Mideast Discussion: Mideastern Budget Amendment

[tmthforu94]

Voting will begin sometime tomorrow, but I wanted to get a discussion going on it before folks start voting. There seemed to be some controversy in the Assembly over the amendment, which frustrated me, as I have made several attempts to try and get an explanation on why folks are opposed to it and have yet to get a real answer. Hopefully this can be a healthy little debate and hopefully all Mideasterners will be better informed on this when they go to vote and it won't just be a "turnout race".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

Why I support this amendment (obviously, as I authored it ):

- Requires the Mideast Assembly to pass a budget at least once a year. Currently, there is no where in the Constitution that even mentions a budget. I think it would be very good to get it on the record as an Assembly responsibility.
- It encourages fiscal responsibility by prohibiting the budget from exceeding 110% (which still allows for billions of dollars in the red, might I add). Now, that has been criticized by some, as in poor economic times, less revenue is brought in and more might need to be spent to boost the economy, and they're right. That is why clause three has been placed in the amendment, which allows the Mideast Assembly with a simply 2/3's vote to allow the deficit to go higher. I think including both of those into this amendment is a very fair compromise. Folks need to remember that especially on these amendments, they're going to have to give up a little bit in order for it to get passed, as constitutional amendments need broad support from the left, center, and right.

[OAM]

I think you alluded to it in your second post, but just to be sure, there's like no official "emergency" status that needs to be declared in addition to the 2/3 vote?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think you alluded to it in your second post, but just to be sure, there's like no official "emergency" status that needs to be declared in addition to the 2/3 vote?

No.  In hindsight, the word "emergency" probably shouldn't have been included because it has implications, but it's meaningless.

[OAM]

Whenever such language is used, my mind automatically jumps to whatever that was under FDR that made trade illegal with warring nations, passed happily by congress and signed, but gave the power to decide who was at war and who wasn't to the president, so that it could be only selectively applied.

[tmthforu94]

I think you alluded to it in your second post, but just to be sure, there's like no official "emergency" status that needs to be declared in addition to the 2/3 vote?

The use of the word is only to emphasize that exceeding 110% is strongly discouraged and the government should make an effort at only letting it go above that percentage in dire situations. Legally, it means nothing.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Whenever such language is used, my mind automatically jumps to whatever that was under FDR that made trade illegal with warring nations, passed happily by congress and signed, but gave the power to decide who was at war and who wasn't to the president, so that it could be only selectively applied.

No, the power would lie with the Assembly.  Although, like any budget, the Governor would have to go along with it, as he has to sign the budgets.

[OAM]

Whenever such language is used, my mind automatically jumps to whatever that was under FDR that made trade illegal with warring nations, passed happily by congress and signed, but gave the power to decide who was at war and who wasn't to the president, so that it could be only selectively applied.

No, the power would lie with the Assembly.  Although, like any budget, the Governor would have to go along with it, as he has to sign the budgets.

This made me think of another issue.  What would be the repercussions of not passing a budget?  Also, what would happen if they passed one, got it on the governor's desk before July 1st, and then it got vetoed.  What would be the legal status then, both if the veto was before July 1st or after?  (Or would only one of those occur because of how terms work?)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Whenever such language is used, my mind automatically jumps to whatever that was under FDR that made trade illegal with warring nations, passed happily by congress and signed, but gave the power to decide who was at war and who wasn't to the president, so that it could be only selectively applied.

No, the power would lie with the Assembly.  Although, like any budget, the Governor would have to go along with it, as he has to sign the budgets.

This made me think of another issue.  What would be the repercussions of not passing a budget?  Also, what would happen if they passed one, got it on the governor's desk before July 1st, and then it got vetoed.  What would be the legal status then, both if the veto was before July 1st or after?  (Or would only one of those occur because of how terms work?)

My interpretation is that it could be overridden just like any other statute.

[OAM]

Whenever such language is used, my mind automatically jumps to whatever that was under FDR that made trade illegal with warring nations, passed happily by congress and signed, but gave the power to decide who was at war and who wasn't to the president, so that it could be only selectively applied.

No, the power would lie with the Assembly.  Although, like any budget, the Governor would have to go along with it, as he has to sign the budgets.

This made me think of another issue.  What would be the repercussions of not passing a budget?  Also, what would happen if they passed one, got it on the governor's desk before July 1st, and then it got vetoed.  What would be the legal status then, both if the veto was before July 1st or after?  (Or would only one of those occur because of how terms work?)

My interpretation is that it could be overridden just like any other statute.

