Mideast Assembly Thread

[Badger]

Public procurement policy Bill:

1. The government and all public institutions of the Mideast, when they intend to purchase goods, works or services, shall make a call for tenders. In their call, they shall explain the consistence of goods, works or services required, the cost estimate, the ceiling set for public spending, the process for bidding, the information required from the bidders, the criterias set to be selected.

2. Among the criterias set to select among the bidders the one who will provide the goods, works or services, the public institution shall include the compliance with existing standards and labels of sustainable development, organic agriculture and environmental quality.
This criteria shall be the first one in 15% of calls for tenders in 2010, in 30% in 2012, in 50% in 2014, in 65% in 2016, in 75% in 2018 and in 90% in 2020 and thereafter.

3. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for businesses whose production, employees or registered office are is located in the Mideast.
When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, the business whose production is the most located in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose employees are the most numerous to work in the Mideast shall be selected, then the business whose registered office is located in the Mideast.

4. A priority shall be set in public calls for tenders for small and middle-sized businesses. When two bidders are on a par with the other criterias, including those set in clause 3, and when they are both located in the Mideast, the smaller business shall be selected. The size of a business shall be set in the call for tenders, by a mix between the number of people employed by the business and the amount of its sales."

Upon, review, I suppose the only necessary change was bolded above for previously stated reasons.

Dear Badger, I respectfully don't agree on your amendment, even if I think we in fact agree on the heart of this bill.
As you've seen, I kept the registered office as a criteria, but only third in the hierarchy of choice.
I think that you were right and production and employees should be more important criteria. But I think we need to keep the registered office as a third criteria because some of our taxes on businesses are based on the registered office.
So, it's a good thing to keep this as an alternate and final criteria.
Of course, "ties" between candidates after the environmental criteria, the production criteria, the employees criteria may not be very numerous, but, as we are in to put lines on the public procurement policy, I think we shouldn't prevent ourselves from setting another criteria which is good for our tax revenues.

So, if my fellow assemblyman and if our dear Speaker agreed on it, I would like the Assembly to consider the bill as I've amended it.

Hmmmmm. I didn't realize that the "registered office" was listed third out of precedence given the amount of production and employees used within the region. Nor did I realize that "registered office" meant basically a "taxable" corporate or regional HQ as opposed to maybe a PO Box or single office cubicle. You have assumedly used the term as it is used in Mideast tax law, I'm sure. ;-)

With that futher explanation of the meaning of "registered office" and how it fits within the bill, I'm now satisfied and withdraw the amendment. :-)

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This on the other hand is something I'm more than willing to support. I've often thought that two months is a too short time period to actually get much done, and that the time might be increased to three months instead.

I do disagree with you though that more seats will mean more candidates. There have been times when even getting three people to run has been quite hard in the assembly's history. So even if those seats were easy to obtain, there still weren't a lot of candidates.

Let me also point out, my friend, that the Mideast has undergone a huge growth in registered voters since just before the last assembly election. I really don't think we'll have any problem finding sufficient quality candidates from that number (consider Giovanni who's now running as an example). I think we should take into account the large population growth the region's undergone in determining the size of our assembly. A growth from 3 to 5 merely reflects that growth, to say nothing in the growth in interest in the regional government.

[Badger]

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.  The Amendment contains both the old and new language (it says "three" and "five" as well as "unanimous" and "two-thirds").  Also, I would recommend that the pointless fraction of 2/3 not be used when we have 5 members.

Sorry about that. It has now been fixed.

4/5 would probably be a better way of expressing it, but 2/3 means the same thing technically, so I personally see no great need to change it.

Point taken, Governor, but I used the 2/3 margin as a precedent to set in case the assembly is ever further expanded in the far off future (which I am certainly not advocating). For point of reference, I readily stipulate that a vote of 4 of 5 Assembly members would be required to override a veto.

