SB 107-01: Atlasian Steel Act (Rejected)

[WD]

AN ACT
To nationalize the steel industry

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia

Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Atlasian Steel Act.

Section 2. Nationalization

1. All steel manufacturers are brought into public ownership immediately upon passage of this act and shall be placed under the control of an Atlasian Steel Authority.

2. To complete the undertaking as outlined above, the Republic of Atlasia shall establish an Atlasian Steel Authority (hereafter ASA) which shall be comprised of all former privately-held steel companies and shall hold a legal monopoly in these sectors.

3. The purpose of the aforementioned ASA shall be the economization of operations and the modernization of production methods to raise safety and efficiency standards across the country, as well as provide steel at a low cost, prevent competitive waste, and co-ordinate research and development in those sectors.

4. The government of the ASA shall be federal and cooperative. In each region will be established a regional steel authority under a board of directors composed of representatives of labor, the consumers, security, and the environment. The number of labor directors shall be four, and the number of directors for all other constituencies shall be two. Each regional authority will elect five representatives to the national board of directors. Two of the national directors elected by each regional authority shall represent labor, and one each shall represent the consumers, security, and the environment.
 
5. The labor directors shall be chosen by a vote of the steel workers; the consumer directors by a vote of the regional legislature, the security and environment directors by the regional executive at the regional level and by the president at the federal level.

6. The term of a Board director shall be four years.

7. The President shall appoint a Chair of the ASA Board of Directors who shall have no vote unless they are equally divided. The Chair shall serve a four year term.

8. All persons owning any of the aforementioned industry brought into public ownership shall be fairly compensated for the sale of said industries to the Republic of Atlasia.

Sponsor: Western Democrat

The gentleman from Oregon is recognized.

[WD]

This bill will bring under public ownership the steel industry. This is essential to work towards the goal of stabilizing and protecting what is an already weakened and faltering industry. I think every Atlasian can agree that a strong steel industry is essential to a strong Atlasia.

[Schiff for Senate]

I lean against this since if I'm not wrong, this is literally small-scale communism. But I could be persuaded otherwise to support this bill.

[West_Midlander]

I lean against this since if I'm not wrong, this is literally small-scale communism. But I could be persuaded otherwise to support this bill.

I concur with my honorable colleague. Successive Labor administrations have sought to nationalize and nationalize (e.g., taking energy companies under federal control under the Labor Red-Green New Deal). As long as this party stands in the majority, the growth of big government will never end. Nationalization of industry after industry, in this case the steel industry, is a brisk step in the march toward communism.

[Schiff for Senate]

I lean against this since if I'm not wrong, this is literally small-scale communism. But I could be persuaded otherwise to support this bill.

I concur with my honorable colleague. Successive Labor administrations have sought to nationalize and nationalize (e.g., taking energy companies under federal control under the Labor Red-Green New Deal). As long as this party stands in the majority, the growth of big government will never end. Nationalization of industry after industry, in this case the steel industry, is a brisk step in the march toward communism.

I agree with WM's point. Frankly, nationalization of certain utilities, such as healthcare, might be justifiable. But this attempt to nationalize the steel industry is unreasonable, random, and has no justification. It is, in fact, borderline communism (in a literal sense of the word), and therefore, I will most likely oppose it, barring revolutionary amendments to the bill that would significantly alter and temper it.

[OBD]

Oh come on, we already tried implementing communism! Get a new attack.

[Schiff for Senate]

Oh come on, we already tried implementing communism! Get a new attack.

Whatever you are saying, this is communism, pure and simple, and I oppose it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I want to start off by saying that the steel industry, as we all know, has been on a rapid decline since the 1970's. And this decline has been to the detriment of working-class cities across Atlasia, particularly in those such as Youngstown which were dependent on steel and have never recovered from the 1969 corporate merger between the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company and the New Orleans-based Lykes Corporation. In 1977, Youngstown Sheet and Tube instantly put 5,000 workers out of a job in one day. This had a ripple effect on the city as steel and other businesses left Youngstown and Mahoning Valley. We've now seen the consequences of that.

These jobs are now in China, a hostile adversary that has taken advantage of our terrible trade deals for far too long. And so we need an economic strategy that will make domestic steel strong again. We simply can't afford to depend on China for steel and other goods. That is what will bring us closer to communism. That is what will be to our downfall. And so there are both strong economic and national security-related reasons to empower this industry.

However, I am also concerned about overreach in the economy. Nationalization might be preferable to the status quo which has failed Atlasian workers, particularly those without a college education, but I am cautious about federal overreach, and I am also not necessarily convinced that nationalization will simply regrow Atlasian steel. And I think the burden lies on the supporters of this legislation to prove why nationalizing Atlasian steel will bring these jobs back in the era of automation.