Well I suppose so, but that's not the point.  Is the assembly obliged to do so, or is simply getting one to the governors desk by July 1 sufficient.  I could see the arguments for both.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Whenever such language is used, my mind automatically jumps to whatever that was under FDR that made trade illegal with warring nations, passed happily by congress and signed, but gave the power to decide who was at war and who wasn't to the president, so that it could be only selectively applied.

No, the power would lie with the Assembly.  Although, like any budget, the Governor would have to go along with it, as he has to sign the budgets.

This made me think of another issue.  What would be the repercussions of not passing a budget?  Also, what would happen if they passed one, got it on the governor's desk before July 1st, and then it got vetoed.  What would be the legal status then, both if the veto was before July 1st or after?  (Or would only one of those occur because of how terms work?)

My interpretation is that it could be overridden just like any other statute.

Well I suppose so, but that's not the point.  Is the assembly obliged to do so, or is simply getting one to the governors desk by July 1 sufficient.  I could see the arguments for both.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

[OAM]

This part here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So say the assembly passes a budget and gets it on the Governor's desk June 30.  Does that mean their job is done because they got a passed budget by the set time and thus the matter is out of their hands, or if he vetoes it are they required to go back and make a new budget? Would this matter if it was vetoed June 30 or July 2nd?

And there's still the outstanding question of what happens if the assembly doesn't pass a budget.  What recourse is there.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No, as long as it's on the Governor's desk by July 1st, they're good.  If he vetoes it the 30th or the 2nd, they would have the opportunity to override.

As for recourse if they do not pass a budget - that'd be a question for the court if we ever get to that point.

[OAM]

Okay, thanks.  The first part was my main concern, though I'm uncomfortable leaving it open for the courts, though at the present time (2 am ) I have little to offer for an alternative.

[Franzl]

I'll have to oppose this. A supermajority requirement for budget issues is a problem.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'll have to oppose this. A supermajority requirement for budget issues is a problem.

We didn't want it to be easily overridden because that takes away the point of the game.  If an Assembly can just pass an unbalanced budget, that's the easy way out.  In real life, it'd be different.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'll have to oppose this. A supermajority requirement for budget issues is a problem.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'll have to oppose this. A supermajority requirement for budget issues is a problem.

Well would anyone care to give more than a 1-sentence explanation on why they're opposed?  Why is a supermajority such an issue?

[Talleyrand]

While I wouldn't support this in RL, I think this would be a great policy to improve Atlasian gameplay. First of all, it would mandate our regional government to enact a budget every fiscal year (something which wasn't required before; the budget passed in November by the Assembly was first introduced by then-Governor A-Bob in 2011 and sat in debate for over a year before it went to vote, IIRC). Obviously, that isn't the most controversial part, so I will now explain my support for the cap on spending.

The game would be less well played, in my opinion, if we didn't have a budget cap at the regional level, to prevent outrageous and unrealistic spending (without it, the Assembly could ram through  any legislation, no matter how fiscally irresponsible, without repercussion). When we have to pick and choose priorities to make a realistic spending plan, that's very satisfying. And I strongly support 110% as the limit (I think that would be a deficit about $30 billion, but I'm not entirely sure).

It's not fun when we can spend whatever we want, but it's not fun when we're guaranteed to get a balanced budget or surplus every year. That's why we have a debt ceiling of $50 billion, to prevent 110% output each year, in addition to acknowledge that sometimes deficits are the only option. For example, if one year, we have an administration which spent out of control, leaving the region billions in debt, one priority and campaign issue for the regional election could be fixing the crisis to avoid the debt ceiling.

Before asks "what if there's an emergency", do remember that 2/3 of the Assembly will (almost) always be sane and go over the spending cap in such a case.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'll have to oppose this. A supermajority requirement for budget issues is a problem.

[Gass3268]

I would like to thank 3 of our regions Senators for their opposition to this amendment.

[tmthforu94]

The lack of explanation and details from the left on anything regarding this is extremely disappointing. Shame it's going to fail.

[Kitteh]

While I wouldn't support this in RL, I think this would be a great policy to improve Atlasian gameplay.

That is basically my position on this. While it would be terrible IRL and I'd prefer the limit to be 125%, I am going to vote AYE on this as a game reform measure, not an economic measure.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't think any state has a total debt IRL as low per capita as this would require.  Then again, it's a game. But I don't know that we need a debt limit. Within Atlasia, it seems that as long as there is an actual budget, the drive toward balancing it is fairly strong across the political spectrum.

[tmthforu94]

While I wouldn't support this in RL, I think this would be a great policy to improve Atlasian gameplay.

That is basically my position on this. While it would be terrible IRL and I'd prefer the limit to be 125%, I am going to vote AYE on this as a game reform measure, not an economic measure.

Thank you for being reasonable.