SENATE BILL: Saving Over Spending Act of 2012 (Law'd)

[LastVoter]

Good thing you included the word "for" in there, Ben.

I ask unanimous consent to waive the minimum debate and cloture requirements to proceed to a final vote. Senators have 24 hours to object.

Object

[LastVoter]

Amendment:
To curb wasteful spending by making 50 90 percent of year-end savings in salaries and expenses available for an additional fiscal year, and to use the remaining 50 10 percent for the purpose of deficit reduction.

[LastVoter]

Can someone explain what incentive is there to save when you just lose half of the funding you saved? You have to give most of the funds that are saved back to the agency that saved money for this to be even remotely feasible.

[LastVoter]

Can someone explain what incentive is there to save when you just lose half of the funding you saved? You have to give most of the funds that are saved back to the agency that saved money for this to be even remotely feasible.

If the agency spends too much money, then it won't have any carry over in the next fiscal year.  The more it saves, the more it can keep, the more that can be allocated toward the deficit.  It is a simple, common sense way to encourage federal departments to spend wisely, and then enjoy the benefits of those savings by keeping half.

To put it in simple terms- if you save $5.00 and keep $2.50, you'd be much better off than if you were to save $1.00 and only keep $.50, so you would be incentivized to save more.

Your amendment is unfriendly.

Agency A: Spends $5.00
Agency B: Spends $3.00, gets to spend $1.00 next year.
Doesn't seem like a good incentive.

[LastVoter]

Wouldn't they have $6 in this scenario?

I gave a flawed example, but my point was that the agency that was saving money would end up with less money in the end if I read the bill correctly.
here is a better example: both agencies are given $5 each year, b saves
a: 5 5 5 to spend
b: 5 3 6 to spend

[LastVoter]

Aye.
The bill makes no sense whatsoever.

[LastVoter]

Aye.
The bill makes no sense whatsoever.

Only because you don't seem to understand it.

There is a silent majority. The way I understand it is that this Senate bill just wants to have a certain office hand over money for no remuneration only to be cut just as much later(If your and most of Senate's agenda is followed in the future).

[LastVoter]

Abstain