[WD]

I could not agree more with the President about the decline of the steel industry and it’s consequences. To answer the question “why nationalization?”, it is because this is the only option, it is the only choice if we are serious about supporting the steel industry.

Once nationalized, steel industry jobs will be insulated from outsourcing, production can and will exponentially increase, providing and supporting new high paying jobs. Automation will be with us for the foreseeable future and not every single job lost can be brought back, but this is infinitely superior to the status quo. Nationalization is a desperately needed shot in the arm for Atlasian steel. I cannot stress enough; there is no other choice. To those who oppose this bill, what do you suggest as an alternative?

I also want to say that the hyperbolic claims from some Senators that this will move us towards “communism” is complete and utter nonsense. Nationalization is not being pursued for the sake or fun of it, but because self evidently the free market has failed the steel industry. I argue that it is one of the roles of government to correct the errors of the free market and to step in where it has failed, and this is clearly one of those situations.

[S019]

I would like to support this bill, but I believe we need to reduce the usage of steel in general. Producing steel itself releases many carbon emissions, and if we are bringing the steel industry into government ownership, reducing steel production, itself, to deal with this problem would be ideal. If this can be remedied, I would gladly support this bill as I believe steel production can best be reduced by the government and not by the private sector. Also lol at this being communism, if it was communism, I'd never support it, I'm probably actually more capitalist than many of the opponents of this bill, but we won't go there.

I lean against this since if I'm not wrong, this is literally small-scale communism. But I could be persuaded otherwise to support this bill.

I concur with my honorable colleague. Successive Labor administrations have sought to nationalize and nationalize (e.g., taking energy companies under federal control under the Labor Red-Green New Deal). As long as this party stands in the majority, the growth of big government will never end. Nationalization of industry after industry, in this case the steel industry, is a brisk step in the march toward communism.

I am a pretty strong capitalist, but ultimately some issues are bigger than the free market or promoting competition in the market and climate change is one of those issues. It is the most important issue of our time, and dealing with it is imperative, and we are running out of time to deal with it. Sometimes we must put our principles of economic liberalism aside and recognize that sometimes the government does indeed need to intervene in the economy. I agree that we do need to be judicious about when we intervene, because too much intervention can cause economic stagnation, but I do not believe that is where this bill will take us. Also believe me if this was actually communism, I would not vote for it. (Better Dead than Red) Frankly, the post-war period is over, no one is interested in mass-nationalizing anymore. By the 1970s, it had clearly failed and with stagnation setting in, it became clear that nationalizing everything was not the answer, and indeed the neoliberal reforms made to the economy should mostly stay, but there are some exceptions of course. Rest assured that this bill is not going to take us down the path that led to the excesses of the Post-War Consensus.

[Former President tack50]

I don't think nationalizing steel is a good idea. There are lots of other sectors I'd nationalize before steel.

[Schiff for Senate]

I would like to support this bill, but I believe we need to reduce the usage of steel in general. Producing steel itself releases many carbon emissions, and if we are bringing the steel industry into government ownership, reducing steel production, itself, to deal with this problem would be ideal. If this can be remedied, I would gladly support this bill as I believe steel production can best be reduced by the government and not by the private sector. Also lol at this being communism, if it was communism, I'd never support it, I'm probably actually more capitalist than many of the opponents of this bill, but we won't go there.

I lean against this since if I'm not wrong, this is literally small-scale communism. But I could be persuaded otherwise to support this bill.

I concur with my honorable colleague. Successive Labor administrations have sought to nationalize and nationalize (e.g., taking energy companies under federal control under the Labor Red-Green New Deal). As long as this party stands in the majority, the growth of big government will never end. Nationalization of industry after industry, in this case the steel industry, is a brisk step in the march toward communism.

I am a pretty strong capitalist, but ultimately some issues are bigger than the free market or promoting competition in the market and climate change is one of those issues. It is the most important issue of our time, and dealing with it is imperative, and we are running out of time to deal with it. Sometimes we must put our principles of economic liberalism aside and recognize that sometimes the government does indeed need to intervene in the economy. I agree that we do need to be judicious about when we intervene, because too much intervention can cause economic stagnation, but I do not believe that is where this bill will take us. Also believe me if this was actually communism, I would not vote for it. (Better Dead than Red) Frankly, the post-war period is over, no one is interested in mass-nationalizing anymore. By the 1970s, it had clearly failed and with stagnation setting in, it became clear that nationalizing everything was not the answer, and indeed the neoliberal reforms made to the economy should mostly stay, but there are some exceptions of course. Rest assured that this bill is not going to take us down the path that led to the excesses of the Post-War Consensus.

