Mideast Discussion: Mideastern Budget Amendment

[tmthforu94]

Voting will begin sometime tomorrow, but I wanted to get a discussion going on it before folks start voting. There seemed to be some controversy in the Assembly over the amendment, which frustrated me, as I have made several attempts to try and get an explanation on why folks are opposed to it and have yet to get a real answer. Hopefully this can be a healthy little debate and hopefully all Mideasterners will be better informed on this when they go to vote and it won't just be a "turnout race".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

Why I support this amendment (obviously, as I authored it ):

- Requires the Mideast Assembly to pass a budget at least once a year. Currently, there is no where in the Constitution that even mentions a budget. I think it would be very good to get it on the record as an Assembly responsibility.
- It encourages fiscal responsibility by prohibiting the budget from exceeding 110% (which still allows for billions of dollars in the red, might I add). Now, that has been criticized by some, as in poor economic times, less revenue is brought in and more might need to be spent to boost the economy, and they're right. That is why clause three has been placed in the amendment, which allows the Mideast Assembly with a simply 2/3's vote to allow the deficit to go higher. I think including both of those into this amendment is a very fair compromise. Folks need to remember that especially on these amendments, they're going to have to give up a little bit in order for it to get passed, as constitutional amendments need broad support from the left, center, and right.

[tmthforu94]

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?

The use of the word is only to emphasize that exceeding 110% is strongly discouraged and the government should make an effort at only letting it go above that percentage in dire situations. Legally, it means nothing.

[tmthforu94]

The lack of explanation and details from the left on anything regarding this is extremely disappointing. Shame it's going to fail.

[tmthforu94]

While I wouldn't support this in RL, I think this would be a great policy to improve Atlasian gameplay.

That is basically my position on this. While it would be terrible IRL and I'd prefer the limit to be 125%, I am going to vote AYE on this as a game reform measure, not an economic measure.

Thank you for being reasonable.

[tmthforu94]

Hey guys, if this fails, let's pass this bill next session:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

Hey guys, if this fails, let's pass this bill next session:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bolded part is the only section I support. If the Governor gets a mansion, I demand one too.

Also, how the hell would you use up $250 billion on one statue of yourself?!?!?

That's the beauty of it - we can make it as much as we want.

I was thinking around 20 stories tall, made of gold...no, platinum.

[tmthforu94]

Since the Governor and the Legislature are co-equal, shouldn't the Assemblymen share a mansion?

How about we throw another one in for all current/former Presidents who have ever lived in the region and call it a day?


Seriously, all of this is driving me insane. If we're going to fail this and let unrealistic budgets go through, why don't we just completely scrap the idea of budgets and go back to passing a bunch of "feel-good" bills. I find it quite ridiculous that one of our Senators is opposing this bill, yet would support it if it were 113% instead of 110%. This type of difficulty is exactly why little is accomplished in D.C. today (yet, that was a reference to RL, so no need for a smartass comment on that).

[tmthforu94]

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).

The first version was an overreach anyways, as I literally just picked a number to start debate with. I quickly realized that 125% is too high, as that's over $70 billion. There was also a strong desire to have a completely balanced amendment, so 110% was introduced as an attempt to find middle ground between the two.

Still, as I've stated time and time again, I haven't been presented with a real, economical reason why 110% is so much worse than 125% once you consider the emergency clause. Had I been presented with one, other than "compromising just to compromise", I might have been more likely to back a higher %.

[tmthforu94]

I would also like to remind everyone that allows spending to reach 110% of revenue would allow for a $30.58 bill dollar deficit, which is pretty substantial.

[tmthforu94]

Well, the vote has narrowly failed. It's especially disappointing, as Senator Ben indicated he would have switched his vote had he known it would be the deciding vote.

[tmthforu94]

As a compromise, what if we raise the limit to 115% or 120%? Not quite as much as what the Left wants (125%) but still ok and maybe able to swing a few votes.

115% would be fine with me, although 110% would be preferable.

I'd definitely support 120%, or even 117%. 

I figured 115% would be OK with you since you once proposed 113%. We'd be getting pretty petty if we oppose 115% but pass 117%. But then again, that's what happened with 110% or 113%...

[tmthforu94]

117% would be fine, but no higher. And the debt ceiling should go no higher than $75 billion. How's that?

177% is just a weird number. It's splitting hairs at this point but 115% is easier to calculate.

^^^

And actually, there was a strong backing for a completely balanced amendment. So the "perfect compromise" between the two would technically be 115%. Those favoring a higher number actually benefit from this.

[tmthforu94]

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.

[tmthforu94]

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.

[tmthforu94]

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.

^^^I could understand why people would vote against it for other reasons, but the reason some had over the fact that they didn't want 110% over 125% still mystifies me, and I've never really gotten a solid answer on why 125% is so much more important that it's worth killing the passage of the amendment over.

[tmthforu94]

It's completely absurd that people are willing to vote against an amendment over a 2% difference, especially when before, they supported a number that was even lower.

And yes, "ok" is an accurate description, as you wouldn't have made the offer if you weren't personally "ok" with it. You can't just go back now and say "Oh, well even though I proposed 113%, I didn't actually support it." That just doesn't make sense.

And I don't follow your argument at all on the fact that 100% wouldn't pass so because of that, the compromise has to be between 110% and 125%. 125% also probably wouldn't pass because too many conservatives would think they're giving up too much. A compromise is when you take both sides interests and find common ground. The right wanted completely balanced, and the left has been lobbying for 125%. By that regards, 115% is actually more favorable to the left than the right.

[tmthforu94]

For the umpteenth time, splitting the difference between 100%, which is what the right wants, and 125%, which is what the left wants, puts you at 112.5%. In an attempt to find a simple number divisible by 5, I proposed 115%, which is more favorable to your side. I don't know how else to explain this, as it clearly isn't getting through to you. The fact is, you're now opposed to 115%, even though you once supported making it 113%. Why was 113% OK then but not now?

And you keep misrepresenting me by saying I rejected it - that simply isn't the case. You proposed 113% after the amendment had already passed - there was nothing we could do about it - 110% had to be voted on. Had I known 110% would fail, I would have even been more favorable to you than your own offer and gone ahead and proposed 115%.

[tmthforu94]

Had I known there'd be this much bickering I'd have voted for the original

Since some don't seem too interested in finding a reasonable compromise on the %, maybe we should just do a re-vote on 110%.

[tmthforu94]

I certainly hope this isn't a sign of things to come in our region...

I'd be fine with $85 billion if the budget limit was set back to 110%.

[tmthforu94]

Then that's pointless. The Assembly could just pass 110% budgets virtually three years in a row with no consequence... whatever I'll support the final version of this bill as long as it doesn't get too crazy...

That seems to be the whole point here - require as little work from the Assembly as possible in terms of fiscal responsibility...which, this being a game, defeats the whole purpose of even having a budget, as there's absolutely no challenge with any of it.