Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm aware that I'm prohibited from using the Senate Legislative Introduction Thread as I'm not yet a sitting Senator

However, can someone confirm for me whether this thread is the place for me to comment or make suggestions -as a Citizen re-current Senate Debate or do I use the appropriate thread as a Citizen for designated for any particular legislation? For example, were I to make a suggestion on the Tennessee Valley Authority Privatisation Act

I just thought I'd ask with this thread being inactive of late

Thanks

Dave (currently trawlling his way through wads and wads of Atlasia stuff )

[Democratic Hawk]

The sole purpose of the military is to defend the country. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to suggest that there is any legitimate reason for training men to kill, and for building weapons that can destroy lives and property, aside from the defense of the republic. The slippery slope begins with the argument that the military should be funded not for reasons of national defense, but for economic causes. Once this argument is accepted, it is not difficult to take the next step, and conclude that we should not only build up a military, but also go to war, for economic reasons.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against this line of reasoning in 1961. Days before leaving office, he said:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."

Forty-five years later, we should continue to pay heed to Eisenhower's warning. Once we start down the road of military buildup for reasons entirely unrelated to defense, it is difficult to stop.

The national security and defense of the nation is of paramount importance to me. The fact of the matter is the defense sector is a major employer, upon which the livelihoods of thousands, if not millions, of Atlasians, ultimately, depend. Atlasia's military muscle sits at the very heart of what it means to be a great nation. And yes, I will do whatever I can to safeguard the national interest and the living standards of hard working Atlasians

As I've pointed out major defense cuts could potentially lead to unacceptable increases in spending elsewhere. Money spent on defense is money well spent, money spent on welfare is a tragic waste of human potential but, as long it's necessary, to protect those who are unable to provide for themselves, then we must

Parts of District 4 lag behind many parts of Atlasia, economically. It's gone on for far too long. Major defense cuts could exacerbate what is far from the optimum situation as it is. I dread to think the socio-economic trauma major cuts would cause for, potentially, thousands of families, whose livelihoods depend on the defense sector

I'm not proposing to increase defense spending and, at this point in time, I've no intention of doing so. If the circumstances ever warrant it (i.e the defense and national security of our nation), it's something the Senate would need to consider

On this matter, you and I can respectfully agree to differ

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Parts of District 4 lag behind many parts of Atlasia, economically. It's gone on for far too long. Defense cuts would exacerbate what is far from the optimum situation as it is.

With all due respect, I would have to disagree with this line of reasoning. The federal government should not legislate in the interests of one district or another; no part of the country is entitled to special treatment. I do not mean to suggest that you should ignore the interests of your constituents. I am only saying that the fact that District 4 might suffer should be weighed against the benefits that the whole nation will receive.

I'm not asking that the federal government legislate in the interests of one district or another. The defense and national security of the nation is what, some might argue, the primary role of the federal government. I ran as a 'defense' candidate, after all. I intend to my true to those convictions

What I am prepared to do is work with fellow Senators to do whatever we can to diversify, significantly defense-reliant, local economies Defense cuts, if necessary, might not be quite such a blow if alternative employment opportunities were available. As things stand, I think large scale defense cuts would have a disproportionately negative impact on most states in District 4 and I'd like to think cuts could be proportional or relative to the state's economic strength were they to be made

As it happpens, I don't think cuts beyond 1.4% (or up to 2.5% max.) is a feasible option. Not at the moment anyway. Still, I see no reason why we can't start preparing for what may be the inevitable and seeking to diverisfy local defense-based economies would be a start. I see a role regions could play in that

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

For these reasons, I would fully support Senator TexasGurl's plan to reduce defense funding. A great bulk of defense spending is pork; I fear that the suggested reduction of 10% may not go far enough.

Cuts of that scale are born-out of isolationist dogma. $95bn (10% plus that cut from the legislation she sought to repeal). Might as well just add it to the welfare pot because it's going to need it. I can'tsee  Atlasia being better off from either a defense/national security standpoint or a socio-economic standpoint

For a progressive Senator, to propose cuts which could potentially generate a higher level of unemployment and worse still destroy communities, just dismays me unutterably

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

We need at the very least a 5% cut in defense spending, Which would be fairly easy if the military quit spending 500 bux for toilet seats.