I agree with much of what you said, and I'm sure you know I am a strong supporter of combatting climate change in any way possible, but I don't see how this is necessary or the only action that can be taken. I would support heavier regulation but I don't think it's at all a good idea to give government a monopoly of the steel industry; it would leave ripe opportunities for abuse and while I'm sure most members of the government, if not all, are honest, it's not a risk worth taking considering all the problems that might arise. I strongly oppose the government taking sole control over steel. I think it's communism, and frankly, even if it's not (which one could argue), it's still a terrible policy that I would have a lot of trouble supporting. I intend to vote against unless the bill is dramatically altered before a final vote.

[WD]

I would like to support this bill, but I believe we need to reduce the usage of steel in general. Producing steel itself releases many carbon emissions, and if we are bringing the steel industry into government ownership, reducing steel production, itself, to deal with this problem would be ideal. If this can be remedied, I would gladly support this bill as I believe steel production can best be reduced by the government and not by the private sector. Also lol at this being communism, if it was communism, I'd never support it, I'm probably actually more capitalist than many of the opponents of this bill, but we won't go there.

I lean against this since if I'm not wrong, this is literally small-scale communism. But I could be persuaded otherwise to support this bill.

I concur with my honorable colleague. Successive Labor administrations have sought to nationalize and nationalize (e.g., taking energy companies under federal control under the Labor Red-Green New Deal). As long as this party stands in the majority, the growth of big government will never end. Nationalization of industry after industry, in this case the steel industry, is a brisk step in the march toward communism.

I am a pretty strong capitalist, but ultimately some issues are bigger than the free market or promoting competition in the market and climate change is one of those issues. It is the most important issue of our time, and dealing with it is imperative, and we are running out of time to deal with it. Sometimes we must put our principles of economic liberalism aside and recognize that sometimes the government does indeed need to intervene in the economy. I agree that we do need to be judicious about when we intervene, because too much intervention can cause economic stagnation, but I do not believe that is where this bill will take us. Also believe me if this was actually communism, I would not vote for it. (Better Dead than Red) Frankly, the post-war period is over, no one is interested in mass-nationalizing anymore. By the 1970s, it had clearly failed and with stagnation setting in, it became clear that nationalizing everything was not the answer, and indeed the neoliberal reforms made to the economy should mostly stay, but there are some exceptions of course. Rest assured that this bill is not going to take us down the path that led to the excesses of the Post-War Consensus.

I agree with much of what you said, and I'm sure you know I am a strong supporter of combatting climate change in any way possible, but I don't see how this is necessary or the only action that can be taken. I would support heavier regulation but I don't think it's at all a good idea to give government a monopoly of the steel industry; it would leave ripe opportunities for abuse and while I'm sure most members of the government, if not all, are honest, it's not a risk worth taking considering all the problems that might arise. I strongly oppose the government taking sole control over steel. I think it's communism, and frankly, even if it's not (which one could argue), it's still a terrible policy that I would have a lot of trouble supporting. I intend to vote against unless the bill is dramatically altered before a final vote.

What do you propose we do to support and help the steel industry then?

[Schiff for Senate]

I would like to support this bill, but I believe we need to reduce the usage of steel in general. Producing steel itself releases many carbon emissions, and if we are bringing the steel industry into government ownership, reducing steel production, itself, to deal with this problem would be ideal. If this can be remedied, I would gladly support this bill as I believe steel production can best be reduced by the government and not by the private sector. Also lol at this being communism, if it was communism, I'd never support it, I'm probably actually more capitalist than many of the opponents of this bill, but we won't go there.

I lean against this since if I'm not wrong, this is literally small-scale communism. But I could be persuaded otherwise to support this bill.

I concur with my honorable colleague. Successive Labor administrations have sought to nationalize and nationalize (e.g., taking energy companies under federal control under the Labor Red-Green New Deal). As long as this party stands in the majority, the growth of big government will never end. Nationalization of industry after industry, in this case the steel industry, is a brisk step in the march toward communism.

I am a pretty strong capitalist, but ultimately some issues are bigger than the free market or promoting competition in the market and climate change is one of those issues. It is the most important issue of our time, and dealing with it is imperative, and we are running out of time to deal with it. Sometimes we must put our principles of economic liberalism aside and recognize that sometimes the government does indeed need to intervene in the economy. I agree that we do need to be judicious about when we intervene, because too much intervention can cause economic stagnation, but I do not believe that is where this bill will take us. Also believe me if this was actually communism, I would not vote for it. (Better Dead than Red) Frankly, the post-war period is over, no one is interested in mass-nationalizing anymore. By the 1970s, it had clearly failed and with stagnation setting in, it became clear that nationalizing everything was not the answer, and indeed the neoliberal reforms made to the economy should mostly stay, but there are some exceptions of course. Rest assured that this bill is not going to take us down the path that led to the excesses of the Post-War Consensus.

