MA: Fix the Constitution Act (Final Vote)

[windjammer]

A balanced budget amendment is a ridiculous idea.

Of course, it is preferable for a budget to be balanced than not. But this kind of amendment doesn't take into account the current situation. For example, if there is a big disaster, it would need a 4/5th majority for a budget to be approved? Why? I fail to see a single reason why a higher majority would be needed.

Have you all forgotten what happened in the US for the Sandy funding?
Senate result: 62-32 so a 2/3 majority would have failed
House result: 241-180 a 2/3 majority requirement would have failed too

In addition of being pointless, a such amendment to the constitution would allow extremists to take into hostage budget talks if there is a disaster and that a deficit is needed, requesting massive spending cuts in exchange of their vote, even if they wouldn't have had the majority of the seats in the assembly.

This kind of constitutional amendments has so many perverts effects and I urge the Assemblymen to reject this.

If the assembly in the future isn't *fiscall rigorous*, the voters would still be able to defeat them the next elections. A such constitutional amendment isn't needed.

[windjammer]

A balanced budget amendment is a ridiculous idea.

Of course, it is preferable for a budget to be balanced than not. But this kind of amendment doesn't take into account the current situation. For example, if there is a big disaster, it would need a 4/5th majority for a budget to be approved? Why? I fail to see a single reason why a higher majority would be needed.

Have you all forgotten what happened in the US for the Sandy funding?
Senate result: 62-32 so a 2/3 majority would have failed
House result: 241-180 a 2/3 majority requirement would have failed too

In addition of being pointless, a such amendment to the constitution would allow extremists to take into hostage budget talks if there is a disaster and that a deficit is needed, requesting massive spending cuts in exchange of their vote, even if they wouldn't have had the majority of the seats in the assembly.

This kind of constitutional amendments has so many perverts effects and I urge the Assemblymen to reject this.

If the assembly in the future isn't *fiscall rigorous*, the voters would still be able to defeat them the next elections. A such constitutional amendment isn't needed.

it has worked fine for two years, as far as i'm aware. again, atlasian budget politics are totally incomparable to rl american budget politics. we don't really have tax extremists.

It has worked for 2 years because natural disasters never happened.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not really a good idea either. I mean, if for example the ME passed a budget with a deficit in the last days of the year, do you imagine what would happen if the voters decide to reject this budget: GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.

Yeah, sometimes, voters don't react rationally. And I wouldn't take this risk. They have the total possibility to remove from office assemblymen they want to be defeated every 2 months.

[windjammer]

Could someone post the current version please?

[windjammer]

Thank you,
If someone could sponsor this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

I obviously don't support that but I would like the constitutional amendment to pass. If a balanced budget should be in the constitution, we can discuss that later by trying to repeal it.