SB 106-05: New Great Society Act (Passed)

[Joseph Cao]

Couple of things that stood out:

Let's Get Wired already covers pretty much all the goals of the broadband initiatives program in §II.4. The total appropriations we made a few months back come to something like $20 billion, some of which is already being used for the upcoming fiscal year. Or are we just pumping more money into the same programs?

If we didn't already, we should probably take this opportunity to clarify that §V.B.2 doesn't reinstate the tax deductions we made for businesses in the Urban Investment and Redevelopment Act.

I may be mistaken but it seems that §IV actually raises the value of a minimum Pell Grant award, from 10% of $1,060 ($106) to 5% of $9,000 ($450) and rising. Is that the intended effect?

[Joseph Cao]

Senators have 24 hours to object to WD's amendment.

I'm going to ask a senator to amend the bill to keep the UBI amount at $1,000 and instead make the program available to all adults including non-parents, with the similar $100 monthly gradual reduction during the final ten months of the program to avoid the "benefit cliff" that AGA warned about.

Well there goes the Children's Universal Basic Income Act.

Still not totally on board with a universal expansion at this stage when we've only just launched the family one, but I'm sure another senator might disagree.

[WD]

Couple of things that stood out:

Let's Get Wired already covers pretty much all the goals of the broadband initiatives program in §II.4. The total appropriations we made a few months back come to something like $20 billion, some of which is already being used for the upcoming fiscal year. Or are we just pumping more money into the same programs?

If we didn't already, we should probably take this opportunity to clarify that §V.B.2 doesn't reinstate the tax deductions we made for businesses in the Urban Investment and Redevelopment Act.

I may be mistaken but it seems that §IV actually raises the value of a minimum Pell Grant award, from 10% of $1,060 ($106) to 5% of $9,000 ($450) and rising. Is that the intended effect?

1. For broadband, the $2.5 Billion appropriated in this bill would be additional money for the program, correct. I’m willing to offer an amendment to clear this up, though.

2. I’m unsure what you mean by tax deductions, because if I’m not mistaken, I don’t see anything in this bill which could be construed as doing as such.

3. Correct.

[WD]

My amendment for the broadband section:

4. Broadband Initiatives Program - Section 3 of the Let’s Get Wired Act is as follows:

3.) $30 billion shall hereby be appropriated over the next 5 years to aims and objectives of the LGW Act. The $30 billion is hereby broken down in the following areas.  

3A.) $12 billion of this funding is for the up-front cost of installing new broadband route in areas currently not receiving an connection of least 25 megabits per second, an upload speed of at least 3 megabits per second.

3B.) $7 billion is hereby granted to the regions of Atlasia to spend on the improving and expanding broadband access.

3C.) $4 billion is hereby allocated for the installation of broadband for rural areas and areas under the oversight of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

3D.) $3 billion is hereby allocated for a federal jobs training and apprenticeship scheme designed to train employees for the skills needed in the installation of broadband infrastructure.

3E.) $3 billion is hereby allocated for public schools and libraries to improve and expand broadband access.

[WD]

Senators have 24 hours to object to WD's amendment.

I'm going to ask a senator to amend the bill to keep the UBI amount at $1,000 and instead make the program available to all adults including non-parents, with the similar $100 monthly gradual reduction during the final ten months of the program to avoid the "benefit cliff" that AGA warned about.

Well there goes the Children's Universal Basic Income Act.

Still not totally on board with a universal expansion at this stage when we've only just launched the family one, but I'm sure another senator might disagree.

My personal preference would be to maintain the program as is for parents only, and to boost the benefit amount to $2,000.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

WD has told me he'd prefer an increase of at least $500. I think the benefits realized from simply removing the 'C' from 'CUBI' is a better way of expanding the program, but I'm not opposed to an amount increase if there's a way to pay for it (i.e. other tax increases or cuts). There's no way the payroll tax increase will cover expansion of eligibility and benefits along with everything else in the bill.

[Joseph Cao]

I’m unsure what you mean by tax deductions, because if I’m not mistaken, I don’t see anything in this bill which could be construed as doing as such.

