of a plan to ensure that responsible spending and deficit reduction will still take place without it. You realize how irresponsible this looks, right?

[Devout Centrist]

Get back to us when you give us an actual proposal that will realistically do better, because factually speaking, cutting it almost in half is a pretty big deal.

All in due time

You're proposing something with no proof of a plan to ensure that responsible spending and deficit reduction will still take place without it. You realize how irresponsible this looks, right?

There's a reason I haven't motioned for a final vote yet. I would suggest being a little more patient.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The other problem is what comes afterwards. We are removing a rule that requires responsible legislating that has been respected for over a year by all parties, on the promise of a short term agenda that will reduce the deficit. The problem is that agenda is short term, and what comes afterwards.

What happens in the next administration or the one after that? What happens when the right decides to start being dumb and start pushing deficit funded tax cuts?

[fhtagn]

Get back to us when you give us an actual proposal that will realistically do better, because factually speaking, cutting it almost in half is a pretty big deal.

All in due time

You're proposing something with no proof of a plan to ensure that responsible spending and deficit reduction will still take place without it. You realize how irresponsible this looks, right?

There's a reason I haven't motioned for a final vote yet. I would suggest being a little more patient.

You should have had that ready before introducing this.