Mideast Assembly Thread

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

So since no one has attempted to debate or argue my economic proposal, should I asume that y'all support it?

[big bad fab]

So since no one has attempted to debate or argue my economic proposal, should I asume that y'all support it?

I have some objections but am very busy today. Could you wait until tomorrow ?

And I'll answer to Peter's and Badger's clever objections. I already thank them for this.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

So since no one has attempted to debate or argue my economic proposal, should I asume that y'all support it?

I have some objections but am very busy today. Could you wait until tomorrow ?

And I'll answer to Peter's and Badger's clever objections. I already thank them for this.

Don't worry, you at least have until Monday. I won't be here for the rest of today, or tomorrow.   

[Badger]

So since no one has attempted to debate or argue my economic proposal, should I asume that y'all support it?

"y'all"?? Oh, that's right. I forgot you're from southern Sweden. :-P

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What is FTR?

[Badger]

What is FTR?

Freedom To Roam (Where Inks Says You Can) Act.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If at all possible, I'd really like to get all of these voted on by the Assembly ASAP so we can get them on the November ballot.

[big bad fab]

If at all possible, I'd really like to get all of these voted on by the Assembly ASAP so we can get them on the November ballot.

Well, I'm really busy in RL now and it will be the case for the weeks to come. Forgive me. I've intended, for a moment, to withdraw my amendments, but, as is perfectly logical, principled objections won't fade away with time, so it's better to go to vote ASAP.

So, to make things simpler and as there are many objections from every side, I re-write my first amendment and ask our dear Speaker to submit this new first amendment and the other two amendments (unchanged) to the Assembly's vote.

I make it clear that, though introduced simultaneously, these 3 amendments are independent and a 3 separated votes have to be organized in our Assembly (when I talked about a "package", that had no legal consequence: it was just a way to invite my fellow Assemblymen to think about them globally).


1) Peter's objection on the right for police agents to kill in order to save innocent lives should be addressed and I make some changes on this.
As for Badger's objection on euthanasia, we simply disagree and I won't convince him . So, no need to further debates.
As for his objection on abortion, my writing can be "anti-choice" only if the period before birth is viewed as "human life": I am personally in favour of such a view and would be in favour of forbidding abortion except in cases of rape or of threat to mother's life, but th current state of law is one that view the human life as legally beginning when the child is out of his/her mother.
So, I won't change my writing on this. But I perfectly understand the objection of my fellow Badger.

Here is my last writing. It won't change any more and you'll have to do with its weaknesses .

Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance, except by law enforcement officers when allowed to use deadly force to protect threatened innocent lives and by soldiers when allowed to use deadly force against enemies in time of war. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."


2) The Eminent Domain Statute only deals with PUBLIC entities using or taking private property, not with PRIVATE entities taking or trying to take or using without being allowed private property of another else.

So, I stick to my amendment proposal:

Protection of Private Property Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

II. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be taken or used by another private legal entity. Private property shall not be taken by a public legal entity for public use, without just compensation."


3) A right to education doesn't entail the same education for everyone. So, even mentally disabled persons receive a sort of education through treatment and psychological care.
My phrase "along lines and minimal requirements set by Law" is here to allow the possibility to have different lines and requirements for objectively/obviously different situations.

As for the age, there is no age set in our current Constitution, so 14 is already something. And 16 would be too old because you've got teens who follow an apprenticeship course, in which they work "normally" (with a contract) for more than 50% of their time and so are no longer in the education system, though they keep following courses and lessons at school.
I don't want to harm this system of apprenticeship, which is very useful for young people who aren't at ease in school, to give them real competences and to prevent "premature" unemployment.

So, I stick to my amendment proposal:

Right to Education Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 18. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"18. All persons under eighteen shall have the right to a publicly funded, well-balanced education. All persons under fourteen are required to receive education along lines and minimal requirements set by Law, in public or private institutions or in families."


I thank our Speaker to make us vote on these 3 proposals, whatever the anticipated result .

[big bad fab]

The Mideast Save the Sinking Ship That Is Our Economy Act

Section I: The Assembly recognises the need for a lower regional corporate tax, in order to stimulate our economy and help boost employment. We therefore will offer tax cuts to businesses that are successful in creating new jobs in the region. 
Definitions: "Workforce compensation" is the value of benefits paid to employees, both full and part time, whether in form of salaries/wages or the dollar value of fringe benefits such as health insurance, etc.
   1)   Effective 1/1/10, every Mideast business, company, and corporation that is successful in increasing their overall workforce compensation, regardless of whether said increase is due to additional employees being hired or increased compensation to current employees or a combination thereof in this region with at least 5 will get a 25 % tax cut reduction equivalent to double the percentage increase for employee compensation in their corporate tax rate for 2010, up to a maximum reduction of 50%. (i.e. A 3.5% increase in employment/compensation will result in a 7% reduction in corporate taxes. 5% increase will result in a 10% tax cut, etc.)
   2) Any increase of total compensation for individual employees salary and/or benefits above $100,000 per year is excluded from calculating any reduction of corporate taxes pursuant to Section 1 above.