Section IV. Programs for Urban Economic Action Districts
i. Businesses that open new locations within UEADs shall receive a 3% federal corporate tax rebate, exclusive to the UEAD, for the new location for up to three tax years.
ii. Small businesses within UEADs owned by residents of the UEAD are eligible to apply to receive a 5% reduction in federal income tax for up to three tax years.
iii. Businesses receiving the aforementioned tax incentives shall also be exempt from employer-paid payroll taxes on new hires that are residents of the UEAD for up to one tax year.

If the employer tax isn't related to the the exemption granted here then that language should probably be made clearer too.

My amendment for the broadband section:

4. Broadband Initiatives Program - Section 3 of the Let’s Get Wired Act is as follows:

3.) $30 billion shall hereby be appropriated over the next 5 years to aims and objectives of the LGW Act. The $30 billion is hereby broken down in the following areas.  

3A.) $12 billion of this funding is for the up-front cost of installing new broadband route in areas currently not receiving an connection of least 25 megabits per second, an upload speed of at least 3 megabits per second.

3B.) $7 billion is hereby granted to the regions of Atlasia to spend on the improving and expanding broadband access.

3C.) $4 billion is hereby allocated for the installation of broadband for rural areas and areas under the oversight of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

3D.) $3 billion is hereby allocated for a federal jobs training and apprenticeship scheme designed to train employees for the skills needed in the installation of broadband infrastructure.

3E.) $3 billion is hereby allocated for public schools and libraries to improve and expand broadband access.

WD's first amendment from somewhere up top is adopted with no objections. Senators have 24 hours to object to this one.

Also, is the current CUBI not working well enough or something? I'm not sure where the pressing need for an expansion or amount increase is when we've only just got the program going and haven't actually seen anything come of it yet. Why not leave it as is?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

According to Vice President Battista, the proposed $2,000 expansion would nearly double the cost of the existing program, which the payroll tax increase probably wouldn't even pay for on its own. But making the CUBI universal would cost just slightly more than the existing program.

I think you might have misunderstood what I said about the bill - my comment was that making the CUBI universal and raising it to $1500 would cost nearly double as much as just raising it to $2000 i.e. Senator WD's proposal; whereas making the CUBI universal while keeping it at $1000 would only cost slightly more than the initial proposal. I am sorry for not making myself clearer. I should probably do everyone a favour and come up with comprehensive numbers.

[WD]

I take it that my broadband amendment is adopted?

[Continential]

Yes it has.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I’m unsure what you mean by tax deductions, because if I’m not mistaken, I don’t see anything in this bill which could be construed as doing as such.

Section IV. Programs for Urban Economic Action Districts
i. Businesses that open new locations within UEADs shall receive a 3% federal corporate tax rebate, exclusive to the UEAD, for the new location for up to three tax years.
ii. Small businesses within UEADs owned by residents of the UEAD are eligible to apply to receive a 5% reduction in federal income tax for up to three tax years.
iii. Businesses receiving the aforementioned tax incentives shall also be exempt from employer-paid payroll taxes on new hires that are residents of the UEAD for up to one tax year.

If the employer tax isn't related to the the exemption granted here then that language should probably be made clearer too.

My amendment for the broadband section:

4. Broadband Initiatives Program - Section 3 of the Let’s Get Wired Act is as follows:

3.) $30 billion shall hereby be appropriated over the next 5 years to aims and objectives of the LGW Act. The $30 billion is hereby broken down in the following areas.  

3A.) $12 billion of this funding is for the up-front cost of installing new broadband route in areas currently not receiving an connection of least 25 megabits per second, an upload speed of at least 3 megabits per second.

3B.) $7 billion is hereby granted to the regions of Atlasia to spend on the improving and expanding broadband access.

3C.) $4 billion is hereby allocated for the installation of broadband for rural areas and areas under the oversight of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

3D.) $3 billion is hereby allocated for a federal jobs training and apprenticeship scheme designed to train employees for the skills needed in the installation of broadband infrastructure.

3E.) $3 billion is hereby allocated for public schools and libraries to improve and expand broadband access.

WD's first amendment from somewhere up top is adopted with no objections. Senators have 24 hours to object to this one.

