Start With the Budget?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Please note that a vote has not been opened on this yet.

I'll repeat what I said in another thread:

Look all of you; we have four options here.

1. Do the forum affairs stuff (which is what people have been getting fussy over recently anyways) now and get this done later.
2. Whack up taxes.
3. Go on yet another cutting spree (making sure, as always, to only cut things you don't like and to protect things you do like).
4. Get rid of the balanced requirement and work out a compromise.

We could also try a combination of tax hikes *and* budget slashing, but as in real life that sort of behavior generally ends up being brutally punished by the electorate...

1,2 and 3 are the easy options. 4 is probably the only way we can actually get out of this trap though (and maybe we could bring back the balanced requirement when the economy is better).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a balanced budget requirement?

Right now I don't think I care; I am much more concerned about the state of the economy overall then how much government spending is over-running.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When an economy is doing well government raises more money, which can then be used to cut into the deficit.
The problem with have at the moment is the fact that there isn't much that can be cut that won't be unpalatable to cut for most people (some of the *smaller* cuts in the provisional budget are bad enough and were added for purely political reasons but that's a different rant) and Senators do have to run for re-election every four months. And right now, we need consumers to spend more money, so jacking up taxes at the moment isn't a very bright idea either.
Effectively we've managed to get outselves caught up in a trap.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Unless someone comes out in favor of delaying the budget, we will begin the process of passing the budget tomorrow.  Al, if you want to do it, feel free.

I would like someone to check if we are *technically* in a time of economic crisis (o/c in real terms we are but I'm not sure whether or not we are officially) because if we are then the balanced requirement doesn't have to be used and we have a Get Out Of Jail Free card... if not we'll either have to declare war on something (there's bound to be some small independent island that's done something wrong) or we're still stuck in the trap and will be bogged down in screaming at each other for ages while other legislation builds up and builds up...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

O.K... we're going to have to declare war on some place (either that or the whole game will probably break down). Now, can we declare war on something that isn't a recognised country? Because if we don't have to we can just declare war on Sealand or some other deserted hellhole "ruled" by some lunatic and his family and/or pets.
If not we'll have to find somewhere that wouldn't mind us declaring war on them and which a declaration of war would not hurt us much. Zimbabwe maybe? Burma? Somalia... yes... Somalia would probably do nicely.

Comments?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I will oppose a war to fix a budget problem created by many of the current members of the senate.
We need to fix it by doing whatever is necessary in the new budget.

Unless I've misread something (I may have done) declaring war* doesn't halt work on the budget, it just means we can ignore the balancing requirement this time round.
It doesn't solve the problem in the long term though, but, it gives us time to solve the problem.

*besides just because we declare war doesn't mean we have to fight a war; only three (or is it four) people live on "Sealand" after all. It would just be a technical trick to get us out of a very deep hole.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We need to be willing to make the tough choices necessary to balance the budget Now not later.

To recap this is the problem we have; there isn't much left to cut from the budget (presuming the provisional one passes unaltered, and it probably won't) that isn't defense related (which for some reasons has always proved impossible to cut in any meaningful way and I don't think there's a majority for it in this Senate) or would be extremely distasteful to most people.
The only alternative to this is to raise taxes. There probably isn't a majority in the Senate that will do that, and even if there is the fragile state of the economy means that significant tax rises will probably have a negative effect on consumer spending, hurling us back into another recession.
In other words we can't balance the budget in the current situation, without causing damage to the economy as or whole or making the lives of a lot of disadvantaged people a hell of a lot worse.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just been thinking; do any of the possible ways of trying to stick with the balance requirement have a majority right now? Or a majority that can defeat a filibuster?
Slashing the defense budget? Doubt it. Raising taxes? Doubt it. Slashing social spending even more than in the provisional budget? Doubt it. A combination of some of those? Probably not.
The "glories" of a hung Senate people...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Would any Senator like to introduce a bill declaring war on a random nation in order to evade the balanced budget requirement?  If so, we must get a 2/3rds majority to delay working on the budget, then get a majority on bumping the war bill up in the agenda, then pass the war bill.

Yes. Let's declare war on Sealand.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just wondering; is there anyway we can work on trying to find a magic compromise on the budget while working on other pieces of legislation?
Or is the constitution too ridiculously impractical to allow us to do even that?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As far as I can tell, the constitution is quite clear that we can't do anything before the budget unless we waive that requirement by a 2/3 vote.

Oh we are f***ed then

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good point

[Filuwaúrdjan]

i'm sure 6/9 could be found.

Well I hope so; otherwise things are going to come to a grinding halt right at the time we really need things to be moving...