Section II: The Assembly proposes that a number of 10 billion dollars be used in programs designed to extend and repair the region's infrastructure, such as building new roads, bridges, tunnels and railroad, increasing and promoting train activity, and renovate decayed roads.

Section III: The funding for public schools and universities will be increased with 7 % the coming two years.

Section IV: The region's funding for science for new effective and green energy will be increased with 5 %.   

Section V: The funding for the initiatives in Section II, III, and IV will be drawn from the 32 billions handed to the Mideast Region through the Regional and Local Fiscal Relief Act.


 

- It seems as if your 25% reduction isn't coherent with your examples. If the reduction is 25%, that would mean 12.5% increase in employee compensation. 50% is a maximum, but 25% can't be a minimum. So, what is it ?
I'm sorry if I've misundertood this clause, but, really, it isn't very clear to me for the moment.

Of course, the example should be removed from the text..., and also the "etc." word, which is quite difficult to deal with, legally speaking .

- As for the use of national funds, though I would have been very reluctant to this pouring of money THAT DOES NOT EXIST (except in the Senate's writings and in the future work of our children...), the reality is that the Mideast region must now use this money.

Your proposal's sections III and IV should be amended, because a 7% increase in an area where the budget is already massive would be too much. I would advise a 4% increase each year) or a 7% increase but over 2 years.
As for "science for new effective and green energy", the basis is ridiculous and so, a 50% increase wouldn't be outrageous.

If you've got precise numbers, I would be pleased, but I think the rough assessments I have in mind aren't bad.

As for section II, I would advise to limit the list of infrastructures and to set priorities:
1. repairings and works aimed at improve the security of current infrastructures, first of bridges and tunnels, then of roads; (but note that I exclude extending roads, a source of pollution and pork...)
2. extending and improving environmental-friendly infrastructures: renewable energy production centers and distribution infrastructure; infrastructures easing the use of electrical transportation.
3. increasing and promoting railway transportation, whether of persons or of goods.

And you may usefully add that the sums allowed to this program should be spent or engaged before the end of 2011 and that the Public Procurement Policy Bill, which our Assembly has voted recently, shoudl be applied to these spendings but with an exceptional rate of 50%.

Thanks for your time.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

So since no one has attempted to debate or argue my economic proposal, should I asume that y'all support it?

"y'all"?? Oh, that's right. I forgot you're from southern Sweden. :-P

People from South Sweden actually speaks Swedish with a very thick odddifferent dialect, and here in Stockholm people have trouble understanding what I'm actually saying and think I sound like a hillibilly


I'll try to get the amendments to a vote as soon as possible, Mr Governor. I'm sure we'll be done with them before Thursday now that BBF has submitted his final proposals.

(BBF I'll reply to your critc of my bill in a seperate post)

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Ok, let's begin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section III: The funding for public schools and universities will be increased with 7 % the coming two years.[/quote]

I believe we might have misunderstood eachother, but a 7 % increase over the period of two years are exactly what I have in mind, not a 7 % for each of the years. I think we are on the same page on this issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A 50 % increase would indeed be outragous. Which is why I proposed a 5% increase not 50%

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Green Energy is an highly important area when it comes to new science and technology for our region. We have a huge Auto-Industry that depends on selling cars. In this modern day and age, when buying gas will ruin you, more and more people are looking for cheaper alternative energy. If we want our car industry to continue to be competive on an national and international market they need to have access to the newest and best energy science. As it is now Germany, Japan, Sweden, and even the Czech Republic is outrunning Atlasia in this area, something that will very likely hurt us badly in the future. It might actually be a vital part in tackeling our high unemployment. And I think it's important they get the funding they need.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, and I think it's good you ask. Badger also wanted a calculation of the costs of the proposlas in Section 2-4, and therefore asked Game Moderator Purple State make a prediction.

I can't repost the PM exactly, as that would be against Atlasian law, but unless PS or Badger has any objections I am of course more than willing to forward the message to you.

In the numbers PS gave us however, he predicted it would cost us between $17-22 billion over two years. Even though it would most likely turn out to be more costly than originally predicted (as most often happens in RL) we are still within limits of money given to us by the Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a very good point, and I'll try to find time writing an amendment dealing with it. I also agree with the order you think we should priority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll make sure it's in the final bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ugghh, no that appears to be a mistake on my part that I overlooked. I'll do something about that as well.