Also, is the current CUBI not working well enough or something? I'm not sure where the pressing need for an expansion or amount increase is when we've only just got the program going and haven't actually seen anything come of it yet. Why not leave it as is?

Technically, we ran a pilot UBI program from the start of the pandemic to, if memory serves, early summer of this year. I had intended on transitioning to a full Yang-style UBI eventually (below a certain income level of course). Over the long term, that's going to inject money into the economy and the UBI will pay for itself as that is reflected by increased tax revenue.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I apologize for my less than stellar timeliness, but now I can do comprehensive numbers for the CUBI.

WD's initial text:
- lowers the limit from 150k to 100k dollars (data I have found about individual income percentiles in the USA suggest this should reduce the cost by around 10%)
- doubles the check value
- lengthens the program from 5 to 7 years (cost increases by 40%)
---
0.9*2*1.4=2.52 so the program would cost two times and a half as it currently does.

Scott's proposed amendment:
- lowers the limit from 150k to 100k dollars (see above)
- expands to all adults (about 40% of households include children under 18 so this should raise the cost by around two times and a half)
- increases check value by one time and a half
- lengthens the program from 5 to 7 years but adds phase-out (cost actually increases by only 28.8%)
---
0.9*2.5*1.5*1.29=4.35 so the program would cost over four times as it currently does, and significantly more than WD's proposal.

Scott's proposed amendment but keeping checks at 1k:
---
0.9*2.5*1*1.29=2.90 so almost three times as it currently does, but not much more than WD's proposal.



I am not sure what my takeaway from this is, but I shall remind the Senators that the program as currently written is already huge (12,000 dollars a year to many dozens of millions of people).

[WD]

I apologize for my less than stellar timeliness, but now I can do comprehensive numbers for the CUBI.

WD's initial text:
- lowers the limit from 150k to 100k dollars (data I have found about individual income percentiles in the USA suggest this should reduce the cost by around 10%)
- doubles the check value
- lengthens the program from 5 to 7 years (cost increases by 40%)
---
0.9*2*1.4=2.52 so the program would cost two times and a half as it currently does.

Scott's proposed amendment:
- lowers the limit from 150k to 100k dollars (see above)
- expands to all adults (about 40% of households include children under 18 so this should raise the cost by around two times and a half)
- increases check value by one time and a half
- lengthens the program from 5 to 7 years but adds phase-out (cost actually increases by only 28.8%)
---
0.9*2.5*1.5*1.29=4.35 so the program would cost over four times as it currently does, and significantly more than WD's proposal.

Scott's proposed amendment but keeping checks at 1k:
---
0.9*2.5*1*1.29=2.90 so almost three times as it currently does, but not much more than WD's proposal.



I am not sure what my takeaway from this is, but I shall remind the Senators that the program as currently written is already huge (12,000 dollars a year to many dozens of millions of people).

Thank you very much for these calculations, and if I understand correctly these numbers (the bolded ones) are in trillions?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I apologize for my less than stellar timeliness, but now I can do comprehensive numbers for the CUBI.

WD's initial text:
- lowers the limit from 150k to 100k dollars (data I have found about individual income percentiles in the USA suggest this should reduce the cost by around 10%)
- doubles the check value
- lengthens the program from 5 to 7 years (cost increases by 40%)
---
0.9*2*1.4=2.52 so the program would cost two times and a half as it currently does.

Scott's proposed amendment:
- lowers the limit from 150k to 100k dollars (see above)
- expands to all adults (about 40% of households include children under 18 so this should raise the cost by around two times and a half)
- increases check value by one time and a half
- lengthens the program from 5 to 7 years but adds phase-out (cost actually increases by only 28.8%)
---
0.9*2.5*1.5*1.29=4.35 so the program would cost over four times as it currently does, and significantly more than WD's proposal.

Scott's proposed amendment but keeping checks at 1k:
---
0.9*2.5*1*1.29=2.90 so almost three times as it currently does, but not much more than WD's proposal.



I am not sure what my takeaway from this is, but I shall remind the Senators that the program as currently written is already huge (12,000 dollars a year to many dozens of millions of people).

Thank you very much for these calculations, and if I understand correctly these numbers (the bolded ones) are in trillions?

