Constitutional Amendment to Remove the Balanced Budget Requirement

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As introduced by Senator Gabu:

Amendment to Remove the Balanced Budget Requirement

§1. Clauses 8-10 of Article I, Section 8 in the Constitution are hereby stricken.

I hereby open debate on this Ammendment

[The Duke]

"My day has come!  And I'll take the rapists for $200."

[Joe Republic]

I haven't actually checked up on this, but would this also remove the necessity to pass a budget at all?  If so, I urge the Senate to oppose the amendment in its current form.

[Bono]

Why was this given priority above the reintroduced legislation. [/stuborn legalism]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I haven't actually checked up on this, but would this also remove the necessity to pass a budget at all? 

No:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MasterJedi]

Don't we need to have a vote before we can just send this to the front of the legislation? If we do I'll still vote aye on that.

[Gabu]

I haven't actually checked up on this, but would this also remove the necessity to pass a budget at all?  If so, I urge the Senate to oppose the amendment in its current form.

No, it just chops off the clauses saying that the budget must be balanced (or reasonably close to balanced).  Clause 8 is the pertinent clause and clauses 9 and 10 have no reason to exist without clause 8.

It should be noted that there is a typo in clause 9; it should say "clause 8", not "clause 5".

[Gabu]

Don't we need to have a vote before we can just send this to the front of the legislation? If we do I'll still vote aye on that.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Official Senate Procedural Resolution says the following:

"The PPT will designate each piece of legislation debate time on the Senate Floor in the order of which it is posted in the Legislation Introduction thread."

Article 7, Section 1 of the same resolution gives the PPT the authorization, acting publicly with the VP's consent, to go against the above clause, which means he can bump up any piece of legislation.

Technically speaking, however, Defarge should post here to confirm that he approved of this move before a vote is called.  If he doesn't, this move goes against procedure.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

He PM'ed me earlier today:

The Senate Rules require your permission to bump legislation to the top of the agenda.

Given that it is absolutely urgent that we pass a budget before the end of the year, I request your permission to bump Gabu's constitutional amendment to the front of the agenda.

[Gabu]

He PM'ed me earlier today:

The Senate Rules require your permission to bump legislation to the top of the agenda.

Given that it is absolutely urgent that we pass a budget before the end of the year, I request your permission to bump Gabu's constitutional amendment to the front of the agenda.

The OSPR says that they must "[act] in unison publicly"; a private message is not exactly public.

I doubt anyone will care, really, I'm just stating the technical letter of the law so no one can say I didn't in case some idiot decides to make a display.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The OSPR says that they must "[act] in unison publicly"; a private message is not exactly public.

What if I wave the letter around?

[Joe Republic]

It's public now, so I don't think anybody can argue the point anyway.

----

I haven't actually checked up on this, but would this also remove the necessity to pass a budget at all?  If so, I urge the Senate to oppose the amendment in its current form.

No, it just chops off the clauses saying that the budget must be balanced (or reasonably close to balanced).  Clause 8 is the pertinent clause and clauses 9 and 10 have no reason to exist without clause 8.

It should be noted that there is a typo in clause 9; it should say "clause 8", not "clause 5".

Ah, thank you.  In which case, this amendment has my full support.

[Defarge]

*yells from rooftops*

I CALL FOR BUMPING THE LEGISLATION TO THE FRONT OF THE AGENDA

[Gabu]

*yells from rooftops*

I CALL FOR BUMPING THE LEGISLATION TO THE FRONT OF THE AGENDA

Thank you, Mr. Vice President; now we can proceed.

[Sam Spade]

The revision does not affect the budget requirement in general, in case anyone's wondering.

And I know my legalism there may seem onerous, but it was put there to prevent abuse of the clause.

[Brandon H]

Where is the current OSPR?

[Sam Spade]

Where is the current OSPR?

In the Senate Resolutions link from the Front Page, I put the original OSPR plus the Amendments to the OSPR together to form Current Senate Rules, Regulations, and Procedures here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Current_Senate_Rules%2C_Regulations%2C_and_Procedures

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And I know my legalism there may seem onerous, but it was put there to prevent abuse of the clause.

Understandable

[12th Doctor]

While I think the clause should be loosened, I don't agree with doing away with it for several reasons but the two main ones are:

1) It keeps the budget and the economy a vital part of the game.  Without it, we would just ignore these very important asspects altogether or at least, only a few people would really care about them.