[Badger]

I call for a vote on this bill, as there has been no debate for 24 hours, and we all seem to agree on it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 ... as well as this bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

AYE

and

AYE

Thnak you, Mr. Speaker for such a fair management of our debates and a swift decision on each of these bills.

Ditto (aye)

Ditto (Aye)

and Ditto re: SC's term as Speaker.

One last note to SC, Hap and other skeptics about expanding the Assembly. While we may disagree about whether the Mideast is ready to take on expanded activity in regional government--Fab, I and others obviously agree it is---there's certainly no harm in giving an expanded assembly a try. If it turns out not to work--not enough interested parties or whatever--we can reverse the change and go back to three members next session. I strongly suspect that that will not be necessary as the expanded assembly will work quite well. :-)

[Badger]

I once again must object to any effort at expanding our assembly for the same reason as before.

How would you feel about 4 instead?

I know the question wasn't posed to me, but FWIW I would oppose any even number of legislators as it makes the liklihood of a tie vote go up dramatically.

[Badger]

I know the question wasn't posed to me, but FWIW I would oppose any even number of legislators as it makes the liklihood of a tie vote go up dramatically.

Well...
*clears throat*
Then it would be a great time to bring back the Lt. Governor position. The Lt. Governor can break ties. It's a win-win situation for everyone.

I would not like to put that much power over assembly results into the executive branch, even if elected separately from the governor. It's one thing to risk the occassional tie in a 100 person senate, but quite another in a legislative body of only 4 or 6. I think 5 will still work just as well as 4 without the increased risk of repeated tievotes.

[Badger]

FWIW: I tend to agree with Fab and SC about expanded the Assembly terms to 3 months. What if we to combine these two and look at expanding the Assembly to 5 seats to serve for 3 months each? I'm not sure these should be subject to separate votes when they both directly relate to reforming the Assembly.

[Badger]

FWIW: I tend to agree with Fab and SC about expanded the Assembly terms to 3 months. What if we to combine these two and look at expanding the Assembly to 5 seats to serve for 3 months each? I'm not sure these should be subject to separate votes when they both directly relate to reforming the Assembly.

I'm not so sure about only one vote on the 2 proposals.
Each one taken separately is a really good one.
But I wouldn't take the risk to lose on both of them because of opposition to only one among our fellow citizens.
So, I agree on a simultaneous vote, but not on only one vote.

That seems reasonable.

[Badger]

Message from the Office of the GM

Honorable Members of the Mideast Assembly,

The office of the GM has just reported that the Mideast region has the highest unemployment in Atlasia, as well as the fastest-growing regional unemployment. I would recommend economic legislation along the lines of previous GM analyses in order to save the region from economic collapse.

~PS

I haven't forgotten, Mr. GM. On my short to-do list I promise. ;-)

C'mon, c'mon...

<laugh> funny you should menton this. Without revealing PM contents within the last 24 hours, suffice to say it's coming very soon. ;-)

[Badger]

[...]
Reinforcement of Rights Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution
[...]

Mr Speaker, I must beg the chamber's pardon for my interruption, but I believe that these proposals must be given serious pause for consideration.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The author here misunderstands what the phrase due process of Law entails. Due Process of Law is not the sum of the protections afforded by statutory Law, but by the Law of the Land, i.e. the protections of Constitutional Law, Statutory Law and Precedental Law (the decisions of the Courts).

The phrase "due process of Constitutional Law" therefore doesn't make any sense, and certainly has no history of interpretation in the Common Law system.

If the author's desire is to ban the death penalty except in the case of another amendment, then he should do just that, not something that obfuscates the true purpose.

No person shall be deprived of life by any agency of government whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a wonderful piece of circular logic, and again stems from a misunderstanding of the phrase "Constitutional Law". The amendment as read literally says "The State cannot take private property for private use unless the Constitution allows it". Thats a very large hole through which to drive a truck - all one needs to be able to do is argue that some other provision of the Constitution does allow it, and you're home.

There is already a reasonably robust piece of eminent domain restriction on the books, although conceivably it could be stronger.

