Mideast Discussion: Mideastern Budget Amendment

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

It's great to see that 3 of our Senators don't even care to address why they're opposed to this other than a single sentence saying they object to a supermajority.

Ben and Mr. X, why did you even bother to empty quote?  Can you guys not even come up with your own reasoning to oppose the amendment?  That's pretty sad from people elected to the federal level... why don't you engage in why you disagree with a supermajority instead of just writing 2 short sentences?

[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?

Because the presidential (or gubernatorial) system of government already means a significant roadblock to passing legislation. We don't need to add even more distortions.

As budgets are the absolute center issue of any elected government, an elected majority needs to be able to fulfill their mandate. Particularly when we have a proportional system of voting (and that's a good thing), supermajorities are difficult to reach, and I don't think multipartisanship should be the rule. Elections need to have consequences.

The Assembly absolutely should have a budget, and their success should also be judged on their ability to budget well, but that needn't and shouldn't be legislated.

If this were real life, I would absolutely agree with you.  But as evidenced by the poll I conducted earlier, the consequences of passing an unbalanced budget would not be that big.  How would you propose having a realistic budget that forces balance?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How would you propose having a realistic budget that forces balance?

It is obvious that he doesn't want to force balance.

Yes, ultimately.

I approve of fiscal discipline as a general rule, and I would hope that the voters would punish excessively reckless budgeting, but in an election game and in real-life, the voters are in control.

If I thought the voters would punish reckless budgeting, I'd agree with you, but after conducting the poll, it's pretty clear to me that that isn't going to happen.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Franzl and Senator Ben, and they've already articulated the main reasons I oppose this bill.  However, if Speaker Inks would like me to give my own additional reason, I'm happy to oblige him have an additional reason as well.  There have been attempts to compromise.  First it was 125% and then it got reduced all the way to 110%.  I suggested splitting the difference at 117% (in the interest of compromise).  That was rejected and I don't think it's wise to reward the supporters of a bill that I already think is a bad idea for refusing to compromise and taking a "my way or the high way" approach (which has been taken by certain, though not all, supporters of the bill).

I compromised by agreeing to 110% instead of 100%.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This thread reads sort of like an auction.

Do all of you really care whether it's 110%, 113%, or 117%!?

I think you've all been watching too much Pawn Stars

Thank you.

Of course, this just as easily applies to you Tmth

I was fine with 110%. I then proposed 115% to try to put this all to rest, since 3% lower was just too much for you to bear. I'm not the one waffling between 113% or 117% or 150% etc. etc. - I think this whole thing is completely petty and ridiculous.

I'm not waffling on anything and you know it  And people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, either neither side is being petty and ridiculous or both are.  117% is a fair compromise.  

You were ok with 113%, and I've agreed to go as high as 115% (from my ideal 100%).  Any higher above 115% and I vote NAY.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The percent deficit can be overridden, so 110% or 120% it's all the same. The more significant issue is having a fixed debt limit written into the constitution.

But it is important - it allows one Assembly to be lazy at the expense of a future Assembly.