OLD: Comprehensive Social Security Reform Act (See new thread: Reference Only)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I need to be fully briefed on these reforms - I see a whole lot of good in this Bill, but there are some elements that I have issues with before I can support the Bill in its entirety.

We want to ensure that people in difficult economic circumstances are able to be protected, I fully support that aim - but I'm concerned about some long-term economic impacts, especially considering inconsistency across the regions when it comes to Budget preparedness and scope.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I've been requested by the President and the GM-to-be to significantly reduce the importance of the bill due to concerns about deficits and high taxes. While the idea of renouncing to make a significant step forward a modern Welfare State is extremely painful to me (especially because it would, literally, have been my only achievement), I acknowledge the necessity to deal with diverging views (especially when such views are supported by people with a veto power ).

Therefore, I'll try to work on a significantly alleviated version of the bill. I'd like to know my fellow Senator's opinions about this move.

Also, I move to amend the bill's name into "Minimalist Social Security Reform Act".

I would like to stress that this Bill has an awful lot of good - my chief concern is that this program has long-term financial viability.

My administration wants to work with Senator Antonio to make sure that we can present a workable version of this Bill that keeps the spirit but puts it in the economic context we  ourselves having to operate in.

I don't think the importance of this Bill is going to be diminished.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As I've said before, both publicly and privately in relation to this Bill - that it has a lot of good in it, but I have perhaps differing perspective on it to the Senator.

I think this particular Bill has been ... mucked about with and tortured too long - I think we need time to take the best parts of this present Bill and develop something that wouldn't necessitate the same long-term agony this Bill has.

My suggestion would be to bring this Bill to a vote ASAP and if it is voted down as it stands, then I hope there would be a plan to re-work it and re-introduce it later on - I think with the acceptance that there are a lot of changes that will need to happen - it will need to be a compromise.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yes, hence my considerable concerns about this Bill...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I do have a possible suggestion, but I will bail on the detail of it

Are there sections of the Bill as it is presented that can be approved relatively quickly with less intense cost demands?

Would it be possible to perhaps split the Bill? Just a thought, I have no idea whether this would work or not...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I would consider that if you can't get ANY paid work in two years that they would qualify for some other kind of Government support.

I think 3 years of specific unemployment support is fair.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is something that has bothered me... I don't think that all welfare payments should be lumped into one.

If someone is dependent for life on a disability pension, I completely understand that - but unemployment is different.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I still don't see any incentives to re-train or go back to work?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I still don't see any incentives to re-train or go back to work?

What do you suggest?

I suggested small grants or low-interest loans for people to re-train.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

So job center grants and low-interest loans? I'd support that, but it might make sense to do a seperate bill. It would be easy to come to an agreement on that whether or not this bill passes, and I don't see how it fits into the unemployment insurance structure.

I think a separate Bill might be reasonable...