Federal Budget Thread

[Jake]

Nice work so far, I must say.

[Peter]

Aren't we getting rid of HAVA as well?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I will naturally oppose any tax hikes on the hard-working citizens of Atlasia, no matter how much they make. 

See what I mean? You aren't actually serious about doing anything about the budget crisis that might hurt you back home.

[Sam Spade]

Aren't we getting rid of HAVA as well?

To be quite honest, I did not find HAVA listed among the various outlays in the federal budget above. 

I'll recheck what I looked into, but as for right now I didn't find anything specified into HAVA at the budgetary level.  It'll probably require me to go and look through the Act authorizing HAVA and seeing how the various moneys were given for different areas.

[Sam Spade]

I will naturally oppose any tax hikes on the hard-working citizens of Atlasia, no matter how much they make. 

See what I mean? You aren't actually serious about doing anything about the budget crisis that might hurt you back home.

Al, I am against tax hikes.   I've said it while I was campaigning and I'll say it again.  The only way for me to correct this budget is through spending cuts, whether you like it or not

This has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with my fundamental beliefs.  I laid out to Preston what I would be interested in and that won't change.  This includes what I believe with his tax bill presently proposed.

To accuse me of doing (or not doing) what I am doing for political gain is part of your usual ludicrous rantings.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, I am against tax hikes.   I've said it while I was campaigning and I'll say it again.  The only way for me to correct this budget is through spending cuts, whether you like it or not

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this the famous southern charm I've heard so much about?
You catch more flies with honey.

[Peter]

Aren't we getting rid of HAVA as well?

To be quite honest, I did not find HAVA listed among the various outlays in the federal budget above. 

I'll recheck what I looked into, but as for right now I didn't find anything specified into HAVA at the budgetary level.  It'll probably require me to go and look through the Act authorizing HAVA and seeing how the various moneys were given for different areas.

HAVA was mostly just money that was doled out to the States to spend on updating their electoral systems to electronic voting. As such it won't appear as being spent by an agency; I'm not quite sure how the money is categorised on the budget if there isn't a line item along the lines of "money given to States".

[Sam Spade]

Al, I am against tax hikes.   I've said it while I was campaigning and I'll say it again.  The only way for me to correct this budget is through spending cuts, whether you like it or not

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this the famous southern charm I've heard so much about?
You catch more flies with honey.

My Southern charm only comes to town when I'm being treated nicely and not accused of being a political hack by a political hack.

[Sam Spade]

Aren't we getting rid of HAVA as well?

To be quite honest, I did not find HAVA listed among the various outlays in the federal budget above. 

I'll recheck what I looked into, but as for right now I didn't find anything specified into HAVA at the budgetary level.  It'll probably require me to go and look through the Act authorizing HAVA and seeing how the various moneys were given for different areas.

HAVA was mostly just money that was doled out to the States to spend on updating their electoral systems to electronic voting. As such it won't appear as being spent by an agency; I'm not quite sure how the money is categorised on the budget if there isn't a line item along the lines of "money given to States".

Normally, those types of appropiations are sent out in the form of block grants to the states and not typically specified as to exactly what they are unless they form a part of a commission or agency or such.

Nonetheless, I'll try and track down what departments or agencies the funds were distributed towards.  Cutting that would make a whole lot of sense to me because it really is unnecessary in Atlasia.

[Sam Spade]

Peter, as far I can figure, the appropriations for HAVA that go through the Election Assistance Commission will be gone when we cut the Election Assistance Commission.

The 2.8 billion figure for HAVA is spread out over 5 years (ending FY 2006 for the US).

But the scheduled appropriations for FY 2005 (which is what I'm using) were only $30 million from what I've been reading.

Out of the original 2.8 billion, only a little bit over 1.5 billion has been actually appropriated.

My gut tells me that the rest of it will be appropriated in FY 2006 and that we can cut that out by the time of the next budget.  But it doesn't affect this budget and shouldn't be cut from it (since it doesn't actually exist).