No, those numbers are purely the product of coefficients and measure how expensive an amendment is compared to the current law (basically, imagine the original costs X dollars - then your proposal costs 2.52*X dollars and so on). Your guess is not unfounded however, as spitballing I'd estimate the current CUBI cost as very close to 1 trillion a year.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Clarification because I am stupid: I realized only afterwards the length of the CUBI should not have entered my calculations in as much as program costs are assessed yearly, even though it gives an idea of how long it would use up revenue.

So the actual yearly costs are:
1.8 times the current law for WD's text.
3.38 times the current law for Scott's text.
2.25 times the current law for Scott's text but with 1k checks.

I'd add that I am probably underestimating how much expanding to all adults would cost.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

How much would the program cost per household instead?

[WD]

FYI, current Senate text:

AN ACT
To make investments in our country and expand essential social programs

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled

Section I. Title

This act may be cited as the New Great Society Act.

Section II. Infrastructure investments

1. Highway programs - $75,000,000,000 is appropriated for each of fiscal years of 2022 through 2026 for the purpose of to improving  roads, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure in the Republic of Atlasia.

2. Rail Service - There is appropriated $15,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026 to make quarterly grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for the operation of intercity passenger rail.

3. Airports - There is appropriated $2,500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026 to implement airport improvement and noise compatibility projects at public-use airports.

4. Broadband Initiatives Program - Section 3 of the Let’s Get Wired Act is amended as follows:

3.) $30 billion shall hereby be appropriated over the next 5 years to aims and objectives of the LGW Act. The $30 billion is hereby broken down in the following areas.  

3A.) $12 billion of this funding is for the up-front cost of installing new broadband route in areas currently not receiving an connection of least 25 megabits per second, an upload speed of at least 3 megabits per second.

3B.) $7 billion is hereby granted to the regions of Atlasia to spend on the improving and expanding broadband access.

3C.) $4 billion is hereby allocated for the installation of broadband for rural areas and areas under the oversight of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

3D.) $3 billion is hereby allocated for a federal jobs training and apprenticeship scheme designed to train employees for the skills needed in the installation of broadband infrastructure.

3E.) $3 billion is hereby allocated for public schools and libraries to improve and expand broadband access.

Section III. CUBI benefit enhancements

The Children's Universal Basic Income Act is amended as follows:

Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Children's Universal Basic Income Act.

Section 2. Monthly Universal Basic Income for Families with Children

1. Beginning in January of 2022, parents or legal guardians of persons under the age of 18 and have a disposable income of less than $100,000 shall be entitled to $2,000 monthly checks.

2. The income received shall not be taxed or counted toward existing benefits.

3. This program shall run until 2028, but may be extended by Congress.

Section IV. Pell Grant Expansion

Section 401 (20 U.S.C. 1070a), as amended by section 703 of the FAFSA Simplification Act (title VII of division FF of Public Law 116–260) (referred to in this Act as the “FAFSA Simplification Act”), is further amended—

(1) in subsection (a)(2)(F), by striking “10 percent” and inserting “5 percent”;

(2) in subsection (b)—

(A) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking “paragraph (5)(A)” and inserting “paragraph (5)”;

(B) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:

“(5) MAXIMUM FEDERAL PELL GRANT.—

“(A) AWARD YEAR 2023–2024.—For award year 2023–2024, the total maximum Federal Pell Grant award shall be $9,000.

“(B) AWARD YEAR 2024–2025.—For award year 2024–2025, the total maximum Federal Pell Grant award shall be $10,000.

“(C) AWARD YEAR 2025–2026.—For award year 2025–2026, the total maximum Federal Pell Grant award shall be $11,000.

“(D) AWARD YEAR 2026–2027.—For award year 2026–2027, the total maximum Federal Pell Grant award shall be $12,000.

“(E) AWARD YEAR 2027–2028.—For award year 2027–2028, the total maximum Federal Pell Grant award shall be $13,000.

“(F) AWARD YEAR 2028–2029 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS.—For award year 2028–2029, and each subsequent award year, the total maximum Federal Pell Grant award shall be $13,000—

“(i) increased by the adjustment percentage for the award year for which the amount under this subparagraph is being determined; and

“(ii) rounded to the nearest $50.