$500 for a toilet seat? Is it gold-plated like? They had better have "Made in Atlasia" written on em

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Because it is the only department left that hasn't been cut.

*whispers* Just having some In-Character Fun

OK, fair enough. I'm willing to look at cutting the Missile Initiative program.

I'll need to review that proposal on its own merits, once it reaches the floor of the Senate, and if it's not in Atlasia's interests to cut it, then I'll oppose it

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I worked in liasion with TCash on this Bill, therefore, I, hereby,introduce this

Notification of Federal Election Polling Hours Bill

1. This Act, hereby, instructs the Secretary of Forum Affairs; or, in his absence, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs, to publicy notify registered voters of Federal Election Polling Hours in both the:

a. Fantasy Elections Forum; and
b. the Voting Booth.

2. This Act, hereby, instructs the Secretary of Forum Affairs; or, in his absence, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs to give three days notice of Federal Election Polling Hours.

'Hawk'

I presume this bill is intended to cause the voting booth administrator to specify three days before the start of the election exactly when the election starts under the Flexitime Amendment.  If so, I urge the bill be amended to make explict the intent, and to simplify things down to saying the voting booth adminstrator, since that could be someone other than the SoFA or the DSoFA under current law (Section 10 of the ESRA).  Indeed, this bill might be better done as an amendment to the ESRA.

I'll introduce it as an amendment to the ESRA and I'll word it to explicity state that the voting booth administrator give three days notice of polling hours prior to the commencement of the election

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I worked in liasion with TCash on this Bill, therefore, I, hereby,introduce this

Notification of Federal Election Polling Hours Bill

1. This Act, hereby, instructs the Secretary of Forum Affairs; or, in his absence, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs, to publicy notify registered voters of Federal Election Polling Hours in both the:

a. Fantasy Elections Forum; and
b. the Voting Booth.

2. This Act, hereby, instructs the Secretary of Forum Affairs; or, in his absence, the Deputy Secretary of Forum Affairs to give three days notice of Federal Election Polling Hours.

'Hawk'

We should also have something for special elections included in the bill.

I've scratched that Bill and introduced it as a modification to the Electoral System Reform Act. Basically, all I've done is added a new Clause 4 to Section 10: Administration of Voting Booths

4. The administrator of a voting booth shall give registered voters three days advance public notice, in both the Fantasy Elections Forum and the Voting Booth, of the hours in which voting shall take place for all regular and special Senate elections

All it does is mandate the administrator of a voting booth to publicly notify voters of voting hours since such hours can now be flexible as per the recently ratified Flexi-Time Constitutional Amendment

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

What is imperialist about a Bill that sought to allow the people of American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands to determine for themselves whether they desired statehood or not?

If anything it's the concept of 'territory' that is imperialist, not that of 'statehood'

I abstained on that Bill because I didn't think the time was right given the situation in Guam but I don't think it fair that those who live in Atlasia's territories are second-class 'citizens' (for want of a better word). Were our territories to become states, they would be contributing to, as well as receiving, from the coffers

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

What is imperialist about a Bill that sought to allow the people of American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands to determine for themselves whether they desired statehood or not?

Imperialism is defined as the continuous acquisition of land and power.  It's not a healthy way to govern, imo.  Especially when these territories were so small and separated from each other that statehood was hardly warranted.

On a side note, I wonder if people so anxious to allow the inhabitants to have a vote on statehood would be just as eager to allow state secessions.  If the people want it, who are we to stop them, right? :-S

Since statehood for the Pacific territories has been ruled out, I'd like to know your opinion on whether or not the people of all our remaining territories should be given full citizenship and full federal voting rights?

Of course, this would depend on their federal tax status. No representation without taxation stands as far as I'm concerned

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Well, I think this is one of those issues where we need to have a fine line between real life and Atlasian politics.  In real life, extending voting rights sounds like a good idea, but in Atlasia, I don't see the need to extend anything towards territories.  One of the things that needs to be considered is the practicality of such a move: i.e., people would have to go to extra lengths to make maps for presidential elections, there would be more eligible places to register that the SoFA would be required to keep track of, etc.  So I'm inclined to say that I wouldn't support such a proposal.