[Sam Spade]

My first and second suggestions are these:

Does anyone else have any programs that they would like to cut, before I ask Gabu to bring a vote forward on subdividing Cabinet departments and agencies according to Atlasian cabinets and agencies?

I am also going to bring forward a list of cuts that some may like, others may object to.  As opposed with the others, I'd like each of these cuts to be brought to a vote.

So, Gabu, I want to start off with a vote to cut the specific extraneous commissions and agencies that total a savings of $1.329 billion as listed above.

[Sam Spade]

How is our deficit smaller than the Federal deficit when we've spent more money than they have?

I thought about this a little bit, and my bet is that it comes from those omnibus appropriations bills Congress votes for at the end of the year for departments, etc.. that they've underfunded. 

Whether you want to include that for us is up to you.

[Sam Spade]

One more obvious one I will add above:

From Other Independent Agencies

Elimination of the Office of Government Ethics at a savings of $11 million to the Atlasian taxpayer.
Not really needed in Atlasia.  We can police our own ethical problems (not naming names).

[Platypus]

Although i'd like the opinion of the State department first, is it possible to get rid of basically all our ambassadors?

With the world wide web, it is possible to have easy contact with governments. Whilst regional embassies dealign with visas and stuff should be kept, I'm fairly sure we can reduce much of our diplomatic staff overseas, if not overall.

[Sam Spade]

Although i'd like the opinion of the State department first, is it possible to get rid of basically all our ambassadors?

With the world wide web, it is possible to have easy contact with governments. Whilst regional embassies dealign with visas and stuff should be kept, I'm fairly sure we can reduce much of our diplomatic staff overseas, if not overall.

Any thoughts on this, Siege?  I'm not very sure I agree with the premise myself, but it's up to your discretion for now.

[Gabu]

So, Gabu, I want to start off with a vote to cut the specific extraneous commissions and agencies that total a savings of $1.329 billion as listed above.

Should we have voting right on this topic, or somewhere else?

[Sam Spade]

So, Gabu, I want to start off with a vote to cut the specific extraneous commissions and agencies that total a savings of $1.329 billion as listed above.

Should we have voting right on this topic, or somewhere else?

We can have the voting here or on another topic.  Doesn't make any difference to me.

I assume that sometime soon that John Ford will let us know what exactly the budget deficit is because of some confusion in the actual budget. 

I'll let you know ahead of time that I'm going to clean the present budget up by allocating some of these miscellaneous agencies and commissions to either the Cabinet or the executive branch in terms of control.  Also, I've reexamined my figures and my math is a little wrong on one thing.  I'll post that correction later, as well as the organization.

[Sam Spade]

New Proposed Budget (not including cuts to be voted on)[/b]

The Atlasian Budget FY 2006[/b]

Branches of Government:
1.   Legislative Branch:  $4.376 billion
2.   Judicial Branch:  $6.043 billion
3.      Executive Branch:
         a.  Executive Office of the President:  $0.342 billion
         b.  General Services Administration:  $0.230 billion
         c.  Other Independent Agencies:  $17.134 billion (+0.050 billion)
Total:  $28.125 billion

Cabinet Departments

1.      Defense and Security Department:  $631.636 billion
         a.  Corps of Engineers – Civil Works:  $3.989 billion
         b.  Defense Sub-Dept. (military):  $432.853 billion (+$30.220 billion)
         c.  Energy Sub-Dept.:  $23.118 billion (+$1.020 billion)
         d.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):  $7.636 billion
         e.  Homeland Security Sub-Dept.:  $31.414 billion
         f.   Interior Sub-Dept.:  $10.591 billion
         g.  National Aeronautics and Space Administration:  $16.245 billion
         h.  Other Defense Civil Programs:  $40.505 billion
         i.   Veterans Affairs Sub-Dept.:  $65.285 billion

