End of the Budget Amendment [Tabled]

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'd very much like to see us "mend it, and not end it."  Without a budget, there's absolutely no reason to even pretend we're a fiscally responsible governing body.

The whole process needs overhaul, I feel, but I think we can handle something like this once a year.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'd very much like to see us "mend it, and not end it."  Without a budget, there's absolutely no reason to even pretend we're a fiscally responsible governing body.

The whole process needs overhaul, I feel, but I think we can handle something like this once a year.

I agree. If Senators and candidates are often obliged to 'cost' any proposal they put before the electorate and again within the Senate, then we should be obliged to put forward a budget that takes these expenditures into account. Otherwise legislation, with no cost attached and no matter how expensive, is legitimised.

Having no budget and scant consideration for financial cost makes for bad legislation.

I certainly like the idea of Senators having to "cost"—or at least divine a good faith estimate (to be effectively ratified upon the bills passage)—each piece of legislation they put forward.  Obviously, this hasn't been an issue with most bills we've dealt with lately, but I've tried to be keenly aware of the fiscal impact of the bills I've proposed.

What I would like to see is (1) a GM named (I'm guessing we don't even have one at this point) to tell us the total tax revenues and expenses of Atlasia, even if it's just to say it's identical to that of the United States; and (2) debate in the Senate about whether or not to cut programs, raise taxes, or debt spend.  And then, moving forward, we could use the real world U.S. estimates adjusted by the costs/revenues unique to Atlasia.  I think this is all very doable, and not as hard as anyone really thinks.

Back when I was campaigning for the Senate, I created a spreadsheet with the financial impact of every bill ever passed by Atlasia.  I'll see if I can dig it up over the next 24 hours—if so, I'll post the link in the budget thread and see if that can be the starting point for some debate.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

a GM named (I'm guessing we don't even have one at this point)

No, there is no GM anymore. The last one (ie; me) abolished the position (which I still think was the correct decision. The GM experiment was worth having, but it was still a failure).

Okay, so then some kind of amendment is still needed here: the budget process is constitutionally required to revolve around a position we don't have anymore.

Btw, the process of the budget was absolute hell and extremely dull to boot. Of course, my memories of it all are, perhaps, coloured by the fact that the time in which the Senate did budgets was also the time in which Vulgar Libertarianism* was the official ideology of this place.

But it doesn't have to be, especially if the debate is shifted away from raw numbers and more towards general economic policy—which Atlasia definitely needs to have.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

But it doesn't have to be, especially if the debate is shifted away from raw numbers and more towards general economic policy—which Atlasia definitely needs to have.

True enough. But I think in order to do that the budget system would have to be much simpler than current/former setup.

I don't think there's any arguement there that we should work towards a simpler budget setup.  That's why we need someone to be plying us with economic data—honestly, the most important figure are not the raw budget numbers, but the size of the deficit/surplus.  And I know there's been some crazy stuff going on in Atlasia to alter the figures (and that's another debate as to whether or not we should effectively "reset" our history, especially the ridiculous stuff), but a good "financial estimator" can just try their best to work it in.

By approaching the budget from that angle, rather than a revenue-minus-spending-equals-x angle, I think we could simplify things greatly.

And by costing out bills here going forward—I don't think it's unreasonable for Senators to have to give estimates of how much they'd cost the public if passed—coming up with next year's estimate will be a matter of simple math.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Very interesting debate. I could live with amending the process... but for now I'm still in favor of officially scrapping it, and tell realism to go swallow razor blades.

Well, in that case, I propose we establish a complete welfare state and eliminate all taxation.

Not a bad idea, except for the eliminating taxation part.

Well, if we have no budget, there's no need to actually fund government programs... so why not have all of them and no taxes!?

In this case, I propose negative taxation rates.  Think of what it would do to get the economy going!

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'd reccomend to those Senators who wish to reform the process, that some form of amendment should be put forward, otherwise this will eventually come up to vote in its current form.

I've been tossing the matter over in my head...I'm going to try and come up with an amendment for this bill by the afternoon.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Sorry for the delay in getting around to the amendment, but after looking over matters, I'm not sure a constitutional amendment is necessary to reform the budgetary process.  As such, I'm not introducing anything as an amendment...yet.  Here is my proposed framework:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This should streamline the process quite a bit, and turn a chore into a more agreeable Senate debate.

The only question is what to do in the absence of a GM.  Perhaps the Senate could find its own version of Alan Greenspan every March to give us the financial data picture of the nation?[/list]

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I would personally suggest that something simple be inserted into the Constitution to allow the Senate to legislate a budget process, get rid of Article 8 and then subsequently pass something akin to what Mr. Moderate has done through statute.

I'm fine with that, though I'd prefer Article 8 be gutted, saying little more than that the Senate is required to pass a budget each fiscal year.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Yes, I know I said I would get to this today.  Didn't happen.    But considering this might not pass without a good solution, I think it's important to try.

This one, more than a number of other bills, has some pretty important implications, so I don't mind if it isn't rushed.

After all, my "this afternoon" turned into somewhere approaching 48 hours.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Same here.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

And when that doesn't work out in one or two years, we'll be debating whether or not to abolish the budget completely--again.

Better in incremental steps, then.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

If people really find my suggestion as to how to proceed with respect to the budget too time consuming, unwieldly, and inconvienient...that's just sad.  I've reworked the process such that it is a simple matter of ideological debate rather than a specific battle over numbers where, if the Senate is genuinely apathetic to the whole process, it can simply pass a bill authorizing continued debt spending.

I understand that we're not here doing this "full time," but let's at least put a minimum of effort into this thing, no?  Can we at least pretend there are consequences to passing spending bills?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Aye.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'd be more inclined to give those who support retaining the budget a chance, if they provided some effort to work within the current provisions - I'd note that there still has not been a single comment in the current Budget thread since the waiver vote in July.

I'm honestly not sure how to proceed with the budget within the current bounds of the constitution, which is why I was hoping Senator Spade's amendment here would actually unlock the process.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'm tempted to reintroduce my amendment again, since this thing is likely in purgatory.

Well, we're likely to get the status quo—which here is the worst case scenario.  I'd like to see those in favor of passage try and come up with a compromise amendment, because there's no way this is going to get to the needed seven votes here without some change.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

So long as this gets brought back sooner rather than later, I'll vote aye as well.