Ultimately the biggest problem with eminent domain precedent is what "public use" actually means - a better approach to this problem may be to state that public use means only that the property may come into state ownership, not to be transferred to private owners at some later point (though that probably needs a time limit).

I thank the Assembly for its time

Peter:

First off: Good to see you posting. Secondly, thank you for eloquently stating the very concerns I've had with this proposal. The first part should be rewritten as a separate proposed amendment that straight forward constitutionally prohibits capital punishment rather than the language used here. Swede's proposed amendment may help that. FWIW, I would oppose it's passage as I do support capital punishment so long as there is adaquate resources for competent defense counsel and a robust appeals process.

The second portion also suffers from drafting confusion, and regardless I believe the Mideast Eminent Domain Restriction Statute and the current constitutional protections against taking of propoerty without due process of law and adaquate compensation together adaquately addresses the concerns Fab has over taking of private property, and the proposal here is thus unnecessary.

For the above reasons, I would oppose the proposal at this time, though perhaps Fab could explain if I've misunderstood anything here.

[Badger]

Swedish Cheese advises the economic development bill will take a little longer (he swears it's coming, Purple State!). So I've been given the green light to introduce this bill in the meantime so the Assembly does not go idle.

The Mideast Last Chance for Tax Cheats Bill:

1) The funding of the Mideast Regional Revenue Service for FY 2010 is increased 15%.

2) Effective 4/16/10 any person, business, corporation or other entity (hereafter: "deadbeat") which has previously failed to duly report taxes owed the Mideast region on income, sales, corporate taxes, capital gains, property, excise or other taxes levied by the Region due on or before 4/15/08 may apply to the MRRS for tax amnesty as described below.

3) Upon application for tax amnesty the deadbeat shall submit all missing or amended tax return forms for the tax years for which they seek amnesty by 12/31/10. The deadbeat must pay all such back taxes due, plus interest, no later than 12/31/15.

4) For all such taxes timely repaid under section 3 above, no additional MRRS administrative penalties nor other criminal liability shall attach for nonpayment or avoidance of said taxes.

5) Any deadbeat against whom a civil or criminal action, complaint or indictment regarding delinquent or unpaid taxes has been filed, or against whom MRRS audit proceedings have been initiated, is not eligible to apply for tax amnesty during the pendency of such actions.

6) Filing for tax amnesty does not prohibit the civil and/or criminal prosecution of any deadbeat for other unpaid or delinquent taxes outside the taxes for which amnesty has been applied for and granted.

7) Effective 1/1/11, MRRS administrative penalties for unpaid and delinquent taxes owed on or before 4/15/08 are increased 50%


The rationale behind this bill is straight forward. Section 1 allows for a significant increase in tax investigators and auditors. From all my reading state and federal tax offices are seriously understaffed compared to the number and complexity of tax dodging schemes set up by cheats, particularly the wealthiest and most shameless cheaters who can afford to hire a legion of lawyers and accountants to attempt hiding their assets. The amount of time required to investigate such complex mechanisms leave overburdened and understaffed revenue agents able only to pick low hanging fruit that falls into their lap rather than aggressively and persistently go after those who have the money to game the system to their advantage.

No matter how one feels about tax levels---too high, too low, not progressive enough, should be replaced by a flat tax, whatever---we can all agree that those who cheat on paying their fair share of taxes cheat every honest taxpayer and causes tax rates to rise on the scrupulous to make up the revenue lost to shameless cheats. Section 1 puts these scofflaws on notice.

Sections 2-6 give people who have cheated on their taxes previously the opportunity to come forward and admit to their unpaid taxes to be repaid with interest within 5 years, and thereby avoid large administrative penalties and possible criminal prosecution. Individuals who've already been caught and are facing audit and/or prosecution may not escape after the fact by applying for amnesty now.