Thanks for your oppinion and advice. It's always much appreciated.

[big bad fab]

I thank you for your quick answer and for taking into consideration some of my ideas or objections on sections I and II.
We are OK on section III.

So, I'm going to intervene only on section IV.
What I stated is that 5% of increase on public spendings that are very low is little thing.

When you wrote about a 7% increase in ALL the public fundings for ALL public schools and universities, this makes a BIG, BIG amount.

But when you have 5% of something which is very small, it's still very, very small (see, Mideast's public funding of science for new effective and green energy is VERY small; the main amount of money spent for research in these areas is of private origin, even in universities).

That's why my 50% isn't outrageous, because the basis on which you apply this 50% may not exceed 500m$.... Imagine 5% of this !

Thanks again for your attention.

[big bad fab]

I'd like to introduce to the Assembly the following:


The Periodical Assessment of Statute Laws for a Better Accountability of our Government Bill

I. Each year, the Assembly reviews the Statute Laws which came into force 5 years earlier, in order to check their lasting usefulness, to scrap Statute Laws that have become useless or to amend Statute Laws that have more downsides than upsides.

II. To that aim, an Assemblyman shall submit an "Assessement Report" to the Assembly regarding each law referred to in clause I.
After having consulted the Governor's office, every accurate administrative entity, the other members of the Assembly, the Atlasia Game Master and a number of citizens, and having checked the overall and additional costs, the financial implications and the results of the law, the Assemblyman writes an "Assessment Report".

III. The "Assessment Report" shall give a statement:
a. on the overall and the additional costs of the law,
b. on the current risks and the possible future risks (at least in the following areas: constitutional risks, safety and human risks, security risks, financial risks),
c. on the upsides and downsides and on the efficiency of the law in comparison with its original aims and with the means it uses or its implementation implies,
d. on its compatibility with the Constitution and with other Statute Laws.
The report shall conclude whether the law can be let unchanged or needs to be repealed or amended, due to incompatibility, to uselessness, to excessive risks or to excessive costs.
The Assemblyman who has written the report shall introduce at the same time a bill to repeal or amend the law if the report concludes so.

IV. Each year, before the end of January, the Assembly by a majority vote or its Speaker if no majority is reached shares out between the Assemblymen (including the Speaker) the reviewing work of all the Statute Laws which came into force in the preceding 5th year.


The title of my proposal seems to be clear: we must review periodically our legislation, in order to simplify it, to amend it, to improve it, as reality changes, evolves faster and faster, as our financial resources are under strain, as our Government needs to remain not too big and to act humbly and moderately.

The assessment of legislation is almost as important a work than the vote of new legislations. I think our fellow citizens will agree on that and my fellow Assemblymen and the candidates to the Assembly are already aware of this.

With our Assembly soon extended to five seats, it will be easier to perform this task of reviewing the laws.

I urge our Assembly to vote this bill before the next elections, so that our new Assembly will be able to begin this assessment work in January.

Of course, I'm open to all your objections, critics, improvements on this bill.

I thank you for your attention.

[Badger]

A few comments on the economic bill:

First, good catch on the error, Fab. I'll offer a friendly amendment momentarily.

Secondly, I'll note that the GM also stated the tax cut would most definitely boost the economy of the region and increase consumption and demand. It will also decrease unemployment, thereby saving the region some money from reduced unemployment insurance.

Thirdly, I'll note the combined cost of both portions of the bill at even the worst case estimate the $32 billion federal stimulus grant would still just about pay for the entire plan for at least the first year, and at the best case scenario would pay for the entire plan for both years. Even a middle ground estimate would leave us only about $5 billion short for the second year. Please note that these estimates did not include adjustments for increased tax revenue and decreased expenditures of unemployment insurance, etc. caused by resulting economic growth.

Hopefully the increased growth might make up any of this small forcasted shortfall, and if it doesn't we can slightly scale back the spending and/or tax cut next year if necessary to make budget, or perhaps our Senator Tmth can wheedle out a tiny extra bit of stimulus from the federal government to put us over the goal line. For those of you worried about relying on extra federal money please note the amount needed to finalize the funding would be minuscule compared to this year's stimulus, and I'm only putting it out there as one of many options. If push came to shove we could readily self-fund this all this year and next year as well with only nominal rollbacks in the spending and tax cuts.