2) It is beneficial for any country to have some sort of reasonably balanced budget.  We can loosen the requirment without totally disposing of it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1) It keeps the budget and the economy a vital part of the game.  Without it, we would just ignore these very important asspects altogether or at least, only a few people would really care about them.

Hmm... I can see your point, but then again I don't think the budget and all that is an especially important part of the game most of the time anyway, and when it is it tends to be in a very surreal way.
Then again, keeping people interested in budgets in real life is hard enough; more worrying is the lack of attention given to the economy as a whole.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but if this little experiance has shown us anything it's that straightjacketing doesn't really work with this sort of thing. It might be better to make it a sort of convention that the Senate tries to make sure that they don't grossly overspend.

[12th Doctor]

Hmm... I can see your point, but then again I don't think the budget and all that is an especially important part of the game most of the time anyway, and when it is it tends to be in a very surreal way.
Then again, keeping people interested in budgets in real life is hard enough; more worrying is the lack of attention given to the economy as a whole.

Well, people in the government should be interested in budgets.  You are right, to an extent, the fact is that not to many people pay attention to the budget or the economy in this simulator.  Guess what, they are paying attention now, and maybe this can be a warning to them to pay attention in the future.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, there is one way to insure that happens, without a balanced budget requirment... elect Libertarians.  (hah) I didn't think you would like that suggestion, Al.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, people in the government should be interested in budgets.

They only are every few months as a rule...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hopefully; it'd also be a good idea if candidates could make more of it in elections and for it to be made very well known how well they've actually done at managing the economy when they come up for re-election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm...
I should probably have made that clearer actually; what I was thinking of would be a Senate procedural thingy saying that when the Senate does a budget it must not grossly overspend (or words to that effect). Again this could tie up with re-election; if the Senate breaks it's own rules then the Senate can be held responsible for doing so. The threat of the electoral reaper should be a fairly good incentive for not going crazy with spending.

[Gabu]

While I think the clause should be loosened, I don't agree with doing away with it for several reasons but the two main ones are:

1) It keeps the budget and the economy a vital part of the game.  Without it, we would just ignore these very important asspects altogether or at least, only a few people would really care about them.

2) It is beneficial for any country to have some sort of reasonably balanced budget.  We can loosen the requirment without totally disposing of it.

There is absolutely nothing in removing the requirement that makes it so we can't bring our budget closer to balanced.  It just makes it so that we can make what we feel is the best decision possible instead of being forced to make decisions we think will ultimately hurt the country purely because we have no choice.

Removing this requirement will not make it so that we can just ignore the budget, as we will still need to make an annual budget, and if we make a very sloppy job of it, the GM will hold our feet to the fire by having the economy respond negatively as a result.

[12th Doctor]

While I think the clause should be loosened, I don't agree with doing away with it for several reasons but the two main ones are:

1) It keeps the budget and the economy a vital part of the game.  Without it, we would just ignore these very important asspects altogether or at least, only a few people would really care about them.

2) It is beneficial for any country to have some sort of reasonably balanced budget.  We can loosen the requirment without totally disposing of it.

There is absolutely nothing in removing the requirement that makes it so we can't bring our budget closer to balanced.  It just makes it so that we can make what we feel is the best decision possible instead of being forced to make decisions we think will ultimately hurt the country purely because we have no choice.

Removing this requirement will not make it so that we can just ignore the budget, as we will still need to make an annual budget, and if we make a very sloppy job of it, the GM will hold our feet to the fire by having the economy respond negatively as a result.

What I am saying is that the requirement forces the Senate to consider the budget and the economy, where as no requirement means that they would do alomost as well to simply ignore it, since they aren't bound to action.

[Gabu]

What I am saying is that the requirement forces the Senate to consider the budget and the economy, where as no requirement means that they would do alomost as well to simply ignore it, since they aren't bound to action.

Given that a badly formed budget will make people mad and will hurt things, I don't see why it would make us just simply ignore the budget.  If the status quo turns out to be the best budget, then I see nothing wrong with just staying the course.  It's not like the purpose of the budget is to shake things up as radically as possible every single year.

The requirement forces the Senate to consider the budget and the economy, but it also forces it to make some very bad decisions if completely balancing the budget is not the best option.