The aim for the amnesty program has nothing to do with concern and mercy towards tax cheats, but everything to do with helping our beleaguered coffers and honest taxpayers during this economic crisis. Every dollar we can raise from tax cheats coming in out of the cold and paying their fair share (plus interest) is one less dollar we need to cut from education, health care, law enforcement, and infrastructure; or one less dollar we need to raise in taxes to provide needed services.

State tax amnesty programs have generally been rather successful:
http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/amnesty1.html

Section 7 drastically raises administrative penalties for those who still refuse to take advantage of the tax amnesty offered, much like California did earlier this decade (though the resulting economic chaos there obviously has nothing to do with that action). ;-) This is a stick of increased penalties to back up the carrot of amnesty. Last chance, deadbeats......

[Badger]

It's a fine proposal on which I largely agree.

I have 2 small remarks.

- Why not include taxes due on or before 4/15/09 ?
On 4/15/10, the MRRS will be able to know who hasn't reported or paid on 4/15/09.

- Five years to pay for deadbeats seem a bit too much for me. Why not set 12/31/13 as the deadline of principle ? We all know that the MRRS is able to give some additional delays if need be.

Two good points, Fab, which I'd considered in writing the bill. The first point I'd modeled the time off of some real world amnesty programs which seemed to have a lag of a couple years lag from the last eligible tax year and the amnesty period's beginning. (See link below for California's example). I'm not married to the date though, and if you assure me that your staff has determined the MRRS can adequately have deadbeats identified for the 2008 tax year as well, I'd be happy to amend the date. ;-)

The second part of including an extended 5 year repayment eligibility is to avoid the problems California had  with their tax amnesty where many deadbeats didn't come forward because they didn't have the money in hand at the time, and that is certainly an ongoing problem in the Mideast during this recession.

http://www.calchamber.com/Chamber_in_the_news/020305_Amnesty.htm


Don't forget that the interest on unpaid taxes will continue to accrue during that 5 year period until it's all paid, and they'll have to continue paying current taxes in the coming years as well, so I see more benefit and gain to regional taxpayers by giving every incentive for deadbeats to fess up and start paying back every penny they owe plus interest. For the reasons given in the article linked, I'd really like to keep the repayment schedule as extended as possible. Still, read the article and see if that changes your mind somewhat. I'm willing to listen to any continuing objections you have to a 5 year limit at that point.

[Badger]

It's a fine proposal on which I largely agree.

I have 2 small remarks.

- Why not include taxes due on or before 4/15/09 ?
On 4/15/10, the MRRS will be able to know who hasn't reported or paid on 4/15/09.

- Five years to pay for deadbeats seem a bit too much for me. Why not set 12/31/13 as the deadline of principle ? We all know that the MRRS is able to give some additional delays if need be.

Two good points, Fab, which I'd considered in writing the bill. The first point I'd modeled the time off of some real world amnesty programs which seemed to have a lag of a couple years lag from the last eligible tax year and the amnesty period's beginning. (See link below for California's example). I'm not married to the date though, and if you assure me that your staff has determined the MRRS can adequately have deadbeats identified for the 2008 tax year as well, I'd be happy to amend the date. ;-)

The second part of including an extended 5 year repayment eligibility is to avoid the problems California had  with their tax amnesty where many deadbeats didn't come forward because they didn't have the money in hand at the time, and that is certainly an ongoing problem in the Mideast during this recession.

http://www.calchamber.com/Chamber_in_the_news/020305_Amnesty.htm


Don't forget that the interest on unpaid taxes will continue to accrue during that 5 year period until it's all paid, and they'll have to continue paying current taxes in the coming years as well, so I see more benefit and gain to regional taxpayers by giving every incentive for deadbeats to fess up and start paying back every penny they owe plus interest. For the reasons given in the article linked, I'd really like to keep the repayment schedule as extended as possible. Still, read the article and see if that changes your mind somewhat. I'm willing to listen to any continuing objections you have to a 5 year limit at that point.