2.  Treasury and Social Services Department  $1,917.608 billion ($1.92 trillion)
         a.  Agriculture Sub-Dept.:  $84.283 billion (+$1.000 billion)
         b.  Commerce Sub-Dept:  $5.837 billion
         c.  Education Sub-Dept.:  $84.084 billion (+$17.650 billion)
         d.  Health and Human Services Sub-Dept.:  $571.589 billion
         e.  Housing and Urban Development Sub-Dept.:  $34.042 billion
         f.   Labor Sub-Dept.:  $57.321 billion
         g.  National Science Foundation:  $5.770 billion
         h.  Office of Personnel Management:  $63.688 billion
         i.   Small Business Administration:  $0.681 billion
         j.   Social Security Administration:  $555.031 billion
         k.  Transportation Sub-Dept.:  $58.771 billion (+$0.395 billion)
         l.   Treasury Sub-Dept.:  $396.511 billion

3.  Justice Dept:  $21.776 billion

4.  State and International Affairs Dept.  $29.150 billion
         a.  State Sub-Dept.:  $10.893 billion
         b.  International Assistance Programs:  $18.257 billion

Total:  $2,600.170 billion ($2.60 trillion)

Allowances:  -$0.798 billion

Total (BA):  $2,627.497 billion ($2.63 trillion)
Offsetting Receipts:  $111.179 billion (brings us to total of $2,516,318 billion ($2.50 trillion))

To John Ford:  This is without the mysterious money that the budget seems to make appear (I'm thinking SS trust fund).  At this point, our projected Budget Deficit would be $504.318 billion.

Actual Total (BA):  $2,405.090 billion ($2.41 trilion) ($111.228 billion is subtracted from above)

PROPOSED BUDGET
$2,405.090 Billion Dollars[/b][/i]
PROJECTED BUDGET DEFICIT
$393.09 Billion Dollars[/i]

[The Duke]

My ruling is to use the wisdom of King Solomon: Split the difference.  Cut the offsetting reciepts in half to determine which Senator loves them most figure the final deficit.

[WMS]

New Proposed Budget (not including cuts to be voted on)[/b]

The Atlasian Budget FY 2006[/b]

1.      Defense and Security Department:  $631.636 billion
         
         b.  Defense Sub-Dept. (military):  $432.853 billion (+$30.220 billion)
         
2.  Treasury and Social Services Department  $1,917.608 billion ($1.92 trillion)
         
         d.  Health and Human Services Sub-Dept.:  $571.589 billion
       
        j.   Social Security Administration:  $555.031 billion
         
        l.   Treasury Sub-Dept.:  $396.511 billion

Just highlighting the mega-sections for everyone...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Am I reading this correctly? Your *increasing* defense spending?

[Jake]

Am I reading this correctly? Your *increasing* defense spending?

We've been doing that for the last 8 months.  You were in senate voting on it too.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We've been doing that for the last 8 months.  You were in senate voting on it too.

Yes, but I had presumed that whoever is drawing the budget up would cut down on defense patronage (like I've been calling for for ages). I had sorta asumed that if your all serious about cutting a deficit that sort of thing might be cut?
There's probably also case for slashing the amount of money going to those obsessive dam building jackasses in the Corps of Engineers thing...

On reflection here's a suggestion: the Senate gets someone who actually understands how this sort of thing works and isn't ideologically motivated about it, to act as an advisor.

[Jake]

Al, he just went through it cutting out stuff that Atlasia doesn't need. Election stuff that doesn't apply here.  As you like to say, sit down and have a cuppa.  Once we actually get into this stuff, more will be cut.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, he just went through it cutting out stuff that Atlasia doesn't need.

I know that. And that's a good thing which should have been done earlier.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good idea that. Especially as I'm tired and (I suspect) dehydrated (damn air conditioning in reference libraries...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Before anything else is done I think the Senate needs to appoint someone who knows about this sort of stuff etc. There are a couple of people hanging around who might fit that.
Otherwise we'll see cuts by grudge (earlier remarks about some people who like to build dodgy dams are included in this) and that isn't a good thing.