 B.) Clarification of Eligible Institutions

Section 401(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, for purposes of this section, the terms ‘eligible institution’, ‘institution of higher education’, ‘eligible program’, and ‘institution’ include a program of education that—

“(A) consists of vocational or technical training, flight training, or apprenticeship or other on-job training;

“(B) an individual may pursue using educational assistance pursuant to section 3313(g) of title 38, Atlasian Code;

“(C) is less than 600 clock hours of instruction, 16 semester hours, or 24 quarter hours, offered during a period of less than 15 weeks;

“(D) is not required to be accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association recognized by the Secretary pursuant to part H;

“(E) is not required to lead to a recognized educational credential;

Section V. Social Security Benefits Enhancement and Payroll Tax Increase

(A) In General.—Section 215(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(1)(B)) is amended—

(1) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); and

(2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause:

“(iii) For individuals who initially become eligible for old-age or disability insurance benefits, or who die (before becoming eligible for such benefits) in any calendar year after 2024, each of the amounts determined under clause (ii) of this subparagraph for purposes of subparagraph (A)(i) shall be increased by—

“(I) for calendar year 2025, 1 percent;

“(II) for each of calendar years 2026 through 2038, the percent determined under this clause for the preceding year increased by 1 percentage point; and

“(III) for calendar year 2039 and each year thereafter, 15 percent.”.

(B). Payroll Tax Increase:

1.) Subchapter A, Section 3101 of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act is amended by striking “6.2 percent” and inserting “7.2 percent”.

2.) Subchapter B, Section 3111, subparagraph (a) of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act is amended by striking “6.2 percent” and inserting “7.2 percent”.

Section VI. Universal School Breakfast and Lunch

A. In General.—Section 4(a) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773(a)) is amended, in the first sentence—

(1) by striking “is hereby” and inserting “are”; and

(2) by inserting “to provide free breakfast to all children enrolled at those schools” before “in accordance”.


B. Section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:

“(b) Eligibility.—All children enrolled in a school that participates in the school lunch program under this Act shall be eligible to receive free lunch under this Act.”.


Section VII. Tuition Cap

For students enrolled in a Community College, HBCU, Institution of Higher Education, Public 4-year Institution of Higher education, Tribal College or University, 2-year Tribal College or University, 4-year Tribal College or University, the tuition amount owed by any individual student shall not exceed $8,000 per year.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

How much would the program cost per household instead?

It depends if you mean that the income threshold is calculated by household income (this probably reduces the cost by 15-20%) or if you mean the same check amount gets delivered per household instead of individually (this of course almost cuts the cost in half).

[WD]

Based on what the Vice President has relayed, I think it would be best to leave the CUBI expansion proposal as it is in the bill. With all due respect, the proposals by the President would cost significantly more, and I assume would require changes/additions to the tax provisions in this bill to cover the cost. (Not that I am opposed to a further tax increase, but this is already a pretty big bill, and I’d like to get this to the President’s desk sooner than later)

In addition, I’ll work on the calculations for how much the payroll tax increase will generate.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm fine with the original text. I still want Yang-style UBI eventually but I'll take half a loaf over nothing at all. I do believe that UBI would pay for itself in time, however.

We need to be careful with how much we're increasing taxes. The budget situation is a bit confusing because people said that it would result in people giving over 100% of their income to the government. I'm not sure if that's true, but we need to be mindful of tax increases and spending.

[WD]

For everyone’s information, the tax increases in the bill will generate the following:

-$1,059,626,776,696.432 in revenue per year
- Compared with the $912,456,391,044.15 the current OASDI payroll tax rate generates, this is a revenue increase of $147,170,385,652.2823.
-Over 7 years, this is a revenue increase of $1,030,192,699,565.976.

[Senator-elect Spark]

I don't have any issues with this bill.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

This bill should be passed.

[WD]

Offering an additional amendment, this one concerns Section II:

5. Use of Atlasian iron, steel, and manufactured goods
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this title may be used for a infrastructure project unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the Republic of Atlasia

This is provision which I very strongly support, and my intention was to always include this in the bill, although it completely slipped my mind at the actual time of writing it.

[Continential]

24 hours to object.