Well, my dear Badger, to keep on objecting on the repayment period, I would need a precise study of who are the deadbeats, how much they must pay each, about which taxes the problem mainly is, etc.
And I must acknowledge we do not have any comprehensive study on these points.
So, I won't object on the 5-year period any more.

As for the first point, well, in the beginning of 2010, the MRRS will be able to know who hasn't paid taxes due (this is the key word in your proposal) on 4/15/09 or who hasn't asked officially for delays.
So, on this point, given the fact that the law would be in force on 4/15/10 and that the MRRS would have enough time to get prepared for these new rules, I maintain my remark.

Thanks for your time.

I'm good with changing the effective date. Offer an amendment to make it effective for taxes due this year and I'll accept it as friendly.

On second thought, that's lazy of me as I'm on line and it's only changing one number. I'll post a revised version of the bill momentarily with your suggested change.

[Badger]

I agree with Big Bad Fab on the point of starting in 2009, rather than 2010.  I would give them until 12/31/2011 to pay back 60%, and until 12/31/2012 to pay back the full amount.  I highly doubt these tax cheats are bereft of money.

You would think, Ben, but check out the link regarding California's experience earlier this decade. Apparently not all tax cheats are wealthy folks stuffing their dollars away in the Caymans. Based on that experience I don't think a one or even two year extension is going to be as effective in reclaiming money for the treasury and taxpayers as a five year period.

Again, please don't confuse my extending the repayment period out as a sign of any sympathy for these deadbeats. I look upon the five year repayment period (with interest compounding every day) as simply the best way to strain every possible drop of milk from the tax cheaters cow.

Nevertheless, in light of the comments from you and Fab, I'll shave a year off the repayment period to reduce it to 4 years to make the bill more widely acceptable.

[Badger]

The Mideast Last Chance for Tax Cheats Bill:

1) The funding of the Mideast Regional Revenue Service for FY 2010 is increased 15%.

2) Effective 4/16/10 any person, business, corporation or other entity (hereafter: "deadbeat") which has previously failed to duly report taxes owed the Mideast region on income, sales, corporate taxes, capital gains, property, excise or other taxes levied by the Region due on or before 4/15/09 may apply to the MRRS for tax amnesty as described below.

3) Upon application for tax amnesty the deadbeat shall submit all missing or amended tax return forms for the tax years for which they seek amnesty by 12/31/10. The deadbeat must pay all such back taxes due, plus interest, no later than 12/31/14.

4) For all such taxes timely repaid under section 3 above, no additional MRRS administrative penalties nor other criminal liability shall attach for nonpayment or avoidance of said taxes.

5) Any deadbeat against whom a civil or criminal action, complaint or indictment regarding delinquent or unpaid taxes has been filed, or against whom MRRS audit proceedings have been initiated, is not eligible to apply for tax amnesty during the pendency of such actions.

6) Filing for tax amnesty does not prohibit the civil and/or criminal prosecution of any deadbeat for other unpaid or delinquent taxes outside the taxes for which amnesty has been applied for and granted.

7) Effective 1/1/11, MRRS administrative penalties for unpaid and delinquent taxes owed on or before 4/15/08 are increased 50%

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since there has been no more debate, we'll vote on the following bill. 

AYE.

[Badger]

As for my proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights,

- My proposal of protecting Life under any circumstances makes it more difficult to (re)instate the death penalty, as it would require a new amendment.
It may also, if courts judge it in that way, protect Human Life against voluntary and external euthanasia, as the word "removed" implies a voluntary action adn an action by someone else than the human being whose life is "removed".
So, to answer to our dear Governor Inks.LWC, if I am myself spontaneously in favour of death penalty when I see murders with rapes, sexual murders, murders of children or persons completely unable to defend themselves, etc, I think we must apply equally the same principle in every circumstance, because it's a sacred principle.
And, as the death penalty doesn't exist in the Mideast, it's not as if we would be slashing a penalty in force, which may have entailed some problems in terms of dissuading crimes.

