End of the Budget Amendment [Tabled]

[minionofmidas]

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.

[minionofmidas]

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.

I've drafted a tax bill which I've now held off from introducing now this is on the table. I've done my best to cost the bill, taking guestimates based on US data as to how much it would cost, and how that matches with economic growth and so on. I don't see the point, if this amendment passes, of doing any costing on it at all - just proposing the tax cut and to hell with the cost and impact on our expenditure.

But if I were to introduce the bill without any figures on the cost (on the basis that without a budget there would be no need) I know the first question I would be asked ; 'What's it gonna cost'

If people can ask questions about how much a bill will cost they should be able to ask how much the government costs.

Well yeah, that's exactly the kind of makes-sense-at-first-three-or-five-glances-but-is-tried-tested-and-has-been-found-too-light kind of argument for having a budget that I meant by "realism".

[minionofmidas]

Strike "detailed" from your draft, Sam, and it's worth debating.

There has to be a bit of realism - and realism involves, here, admitting that we aren't capable of doing an actual budget unless we play this game full time. Just as it involves admitting we aren't capable of simulating running the US of A on current levels of commitment.

[minionofmidas]

Very well said, Pete. Thank you.

[minionofmidas]

Nay

[minionofmidas]

Well... when I reintroduced this piece of legislation of DWDL's, I had no idea how controversial it was going to prove. Given that the budget has in practice been dead and buried for 18 months, it's not as if I really should have guessed, either. As far as I was concerned, all this amendment did was do away with that ridiculous waiver vote. Well, so it goes...

Having said that... there are of course some good arguments to be made for having some sort of budget process - one adapted to the needs of this game, that is - ie a pretty simple one. Far simpler than the failed experiment of 2005*.
Another thing that has only become apparent to me during the debate now is how closely related my two bills currently on the Senate Floor really are. The relation is by no means straightforward.

If we seriously mean to put the way the game is played on an internally consistent basis, that would include reintroducing some form of a budget - but not the failed experiment of 2005 -, reintroducing a GM or perhaps small team of GMs, and as a necessary prerequisite to make that work, doing away with the IMHO utterly grotesque notion that the USA ceased to exist in february 2004 and was taken over by a gaggle of high school kids, as well as any  old gm stuff directly dependent on that discredited hypothesis. (Ideally, the federal-regional balance of power should also be adapted to Atlasian realities, but that's an unwinnable battle I suppose.)

But if that's not happening, what incentive do I have for working for a compromise here? If this amendment fails, we'll either just keep passing those ridiculous waiver motions, or two Senators will cobble together a "budget" based on the fantastic notion that it is to apply to the USA  - rather as if Taiwan was passing budgets for the whole of China - that will not be read by any non-Senator except the President, and that even the vast majority of Senators will more or less boycott, myself certainly included.

So, sorry, I can't just "post a version of your amendment that I would personally find acceptable".

* What we'd need is an estimate of how much money is coming in and how much running costs our government has. For gaming purposes, it would be cool if there were at least initially an amount of money that the Senate can spend during the fiscal year (which of course needn't be a year) without having to raise taxes or borrow. I said "at least initially" because of course, if the Senate passes any bills that spend money in more than one year, this would affect future years' budgets.