On the issues of practicality, I'm minded to agree . I can't take it for granted that no one wouldn't register in such territories, and it would unduly complicate things for the SoFA. So, I'll be leaving that idea

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Why is legislation to renumber sections in the ESRA necessary, or to incorporate UECA sections into it?

If you want one fluid piece of legislation on the subject, better just to pass a single consolidation statute rather than attempt to amend 'in text', because that always gets horribly confusing to the casual observer.

Basically, I just needed to know whether it was necessary or not. I gather the amendments I've proposed need to be considered separately, however

Ernest raised the ESRA/UECA and renumbering issues with me personally and I'm awaiting his response

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Might these Free Trade Bills not be more correctly styled Atlasia rather than Atlasian

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Another possibility is to introduce a general free trade bill, which would apply not to a specific group of countries, but to the whole world.

I've sugested this myself.
It's nearly a great idea, though I'd sugest a small revenue raising tarif.

The whole world? I think not

For a start, the whole world wouldn't be suitable for Free Trade Agreements, certain countries are subject to economic restrictions

Furthermore, for many countries, their political, and human rights, record leave a lot to be desired - but I like the idea of a revenue raising tariff as in the classical protectionist tradition; however, it wouldn't be necessarily small, or uniform, either but variable depending on how recalcitrant undemocratic regimes might be. The more they move towards being a fully functioning liberal democracy, with political freedoms and civil rights, we could consider reducing the tariff if Atlasia was to go down this road

Free Trade should be all about levelling other countries up to our high economic and political standards, which is why I favor such a stick and carrot approach. Plus revenue raised by tariffs could be used to reduce the tax burden on our businesses

But for now, I'll look at each and every Free Trade Bill on the status, as per the Foreign Policy Review, of the specific regions, or countries, to which they pertain before deciding whether I support it or not

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

We've gone over this, though many of you refuse to accept the argument that a child needs parents of both sexes to develop normally

Are you saying that a child adopted by same-sex parents is likely to develop the same sexual orientation of their adoptive parents (assuming the child is the same sex as their adoptive parents)? What about the role genetics may play in the development of sexual orientation?

Not to mention that different sex parents can do a poor job of raising children

This is not as black and white as it seems with both arguments for and against

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying the child's development will be hindered without both a male and female role model. We're already seeing the affects of single parent families in the US, and ignoring the economic factors involved, I think we'd see similar emotional and social problems with children raised by a same sex couple.

Also, the issue of different sex parents raising their own children is not germane to this topic. Bad parents are screened out as best as possible at adoption agencies.

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts on the issue

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I'll introduce this bill for BrandonH but I'm omitting the last clause because I can't support getting rid of Medicaid.


Medicare Reform Bill

1. A senior shall be defined as a person age 60 or over.
2. Seniors shall have the right to opt out of medicare and this shall not affect their Social Security benefits.
3. Seniors receiving Medicare benefits shall have the option of using private doctors for services covered by Medicare without penalty.
4. Persons who have paid into the Medicare system shall be elegible for a voucher upon becoming a senior.  The value of the voucher shall be based on past medical history and probablity of future health risks.
5. Employees shall have the option of contributing the 1.45% Medicare Tax into a Retirement Health Savings Account.

Why don't you introduce the Bill with Clause 6? Propose an amendment striking it. The Senate can then determine whether it stands or not

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm getting annoyed by all this free trade.  If you want to kill Atlasian industry and labor rights, just do it in one fell swoop.  Doing it country by country is painstakingly slow.

Do you honestly think the Senate will approve free trade to all and sundry in one full swoop? We have both full, and partial, military and economic restrictions on a number of countries. The former of which shouldn't even be considered for free trade agreements at all, the others not without certain 'conditions'

And I've no intention of sitting back and watch Atlasian industry and labor rights erode. I've always made it clear that should protectionist measures be necessary , then it's an option

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I'll introduce this bill for BrandonH but I'm omitting the last clause because I can't support getting rid of Medicaid.


Medicare Reform Bill

1. A senior shall be defined as a person age 60 or over.
2. Seniors shall have the right to opt out of medicare and this shall not affect their Social Security benefits.
3. Seniors receiving Medicare benefits shall have the option of using private doctors for services covered by Medicare without penalty.
4. Persons who have paid into the Medicare system shall be elegible for a voucher upon becoming a senior.  The value of the voucher shall be based on past medical history and probablity of future health risks.
5. Employees shall have the option of contributing the 1.45% Medicare Tax into a Retirement Health Savings Account.

