SB 2018-203: Bringing Order to Aquatic Transportation Act (Passed)

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Senator Reactionary.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So working on how to fund Classic's island seawall bill got me thinking of deficit reduction and program elimination focused on boats.

2-1 and 2-2 eliminate socialist loan programs for boats. Best estimates are we save around $150 Million for eliminating 2-1 and $100 Million for eliminate 2-2.

3 eliminates fishing boat buyback programs. Best estimates are we save around $55 million.

4 eliminates a fishing boat private purchasing program. Best estimates are we save around $65 million.

Total Savings: $370 Million

Sources:

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/mission/budget/304521/marad-fy-2019-cj-final-508-compliant.pdf

https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-trade/noaa-loan-program-offering-up-to-usd-100-million-opens-for-2016

http://www.lenfestocean.org/~/media/legacy/lenfest/pdfs/subsidies_rsr_final.pdf?la=en

[wxtransit]

b o a t

[Sestak]

Couldn't the power being repealed by 2-3 be necessary in times of crisis to stabilize construction/reconstruction/other services for the Navy?

[Mr. Reactionary]

If congress needed to exercise the power, they can repass authorization at the same time as appropriation if its important enough. They would still have to pass a bill appropriating money regardless.

I motion for cloture on this bill.

[Mr. Reactionary]

A vote on cloture is now open. Senators, please vote aye, nay, or abstain on the motion to invoke cloture and end debate on this bill. 2/3rds required.

[_]

Aye

[Wells]

Nay, I think that there's still some stuff to be discussed here.

I personally don't see a problem with helping people buy/build/repair/upgrade boats. Most of the things this bill gets rid of seem like helpful programs.

So after doing research, it appears that at least part of the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program goes to making the boats more environmentally friendly and just helps the industry in general. (From here.) (CCF also looks the same way to me.)

I'm pretty neutral on the buyback elimination, the quick research I've done showed that it was intended to boost profitablity in the fishing industry but the success varies. I also think the Jones Act part would benefit Atlasia.

Overall I have mixed feelings but would like some more debate, or at least a response to these concerns. I'd vote nay on the actual bill right now.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye

[wxtransit]

Nay, not that I oppose the bill, but I think there should be a little more debate before we pass it.

[Lumine]

Nay, cloture is rather unwarranted when there's debate to be had.

Is it really that bad that some programs exist to aid people in this context when it comes to boats? I would hardly describe them as completely unnecessary or even vital for pragmatic deficit reduction.

Adding to that, I see no reason for currently removing certain powers from the federal government when they may become necessary in case of an emergency as Sestak pointed out.

[Mr. Reactionary]

With 3 no votes, cloture fails. Debate resumes.

[Mr. Reactionary]

These programs are corporate welfare bloat. Crony capitalism. Direct transfers of government money to private businesses so that those private businesses make private profits with no direct return for the public. I mean, this bill eliminates a program whose goal is to make more boats be in the water and a program whose goal is to make less boats be in the water. I do not like direct government subsidies for businesses. These are boats to nowhere.

[Wells]

I think it is a little odd that these programs are both "socialist" and "crony capitalism." Though the one point about the programs that directly conflict is a decent one. I'm just hesitant of getting rid of things which may be positive for Atlasia. I wouldn't be against getting rid of the buyback program. I am opposed to getting rid of the Guaranteed Loan Program. (And to a lesser extent the Fishing Capital Construction.)

So I think I'll introduce another amendment today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

Very hostile.

Atlasia does not need to transfer public funds to big private business as a direct subsidy just for being a big private business. If there is a need for boats, the market will provide for boats. Banks love money.

Fishing boat purchases encourage over fishing. Fish reproduction is declining and since the oceans are a public resource there is a tragedy of the commons situation where everybody tries to over fish. We should not be paying money for boats for private people to catch a bunch of fish.

Voting on the amendment is now open.

[_]

Nay

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay

[Lumine]

Aye, and I must say it seems like an oversimplification of the issue to adscribe this to mere crony capitalism or socialism.

[Wells]

Aye

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Nay

[Mr. Reactionary]

Amendment fails: 2-3-0; 1 NV.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I motion for cloture.

Cloture vote is now open.

[Lumine]

Nay. And I should further note that passing this bill as it stands would be reckless and irresponsible.

[_]

Nay

[Mr. Reactionary]

I really don't see what's left to debate.

The original proposal was to eliminate 4 redundant disjointed redundant programs related to boats.

We considered an amendment to reduce that to only eliminating 2 such programs, which failed.

Has anyone's position changed? At this point its just Senators who think the government should give money to corporations to buy boats, and those who don't; that's a governmental philosophy question. If the intent is to just be slow, I guess the next logical amendment is half your previous amendment so we only eliminate 3, I will object, we will vote, a week will pass. That may be taking up time, but that is not really debate, as nothing new is being said.