MA: Mideast Budget Amendment (Passed)

[Talleyrand]

I support this. Definitely something I can live with.

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I propose this amendment.

[Talleyrand]

I withdraw the amendment; just trying to stir some discussion here. I don't care too much about the deficit cap, but the debt ceiling is fundamental to me, and I will not vote for any version without it.

[Talleyrand]

If you don't change the debt ceiling, that amendment is adequate, though I must point out a 20% deficit is around $60 billion, more than $50 billion.

[Talleyrand]

Then that section of the bill is pointless. I propose the following amendment instead.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks for pointing that out. Here is the corrected amendment.

[Talleyrand]

I'm with Inks here. It seems like a lot of the controversy over the bill here centers around the cap on spending per fiscal year, so my amendment would remove that section and give the Assembly ability to spend however much they would like, as long as they didn't cross the debt limit. That's the most important part of the bill, as it prevents Assemblies from passing huge deficits year after year without consequence.

If there truly is an emergency which requires the debt ceiling to be crossed, we can increase it and send it to the voters, who will be adequately informed as to whether or not the situation warrants such a change.

[Talleyrand]

AYE

[Talleyrand]

Do my fellow Assemblymen think it is a better idea to set a specific monetary amount, as the bill currently has, or a percentage of GDP, as has been suggested?

[Talleyrand]

It looks like we have somewhat of a split here, but an Assembly majority in favor of a percentage of GDP as our cap.

Does anyone know what the regional GDP was last year? If these numbers aren't readily available, we could go in and calculate it by adding the GSPs of all our constituent states, and then calculate a reasonable number off of that. I just need to know where one can find that information...

[Talleyrand]

We brought in $305.8 billion for last year. I'd have to do research, but actually I think all of our revenue numbers actually came from 2011. I could be wrong on that.

Well, my understanding is that the original budget was proposed in 2011, so you're almost certainly right on that. Thanks for the revenue numbers- I wonder if there's a way to extrapolate that to GDP, but I am not sure.

Either way, it looks like a debt cap is the way we're going, right?

[Talleyrand]

If the goal of this bill is to limit the government's long-term debt without tying its hands during times of economic emergency, wouldn't a GDP cap somewhat defeat that purpose, since GDP will necessarily shrink during a recession?

I see what you mean. If, during a recession, the government deems it wise to stimulate the economy with additional expenditures, a GDP cap can indeed be counterproductive. Indeed, in times of a crisis the GDP is lower. As a consequence, the government cannot spend as much money (in raw numbers) as in a situation where the GDP is higher.
I am not a fan of massive government intervention even during a recession, but for someone who wants the government to take drastic measures in times of economic hardship your point is very valid.

I agree with MOPolitico too, now that I see his point. There's a chance we could have a debt compliant with a GDP cap one year, but in the next, even if our total debt were a smaller amount, it could violate the limit due to lower revenue/a poorer economy. I remember there was big dip in the U.S. GDP a few years ago, so this is definitely a valid case.

[Talleyrand]

I think the original pre-GDP plan was fine, for what it's worth.

Yeah, I'm okay with it too. So are there any more concerns about that?

[Talleyrand]

AYE