- I understand the principled objections of our Speaker Sweedish Cheese, who is perfectly logical: as my point on Private Property was inspired by his Freedom to Roam Bill, it's normal that he is sceptical on my proposition.

What I can say is that, for the moment, I do not intend to split my proposal, because I want to reinforce a series of Rights, not just one, and I think it's better not to change the Bill of Rights too often.

- That's why I'd like to hear our fellow Assemblyman Badger on my re-writings, that may still be improved.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you for your patience, Fab. I have to admit though, that I still have numerous concerns about your proposal---maybe even more than before.

First off, while you've given some overview as to the general ideas you're trying to include into your amendment you haven't put forth an actual revised version of your proposal including the necessary changes in language.

Second, I don't see anything in your revisions that addresses the problems Peter correctly pointed out (though presenting a revised version as mentioned in my first concern may address that somewhat).

Third, I agree with Swede's position that such completely different issues should be submitted and considered separately.

Fourth, personally I'm leery of the first proposal due to my personal views. I'm a "moderate" on capital punishment and, while I'm not seeking to re-institute it at this time, I don't seek to hinder it either. More importantly I'm very concerned about the amendment being used to undermine dieing with dignity/euthanasia laws which I support.

Fifth, I have concerns about the stated aim of your second proposal. I too believe strongly in the rights of private property and the need to limit abuse of eminent domain and the like. But I do not want to see even tepid regulation passed by the Assembly and signed by the Governor subject to constitutional challenge based on a "horse and buggy" interpretation of private property. If a decidedly limited and voluntary piece of legislation effecting private property like the Freedom to Roam Where Inks Tells You Act would be deemed unconstitutional under this provision, I have to say it would be quite bad for the region to pass it.

Sorry if I sound harsh. I'm honestly not trying to be. But for those stated reasons I have to say I oppose the proposals.

[Badger]

EMERGENCY MEASURE TO AMEND THE MIDEAST ELECTION CONSOLIDATION STATUTE.

Effective immediately, the Mideast Election Consolidation Statute is hereby amended as follows:

Section 2: Determination of the Winner
1. If any candidate shall gain the greatest number of highest preference votes, then that candidate shall be declared the winner of the election. In Assembly elections, the candidate that receives a plurality of highest preference votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes and second preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first seat shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, and third preference and that has not already been elected to the first two seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, third preference votes and fourth preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first three seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, third preference votes, fourth preference votes, and fifth preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first four seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly.


Thanks again to Senator Franzl for noting this oversight. We need to pass this amendment immediately for the forthcoming election.

Any comments or other things we've missed here?

[Badger]

My colleagues and I were talking about the results of the Mideast people voting on the amendment of Article III of our Constitution: 8 AYE, 3 NO.

Isn't it a clear "popular will" ?

Sticking to it is just paving the way for it to be applied AS SOON AS November election and not dragging our feet.
That's why you deserve some "thanks" .

So, we're all on the same page, "no problemo", as one of your fellow Governors would have said.

I received a PM from an Assemblymemeber (and I'm trying to be careful here and not accidentally violate the Privacy Protection Act), that led me to believe that at least one member was confused about what's going on here - I've PMed the Assemblymember, but I just wanted to make sure that the entire Assembly knows what's going on here.

What Fab said. I meant to refer to the amendment passed last week expanding the Assembly to 5 seats effective this election, not the measure currently being voted on. Sorry if I misspoke (or mistyped) leading to any confusion.

Anyhoo,

AYE.

[Badger]

Regarding BBF's three proposals:

First off, Fab, I have to complement the clean up job you did on the language of your proposals. It is decidedly more coherent. And don't worry about your English; it's fine, and better than almost any American on this forum's French. ;-) I also understand your goal that, although capital punishment is currently prohibited by statute, you wish to further prohibit it at the constitutional level as well. I don't think that is in any way redundant as some have suggested.

