Repeal of the Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act

[Gabu]

I'd just like to say that, holy cow, we're on the last page of the legislation introduction thread.

Anyways, on to the bill...

As introduced by Sen. Sam Spade:

Repeal of the Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act

Co-Sponsor:  Senator NixonNow (ACA-NJ)

Clauses

1.     The Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act is hereby repealed.

2.   The projected savings to the Federal Government is projected to be $17.65 Billion dollars for FY 2006 and a projected $176.50 Billion dollars over the next ten years.

3.     All funds previously appropriated by the Senate for FY 2005 to fulfill the requirements of this legislation shall be honored by the Federal Government.

4.   All appropriations and other moneys set to be authorized for fulfillment of this legislation in the Preliminary Version of the Federal Budget for FY 2006 and all future Fiscal Years shall be terminated.

5.   If previous appropriations have resulted in the construction of new facilities or the purchase of land for the construction of new facilities, the land or new facilities must be sold at a fair price to private concerns and the resulting revenue must be included in the Education Sub-Department of the Treasury and Social Services Department revenue figures for the proceeding Fiscal Year.

6.   A sum of no less than three-fourths (75% or $13.2375 Billion dollars) and no greater than the whole (100%) of the appropriations and moneys procured by this repeal of this Act must be designated towards the general Budgetary fund and the necessity of covering the present Budget’s shortfall and may not be authorized by the Senate to fund any other appropriations in this present Fiscal Year (2006).

7.   A sum of no less than none (0%) and no greater than one-fourth (25% or $4.4125 Billion dollars) of the appropriations and money procured by the repeal of the Act may be authorized by the Senate in future legislation to fund appropriations and expenditures exclusively within the Education Sub-Department for FY 2006.

I hereby open debate on this bill.

[Sam Spade]

I approve of my own legislation.

[Gabu]

I approve of my own legislation.

Good to hear you're not Mike Naso.

[Jake]

I strongly support this legislation. Repealing this act has been 6 months coming, and hopefully, this Senate will be the one to act on it. [size]If not, the next will one will be more conservative.[/size]

[12th Doctor]

Anyone have a link to the original act?

[KEmperor]

Anyone have a link to the original act?

http://www.progressnj.com/atlaswiki/index.php/Education_and_Care_for_Children_in_Poverty_Act

[12th Doctor]

Anyone have a link to the original act?

http://www.progressnj.com/atlaswiki/index.php/Education_and_Care_for_Children_in_Poverty_Act

Thank you

[12th Doctor]

I must come out against the repeal of this act.  While it provides for more government than I would like, it does make it easier for women to choose to take a pregnancy to term.  Also, the repeal of this act would be a disater for those who are currently utilizing the benefits granted here-in.  I must support the Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act and encourage all of my fellow Senators to do the same.

[Gabu]

I'm neutral on this, currently; does the GM have any report on any effects that this legislation has created?

[Sam Spade]

I'm neutral on this, currently; does the GM have any report on any effects that this legislation has created?

Reason 1:  At present we have a budget deficit over  $500 billion dollars.  By July, this will need to be reduced to somewhere around the $200 billion dollar range (unless we declare war on some sh**tty country for the hell of it).

Of all the social programs that exist, this one and the Prescription Drug Reform that Congress passed in 2003 are the most aggregiously terrible of the two.  You will see me push for eliminating that next.  Hopefully, with those two eliminated, we won't have to raise taxes as much in July as we will presently have to.

[Gabu]

I'm neutral on this, currently; does the GM have any report on any effects that this legislation has created?

Reason 1:  At present we have a budget deficit over  $500 billion dollars.  By July, this will need to be reduced to somewhere around the $200 billion dollar range (unless we declare war on some sh**tty country for the hell of it).

Of all the social programs that exist, this one and the Prescription Drug Reform that Congress passed in 2003 are the most aggregiously terrible of the two.  You will see me push for eliminating that next.  Hopefully, with those two eliminated, we won't have to raise taxes as much in July as we will presently have to.

I'm leaning towards supporting this purely because we seriously need to cut something, but I just wanted to make sure that it hasn't done any wonderful things that I'm unaware of.

[A18]

So does this cut spending? If so, I strongly support it, and urge my senators to vote for it.

[King]

So does this cut spending? If so, I strongly support it, and urge my senators to vote for it.

It cuts nearly $20 billion a year.

[A18]

I would suggest an amendment to abolish the Department of Education, if this doesn't do that already. Canada has no such thing.

[12th Doctor]

I would suggest an amendment to abolish the Department of Education, if this doesn't do that already. Canada has no such thing.

Yeah, that's because they want to placate the Frenchies.

[The Duke]

I'm neutral on this, currently; does the GM have any report on any effects that this legislation has created?

Reason 1:  At present we have a budget deficit over  $500 billion dollars.  By July, this will need to be reduced to somewhere around the $200 billion dollar range (unless we declare war on some sh**tty country for the hell of it).

Of all the social programs that exist, this one and the Prescription Drug Reform that Congress passed in 2003 are the most aggregiously terrible of the two.  You will see me push for eliminating that next.  Hopefully, with those two eliminated, we won't have to raise taxes as much in July as we will presently have to.