I agree with much of what you said, and I'm sure you know I am a strong supporter of combatting climate change in any way possible, but I don't see how this is necessary or the only action that can be taken. I would support heavier regulation but I don't think it's at all a good idea to give government a monopoly of the steel industry; it would leave ripe opportunities for abuse and while I'm sure most members of the government, if not all, are honest, it's not a risk worth taking considering all the problems that might arise. I strongly oppose the government taking sole control over steel. I think it's communism, and frankly, even if it's not (which one could argue), it's still a terrible policy that I would have a lot of trouble supporting. I intend to vote against unless the bill is dramatically altered before a final vote.

What do you propose we do to support and help the steel industry then?

You tell me. Subsidies and regulations on what and how much carbon emmissions are allowed would be a good starter point. And very frankly, doing nothing would be better than the radical steps (which I still call communism) that are proposed in the bill. But actions can be taken. It's not 'all-or-nothing' where we either pass this bill or do nothing at all, though like I said if it came to that (which it shouldn't and won't), I would opt for nothing at all.

[S019]

Another possible move is to put money into researching hydrogen steel

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2021/01/25/we-could-be-making-steel-from-green-hydrogen-using-less-coal/?sh=17a6f2313e5c

In fact, it has already happened, and if we can pour billions into this, we can become a leader in this new technology while much of the world is still simply dabbling in it: https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/-world-first-as-hydrogen-used-to-power-commercial-steel-production/2-1-799308

[S019]

AN ACT
To nationalize the steel industry

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia

Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Atlasian Steel Act.

Section 2. Nationalization

1. All steel manufacturers are brought into public ownership immediately upon passage of this act and shall be placed under the control of an Atlasian Steel Authority.

2. To complete the undertaking as outlined above, the Republic of Atlasia shall establish an Atlasian Steel Authority (hereafter ASA) which shall be comprised of all former privately-held steel companies and shall hold a legal monopoly in these sectors.

3. The purpose of the aforementioned ASA shall be the economization of operations and the modernization of production methods to raise safety and efficiency standards across the country, as well as provide steel at a low cost, prevent competitive waste, and co-ordinate research and development in those sectors.

4. The government of the ASA shall be federal and cooperative. In each region will be established a regional steel authority under a board of directors composed of representatives of labor, the consumers, security, and the environment. The number of labor directors shall be four, and the number of directors for all other constituencies shall be two. Each regional authority will elect five representatives to the national board of directors. Two of the national directors elected by each regional authority shall represent labor, and one each shall represent the consumers, security, and the environment.
 
5. The labor directors shall be chosen by a vote of the steel workers; the consumer directors by a vote of the regional legislature, the security and environment directors by the regional executive at the regional level and by the president at the federal level.

6. The term of a Board director shall be four years.

7. The President shall appoint a Chair of the ASA Board of Directors who shall have no vote unless they are equally divided. The Chair shall serve a four year term.

8. All persons owning any of the aforementioned industry brought into public ownership shall be fairly compensated for the sale of said industries to the Republic of Atlasia.

9. Hydrogenated Steel Pilot Project

a. 15% of all steel producers in Atlasia shall be chosen to participate in the Hydrogenated Steel Pilot Project (Hence known as HSPP).

b. HSPP shall run for 10 years, at which point a future Congress shall choose to renew the program, if it was successful, and discontinue it, if it was unsuccessful.

c. These steel producers shall study the feasibility of using electrolyzed electricity to produce pure hydrogen gas and using it in place of "met" coal to produce steel from iron

d. After 5 years, based on the success of the HSPP, steel producers chosen to participate in this program may choose to begin selling the "green hydrogen steel" to other domestic steel producers or to foreign steel producers.

e. If the HSPP is successful after 10 years, and was extended by Congress, a 10 year phaseout of "met coal" steel shall begin. The ASA shall oversee this phaseout and it shall take place in phases:

Phase 0 (complete): 15% of Atlasian steel producers
Phase 1 (Years 1-3): 35% of Atlasian steel producers (additional 20%)
Phase 2 (Years 3-6): 65% of Atlasian steel producers (additional 30%)
Phase 4 (Years 6-8): 90% of Atlasian steel producers (Additional 25)
Phase 5 (Years 8-10): 100% of Atlasian steel producers (Additional 10%)

f. $500 billion shall be allocated to the HSPP over a period of 10 years

g. Appropriations shall be paid for by a 2.5% VAT, which shall raise $80 billion a year

Source for the last numbers: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/23106/1001662-Creating-an-American-Value-Added-Tax.PDF

[WD]

24 hours to object

[West_Midlander]

I object. I think hydrogen steel production should be introduced under another bill instead of serving as a sugar coating to dull the bitter taste of steel nationalization.

[WD]

Objection being raised, a vote is now open on S019’s amendment. Please vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN

[West_Midlander]

Nay. The amendment should be a separate bill.

[WD]

Aye

[S019]

AYE

[OBD]

Aye

[Schiff for Senate]

I vote aye, though I don't think I'd support this bill even with the provision added.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Nay