That said, I have severe difficulties with the first two amendments, and am unsure about the third.

For the first, even if Peter's absolutely necessary modification were made to the language, this proposal would not only entrench prohibition of capital punishment, on which I am a moderate who opposes complete abolition, but would further utterly outlaw a woman's right to choose, voluntary informed euthanasia for the terminally ill, and possibly even affect the legal status of some forms of contraceptives, all of which I firmly support.

For the second, I do not see the need to add additional provisions beyond the Mideast's current robust Eminent Domain Statute. I'm happy to hear that you believe Inks version of FTR would not be affected by this provision, but concerned that you consider that law "the line in the sand" beyond which any further public regulation of private property would be forbidden. If such a nominal level of voluntary public involvement like FTR is the maximum regulation of private property allowed under this provision, it would utterly hamstring the public's ability to enforce environmental protection laws, public health statutes, a host of agricultural laws, etc, etc.  I have no desire to require the taxpayers to recompense polluters for  "inconveniencing" them with the enforcement of environmental laws against their property, be it farm, forest or factory. I'm not sure if that's what you intended here, my friend, but it is unquestionably what this proposal provides for.

For the third proposal, my biggest concern is I'm simply not 100% sure what your aim here is. Is it to constitutionally require education--be it public, private, or at home--through age 14? If so, I think I might support this in principle, but have a few concerns that I think can be remedied.

First, Such a broad constitutional requirement would arguably require the attempted education of even the most severely mentally disabled persons---not mere severe retardation, but even those who are in nursing care due to barely being sentient (sadly). I'm sure that isn't your intent, but that is the danger of writing something as a broad constitutional mandate rather than as a statute. ;-)

Beyond that, I might even suggest whether 14 is actually too young an age to be permitted to cease education? 16 maybe? I know many Amish drop out after 8th grade to work on the family farm, but.... I'm open to arguments here.

With those points, I might be willing to support this provision if submitted as an independent proposal, which I join Swedish Cheese in suggesting, but as it's currently attached to the other two amendments I firmly oppose I simply can't support this bill as is.

[Badger]

So since no one has attempted to debate or argue my economic proposal, should I asume that y'all support it?

"y'all"?? Oh, that's right. I forgot you're from southern Sweden. :-P

[Badger]

What is FTR?

Freedom To Roam (Where Inks Says You Can) Act.

[Badger]

A few comments on the economic bill:

First, good catch on the error, Fab. I'll offer a friendly amendment momentarily.

Secondly, I'll note that the GM also stated the tax cut would most definitely boost the economy of the region and increase consumption and demand. It will also decrease unemployment, thereby saving the region some money from reduced unemployment insurance.

Thirdly, I'll note the combined cost of both portions of the bill at even the worst case estimate the $32 billion federal stimulus grant would still just about pay for the entire plan for at least the first year, and at the best case scenario would pay for the entire plan for both years. Even a middle ground estimate would leave us only about $5 billion short for the second year. Please note that these estimates did not include adjustments for increased tax revenue and decreased expenditures of unemployment insurance, etc. caused by resulting economic growth.

Hopefully the increased growth might make up any of this small forcasted shortfall, and if it doesn't we can slightly scale back the spending and/or tax cut next year if necessary to make budget, or perhaps our Senator Tmth can wheedle out a tiny extra bit of stimulus from the federal government to put us over the goal line. For those of you worried about relying on extra federal money please note the amount needed to finalize the funding would be minuscule compared to this year's stimulus, and I'm only putting it out there as one of many options. If push came to shove we could readily self-fund this all this year and next year as well with only nominal rollbacks in the spending and tax cuts.

Because the numbers have been carefully worked out I'm a little leery about messing with them too much. I support your idea, Fab, of increasing funding for green energy support, but I have to agree with Swedish Cheese that replacing a 5% increase with a 50% increase is just too much too fast. Remember, there has to be sufficient infrastructure of green energy research labs, firms and trained personnel to use any funding we provide, otherwise we risk flooding a currently small sector of the energy sector with more money than they can effectively and efficiently use at this time.

