LGC 4.7 - High Speed Highways and Climate Change Control Act - VETO OVERRIDDEN - STATUTE

[S019]

Lincoln's deficit is OUT OF CONTROL thanks to the tax-and-spend politics of Witless Wulfric, debtor extraordinaire. This impractical instrument will bankrupt the region for the sake of massively increasing the energy expended manufacturing new cars and scrapping old ones —truly one of the stupidest ideas ever proposed. If the General Court will be ruled by this incredible incompetence, THE PEOPLE will cause them to be removed from office!

It is absolutely not "out of control." Also old cars are not being scrapped, anyways yes this was my proposal, but let me say that I would not support it in this form as this is merely a draft. I look forward to constructive debate on this, and would really appreciate it if those in opposition could make points based on the merits. In any case, deficit spending is not at all a bad thing and is necessary in many cases, though we have a massive surplus, making the point moot. Plus, there are provisions built into this to make this pay for itself, at least in part. Also "tax-and-spend" is literally a conservative strawman, it's the type of language that I'd expect from Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, not from bog-standard social democrats.

[S019]

Also I invite the Gentleman from North Dakota to read Section 5 of the legislation:

5. This project shall cost $28,468,000,000

Placing aside the fact that this bill will raise money in very specific ways, our surplus of $440 Billion easily covers all costs. This is not 'deficit spending'.

Also I'm pretty sure this cost number is off, I did the net cost math in the original thread, and it came out to around 4 billion?

[S019]

Also I invite the Gentleman from North Dakota to read Section 5 of the legislation:

5. This project shall cost $28,468,000,000

Placing aside the fact that this bill will raise money in very specific ways, our surplus of $440 Billion easily covers all costs. This is not 'deficit spending'.

Also I'm pretty sure this cost number is off, I did the net cost math in the original thread, and it came out to around 4 billion?

Section 5 appears to refer to the gross cost of the project, it doesn't take into account revenues, just the basic cost of constructing the lanes.

Looks like we originally calculated $18 Billion here: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=436787.msg8022001#msg8022001

Then on a later amendment, I added another $10 Billion to accommodate for language changes that were being made: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=436787.msg8042382#msg8042382

Admittedly that component is an approximation and I'd love something more exact.

Separately, here you calculated the cap and trade section: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=436787.msg8074769#msg8074769

However given the language here is less aspirational (by design), that calculation isn't necessarily correct which is why it is not in this draft.

I don't see any reference to $4 Billion anywhere in the thread. Perhaps that was something you had somewhere that incorporated the vehicle mile tax, but in any case that was never incorporated into the version vetoed by the governor, which still had a TBD amount for the revenues from the vehicle mile tax.

Okay so final estimate for expansions and lane divisions should be $3691.38096 billion, this number was calculated through some painstaking work of finding out where exactly lane expansions would be needed, fortunately they're all in rural areas, and this should be roughly the maximum cost of this bill.

[S019]

Also I invite the Gentleman from North Dakota to read Section 5 of the legislation:

5. This project shall cost $28,468,000,000

Placing aside the fact that this bill will raise money in very specific ways, our surplus of $440 Billion easily covers all costs. This is not 'deficit spending'.

Also I'm pretty sure this cost number is off, I did the net cost math in the original thread, and it came out to around 4 billion?

Section 5 appears to refer to the gross cost of the project, it doesn't take into account revenues, just the basic cost of constructing the lanes.

Looks like we originally calculated $18 Billion here: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=436787.msg8022001#msg8022001

Then on a later amendment, I added another $10 Billion to accommodate for language changes that were being made: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=436787.msg8042382#msg8042382

Admittedly that component is an approximation and I'd love something more exact.

Separately, here you calculated the cap and trade section: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=436787.msg8074769#msg8074769

However given the language here is less aspirational (by design), that calculation isn't necessarily correct which is why it is not in this draft.

I don't see any reference to $4 Billion anywhere in the thread. Perhaps that was something you had somewhere that incorporated the vehicle mile tax, but in any case that was never incorporated into the version vetoed by the governor, which still had a TBD amount for the revenues from the vehicle mile tax.

Okay so final estimate for expansions and lane divisions should be $3691.38096 billion, this number was calculated through some painstaking work of finding out where exactly lane expansions would be needed, fortunately they're all in rural areas, and this should be roughly the maximum cost of this bill.

Does 3.691 Billion include the tolling revenues and such, or is just the pure price tag of building the lanes with no revenues considered?

Price tag for just building

[S019]

Just a minor PSA, the cap-and-trade provision is almost directly ripped off from the California program, including the auctions and the credits.