I'm leaning towards supporting this purely because we seriously need to cut something, but I just wanted to make sure that it hasn't done any wonderful things that I'm unaware of.

I'll do a story on it.

[Reaganfan]

All sounds good to me.

[WMS]

I must come out against the repeal of this act.  While it provides for more government than I would like, it does make it easier for women to choose to take a pregnancy to term.  Also, the repeal of this act would be a disater for those who are currently utilizing the benefits granted here-in.  I must support the Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act and encourage all of my fellow Senators to do the same.

Couldn't you reintroduce a constitutional version of your Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill instead to handle your first concern?*

And perhaps a phased-out process of reducing benefits instead of an abrupt halt would be better?

*Hey, if the UaTM Bill was unconstitutional, why would this bill still be constitutional? Just wondering...

[Akno21]

Just the original author's two cents

1. 4 billion dollars is still a lot of money for the DoE.
2. I'll admit it's a pretty poorly written bill

[Sam Spade]

Just the original author's two cents

1. 4 billion dollars is still a lot of money for the DoE.
2. I'll admit it's a pretty poorly written bill

Thanks for the words on the bill, Akno. 

I thought, when I designed this bill, that this was also a fair compromise that would allow a significant sum of money to be earmarked for education (perhaps for NCLB, etc.), while at the same time allowing for us to deal with the budget deficit that awaits us in a couple of months in a fiscally responsible manner.

[Sam Spade]

I must come out against the repeal of this act.  While it provides for more government than I would like, it does make it easier for women to choose to take a pregnancy to term.  Also, the repeal of this act would be a disater for those who are currently utilizing the benefits granted here-in.  I must support the Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act and encourage all of my fellow Senators to do the same.

Couldn't you reintroduce a constitutional version of your Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill instead to handle your first concern?*

And perhaps a phased-out process of reducing benefits instead of an abrupt halt would be better?

*Hey, if the UaTM Bill was unconstitutional, why would this bill still be constitutional? Just wondering...

There is a serious question whether this legislation is constitutional in the first place. 

I chose to take the legislative angle to solving this problem, rather than the judicial angle and craft a compromise that would leave possible funds for education funding, while at the same time cutting down this enormous deficit of ours that will have to be dealt with sooner, rather than later.

And WMS, since this bill has only been law for say 4 months or so, I see no reason to create a huge phasing-out of benefits, when the benefits have barely even touched anyone anyway. (most of the cost has been to set up aspects of the system, as it is in any early years of social legislation, read on the Medicare prescription drug thing)

[Akno21]

Just the original author's two cents

1. 4 billion dollars is still a lot of money for the DoE.
2. I'll admit it's a pretty poorly written bill

Thanks for the words on the bill, Akno. 

I thought, when I designed this bill, that this was also a fair compromise that would allow a significant sum of money to be earmarked for education (perhaps for NCLB, etc.), while at the same time allowing for us to deal with the budget deficit that awaits us in a couple of months in a fiscally responsible manner.

I would like to see some restraint on military spending, which we haven't seen. John Ford was so knowledgeable he could basically impress the senate into funding whatever he wanted, so we likely don't need anymore military spending until we get the budget under control.

[Jake]

We don't need anymore, but I'd be willing to wager that aside from bureaucratic crap, etc, you couldn't find anything that could be cut without problems.

[Sam Spade]

Just the original author's two cents

1. 4 billion dollars is still a lot of money for the DoE.
2. I'll admit it's a pretty poorly written bill

Thanks for the words on the bill, Akno. 

I thought, when I designed this bill, that this was also a fair compromise that would allow a significant sum of money to be earmarked for education (perhaps for NCLB, etc.), while at the same time allowing for us to deal with the budget deficit that awaits us in a couple of months in a fiscally responsible manner.

I would like to see some restraint on military spending, which we haven't seen. John Ford was so knowledgeable he could basically impress the senate into funding whatever he wanted, so we likely don't need anymore military spending until we get the budget under control.

Like I said before, if someone (John Ford or anyone knowledgeable on defense) can list useless things we can cut in terms of defense spending, I'm all ears.

As I have also said before, I am very knowledgeable in terms of matters dealing with social spending, I am not very knowledgeable in matters that deal with defense spending.  So, it's obvious what I know about where waste is between the two.

[Akno21]

Just the original author's two cents

1. 4 billion dollars is still a lot of money for the DoE.
2. I'll admit it's a pretty poorly written bill

Thanks for the words on the bill, Akno. 

I thought, when I designed this bill, that this was also a fair compromise that would allow a significant sum of money to be earmarked for education (perhaps for NCLB, etc.), while at the same time allowing for us to deal with the budget deficit that awaits us in a couple of months in a fiscally responsible manner.

I would like to see some restraint on military spending, which we haven't seen. John Ford was so knowledgeable he could basically impress the senate into funding whatever he wanted, so we likely don't need anymore military spending until we get the budget under control.

Like I said before, if someone (John Ford or anyone knowledgeable on defense) can list useless things we can cut in terms of defense spending, I'm all ears.

As I have also said before, I am very knowledgeable in terms of matters dealing with social spending, I am not very knowledgeable in matters that deal with defense spending.  So, it's obvious what I know about where waste is between the two.

I'm not saying we need to cut defense spending, but I think we've added on a suitable amount to the Defense budget recently.