Why don't you introduce the Bill with Clause 6? Propose an amendment striking it. The Senate can then determine whether it stands or not

'Hawk'

Because I felt it was horrible and I had the right to introduce it without it. Besides I know this Senate won't get rid of Medicaid and it was a way to save time as well.

I'm not disputing the fact it is horrible nor your right to introduce it as you saw fit. I just think the Bill as the President intended should be considered even if it means my introducing Clause 6 only to vote against it. That's the point I'm trying to make

I've introduced an Atlasian-Jordan Free Trade Bill (in the event of my amendment to the Atlasian-Israel-Jordan Free Trade Bill passing) as per the President's 'terms' yet I expect it could well possibly be subject to my amendment

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I formally request that the President of the Senate and the PPT agree to bumping the Rebellion Aid Bill and the Treasonous Rebellion Bill up the Senate agena

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Regarding Consolidated electoral reform legislation:

Section 7 contains an unnecessary self-reference, but its only an annoyance as opposed to an actual problem

Section 8:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is actually a logical contradiction - given that an election could start at say 8 pm Thursday, then according to the first sentence, the candidacy declaration deadline is 8 pm Thursday the week before. However, the section in parentheses sets the candidacy declaration deadline at midnight Thursday the week before. God knows how the Court would bypass this absurdity, so I suggest we save them the hassle.

In order to alleviate this problem, please delete the parentheses in both clauses and then insert between "before the" and "commencement of the election" the words "earliest possible" in both clauses.

Section 10, Clause 3 of the Act refers to Section 12, where it should refer to Section 11 because of the effects of renumbering.

It would also be advisable to repeal all operative sections of previous electoral legislation.

Thanks . I'll make the appropriate adjustments although I did point out on the FACE thread that I wasn't sure exactly how to best incorporate the points 2) and 3) that you raised into the consolidated legislation, so I proceeded as best as I understood

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Section 7 contains an unnecessary self-reference, but its only an annoyance as opposed to an actual problem

lol

Section 7 is how it stands from the original ESRA, so I decided to just leave it

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

My CESRB has been withdrawn by the PPT at my request, it is my intention to reintroduce it once I've "fixed" it . My apologies. This legislation is proving more tricky than I'd ever envisaged

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

I might as well say that once the GTO bill is off the floor and Jas's resolution is in the 5th slot I'll be introducing this amendment to re-write the bill.

Resolution on the Middle East Conflict

Recognizing that the security and stability of the Middle East is threatened by the current conflict between Hezbollah and Israel,

The Atlasian Senate hereby recognizes that:
1. The terrorist group, Hezbollah, is acting without legitimate cause or grievance and is slaughtering innocent Israeli citizens.
2. It is acting with the tacit support of the Syrian and Iranian governments.

Thus the Atlasian Senate hereby:
1. Condemns Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
2. Condemns Hezbollah for launching rockets from civilian areas, thus making Israel attack civilian areas and causing undue death of Lebanese citizens to protect its own citizens.
3. Gives wholehearted support to the Israeli government in their attacks against Hezbollah and supports its complete destruction.
4. Is willing to sell Israel weapons and munitions in their continuing fight against terrorism.

I concur with the Senator's proposed amendment to the Resolution on the Middle East Conflict

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Actual Free Trade Bill

1. Section 3, F.L. 13-10 is hereby repealed.
2. Section 3, F.L. 13-11 is hereby repealed.
3. Section 3, F.L. 13-12 is hereby repealed.
4. Section 3, F.L. 13-19 is hereby repealed.
5. Section 3, F.L. 13-20 is hereby repealed.
6. Section 2 & 4, F.L. 13-23 is hereby repealed, and the sections are renumbered to reflect the above changes.
7. Section 3, F.L. 14-4 is hereby repealed.
8. Section 3, F.L. 14-5 is hereby repealed.

On this Senator, you and I shall not be in concurrence. When it comes to free trade, I have a vision , which is both grounded in my convictions and highly principled to boot!  More on this once it reaches the floor

'Hawk'