Constitutional Amendment to Remove the Balanced Budget Requirement

[Platypus]

How about something that says the budget defecit must have a net decrease over a three-budget period?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How about something that says the budget defecit must have a net decrease over a three-budget period?

Good idea. Do you all think that this should be added as an amendment to the amendment, or that we should have it as part of a procedural resolution or whatever?
Opinions needed; we all need to work together on this issue.

[Gabu]

How about something that says the budget defecit must have a net decrease over a three-budget period?

I could live with something along those lines; however, the one problem I can see with that exact wording is that it would mean that it would have to continually get smaller ad infinitum, which would mean that we would have to just keep cutting things every single budget forever unless the economy improved.

[Platypus]

obviously, it'd have to be fancier, but that in itself is ok, because it specifies defecit rather then expenditure.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Could Hugh write that up nicely so we can vote on it?

[Platypus]

a.The Senate, over a three-budget period, must decrease any existant budget defecit by at least 2%.

b. Any individual budget can increase or decrease the defecit, but cycles must meet the criteria in a)

c. Cycles of three budgets are fixed with the first cycle starting with the budget of November 2005-February 2006 (I think that's right..).

d. If the budget is in surplus, this bill will not influence any budget deliberations.

there is a basic outline. Someone else needs to fix it up a bit.

[Peter]

Whilst I don't usually comment on such things, the use of the word "bill" in the Constitution in this context is a no-no. Please use "Amendment" instead.

[Platypus]

blah. what he said.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I call a vote on this ammendment to the ammendment:

a. The Senate, over a three-budget period, must decrease any existent budget deficit by at least 2%.

b. Any individual budget can increase or decrease the deficit, but cycles must meet the criteria in a)

c. Cycles of three budgets are fixed with the first cycle starting with the budget of November 2005-February 2006

d. If the budget is in surplus, this amendment will not influence any budget deliberations.

[Ebowed]

Nay

[Platypus]

aye

[MasterJedi]

Aye

[The Duke]

This is as short sighted as the original requirement.

[The Dowager Mod]

Nay

[Gabu]

Nay.  After thinking about it more, I'm becoming more uncomfortable about this idea.

[Sam Spade]

Just some advice:  This amendment is vaguely worded (to be blunt)

[Jake]

Nay simply because a 2% drop is barely anything and this serves no purpose.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

One more vote and the ammendment to the ammendment is dead

I've consulted with some of my constituents and have decided to vote...

Nay

With five votes to two, this ammendment to the ammendment is defeated. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Peter]

Can I just ask: What is the exact subject of the vote right now?

From what Al seems to be suggesting, its the change of the word "bill" to the word "amendment", but everybody else seems to be treating it as a vote on the whole Constitutional Amendment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can I just ask: What is the exact subject of the vote right now?

From what Al seems to be suggesting, its the change of the word "bill" to the word "amendment", but everybody else seems to be treating it as a vote on the whole Constitutional Amendment.

We were voting on Hugh's ammendment to the ammendment

[CheeseWhiz]

Can I just ask: What is the exact subject of the vote right now?

From what Al seems to be suggesting, its the change of the word "bill" to the word "amendment", but everybody else seems to be treating it as a vote on the whole Constitutional Amendment.

I believe we were voting on if we should replace this:

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

With this:

a. The Senate, over a three-budget period, must decrease any existent budget deficit by at least 2%.

b. Any individual budget can increase or decrease the deficit, but cycles must meet the criteria in a)

c. Cycles of three budgets are fixed with the first cycle starting with the budget of November 2005-February 2006

d. If the budget is in surplus, this amendment will not influence any budget deliberations.

[Gabu]

24 hours has gone without debate on this amendment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

True.
O.K then, here's what I suggest we do; pass this (and if it doesn't pass this Senate it will in all probability pass the next one; might as well do it now) and then make a serious effort to take out waste (if we have to redo, for example, welfare from scratch then that's what we should do). It might also be a good idea to think about doing some procedural resolutions to improve the way the budget system works.
Please think very carefully before deciding how to vote.

I open a vote on this Constitutional Ammendment

[MasterJedi]

Aye

[Ebowed]

Nay