Likewise, excellance in education is crucial to our long term economic security as well, so I'm likewise reluctant to reduce expanding the spending here. It's this increased educational spending that will help create the infrastructure necessary for the green energy sector of the economy to grow as I detailed above. The GM indicates the first and third portions of proposed spending increases would create the most jobs (in construction, R&D, etc.), and although the second portion would create fewer jobs, mostly focused in education, but would be successful in making the Mideast more competitive in the long-run.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of compromise and maintaining the fiscal responsibility of this proposal, I'll include in my forthcoming (hopefully still friendly) amendment an increased rate of spending for green energy technology as Fab suggested, to be offset cost-wise by a slightly less increased rate of spending on education.

One final note: I think we owe it to the citizens of the Mideast to pass this important and necessary legislation before election day this week, so let's all try to make resolving and finalizing any amendments or corrections here our top priority. OK? Great! <hands in the center, on three: 1....2....3> GO TEAM MIDEAST!!

[Badger]

So after a very long period of waiting, with some appreciated help from my good friend Badger and our Game Moderator's analysing and advice, I can finally introduce to you ... drumroll please...

The Mideast Save the Sinking Ship That Is Our Economy Act

Section I: The Assembly recognises the need for a lower regional corporate tax, in order to stimulate our economy and help boost employment. We therefore will offer tax cuts to businesses that are successful in creating new jobs in the region. 
Definitions: "Workforce compensation" is the value of benefits paid to employees, both full and part time, whether in form of salaries/wages or the dollar value of fringe benefits such as health insurance, etc.
   1)   Effective 1/1/10, every Mideast business, company, and corporation that is successful in increasing their overall workforce compensation, regardless of whether said increase is due to additional employees being hired or increased compensation to current employees or a combination thereof in this region with at least 5 will get a 25 % tax cut reduction equivalent to double the percentage increase for employee compensation in their corporate tax rate for 2010, up to a maximum reduction of 50%. (i.e. A 3.5% increase in employment/compensation will result in a 7% reduction in corporate taxes. 5% increase will result in a 10% tax cut, etc.)
   2) Any increase of total compensation for individual employees salary and/or benefits above $100,000 per year is excluded from calculating any reduction of corporate taxes pursuant to Section 1 above.

Section II: The Assembly proposes that a number of 10 billion dollars be used in programs designed to extend and repair the region's infrastructure, such as building new roads, bridges, tunnels and railroad, increasing and promoting train activity, and renovate decayed roads.

Section III: The funding for public schools and universities will be increased with 7 % 6% the coming two years.

Section IV: The region's funding for science for new effective and green energy will be increased with 5 % 10%.   

Section V: The funding for the initiatives in Section II, III, and IV will be drawn from the 32 billions handed to the Mideast Region through the Regional and Local Fiscal Relief Act.

The bill has been signed.  I'd like to thank the Assembly for their quick action here.

Also, if you guys can get the Amendment through the Assembly before Thursday, we can get it on the ballot along with the Assembly elections.

Thank you for your quick action as well Governor.

I'm positive that there will be a final vote on BBF's proposal before Thursday. 

Offered as a (hopefully) friendly amendment, as promised.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amendment accpeted as friendly unless BBF objects.


There hasn't been any debate on Big Bad Fab's amendments for 24 hours, so I herby move to vote on them.


Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance, except by law enforcement officers when allowed to use deadly force to protect threatened innocent lives and by soldiers when allowed to use deadly force against enemies in time of war. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."


Protection of Private Property Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

II. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be taken or used by another private legal entity. Private property shall not be taken by a public legal entity for public use, without just compensation."


Right to Education Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 18. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"18. All persons under eighteen shall have the right to a publicly funded, well-balanced education. All persons under fourteen are required to receive education along lines and minimal requirements set by Law, in public or private institutions or in families."

NAY.