Because the numbers have been carefully worked out I'm a little leery about messing with them too much. I support your idea, Fab, of increasing funding for green energy support, but I have to agree with Swedish Cheese that replacing a 5% increase with a 50% increase is just too much too fast. Remember, there has to be sufficient infrastructure of green energy research labs, firms and trained personnel to use any funding we provide, otherwise we risk flooding a currently small sector of the energy sector with more money than they can effectively and efficiently use at this time.

Likewise, excellance in education is crucial to our long term economic security as well, so I'm likewise reluctant to reduce expanding the spending here. It's this increased educational spending that will help create the infrastructure necessary for the green energy sector of the economy to grow as I detailed above. The GM indicates the first and third portions of proposed spending increases would create the most jobs (in construction, R&D, etc.), and although the second portion would create fewer jobs, mostly focused in education, but would be successful in making the Mideast more competitive in the long-run.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of compromise and maintaining the fiscal responsibility of this proposal, I'll include in my forthcoming (hopefully still friendly) amendment an increased rate of spending for green energy technology as Fab suggested, to be offset cost-wise by a slightly less increased rate of spending on education.

One final note: I think we owe it to the citizens of the Mideast to pass this important and necessary legislation before election day this week, so let's all try to make resolving and finalizing any amendments or corrections here our top priority. OK? Great! <hands in the center, on three: 1....2....3> GO TEAM MIDEAST!!

[Badger]

So after a very long period of waiting, with some appreciated help from my good friend Badger and our Game Moderator's analysing and advice, I can finally introduce to you ... drumroll please...

The Mideast Save the Sinking Ship That Is Our Economy Act

Section I: The Assembly recognises the need for a lower regional corporate tax, in order to stimulate our economy and help boost employment. We therefore will offer tax cuts to businesses that are successful in creating new jobs in the region. 
Definitions: "Workforce compensation" is the value of benefits paid to employees, both full and part time, whether in form of salaries/wages or the dollar value of fringe benefits such as health insurance, etc.
   1)   Effective 1/1/10, every Mideast business, company, and corporation that is successful in increasing their overall workforce compensation, regardless of whether said increase is due to additional employees being hired or increased compensation to current employees or a combination thereof in this region with at least 5 will get a 25 % tax cut reduction equivalent to double the percentage increase for employee compensation in their corporate tax rate for 2010, up to a maximum reduction of 50%. (i.e. A 3.5% increase in employment/compensation will result in a 7% reduction in corporate taxes. 5% increase will result in a 10% tax cut, etc.)
   2) Any increase of total compensation for individual employees salary and/or benefits above $100,000 per year is excluded from calculating any reduction of corporate taxes pursuant to Section 1 above.

Section II: The Assembly proposes that a number of 10 billion dollars be used in programs designed to extend and repair the region's infrastructure, such as building new roads, bridges, tunnels and railroad, increasing and promoting train activity, and renovate decayed roads.

Section III: The funding for public schools and universities will be increased with 7 % 6% the coming two years.

Section IV: The region's funding for science for new effective and green energy will be increased with 5 % 10%.   

Section V: The funding for the initiatives in Section II, III, and IV will be drawn from the 32 billions handed to the Mideast Region through the Regional and Local Fiscal Relief Act.

The bill has been signed.  I'd like to thank the Assembly for their quick action here.

Also, if you guys can get the Amendment through the Assembly before Thursday, we can get it on the ballot along with the Assembly elections.

Thank you for your quick action as well Governor.

I'm positive that there will be a final vote on BBF's proposal before Thursday. 

Offered as a (hopefully) friendly amendment, as promised.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

One final note: I think we owe it to the citizens of the Mideast to pass this important and necessary legislation before election day this week, so let's all try to make resolving and finalizing any amendments or corrections here our top priority. OK? Great! <hands in the center, on three: 1....2....3> GO TEAM MIDEAST!!

The session doesn't end until Friday next week, so as long as we're done with it before then I'm happy, no need to stress it in order for it to pass before Thursday.

So, I'm going to intervene only on section IV.
What I stated is that 5% of increase on public spendings that are very low is little thing.

But when you have 5% of something which is very small, it's still very, very small (see, Mideast's public funding of science for new effective and green energy is VERY small; the main amount of money spent for research in these areas is of private origin, even in universities).

That's why my 50% isn't outrageous, because the basis on which you apply this 50% may not exceed 500m$.... Imagine 5% of this!

Oh terribly sorry, I completely misunderstood what you meant. I thought you were saying I was introducing a too big increase.

5% increase might indeed be a too small number to actually have much effect. To amend it to be 50% would probably be too much, but maybe 10-15% instead.

I urge our Assembly to vote this bill before the next elections, so that our new Assembly will be able to begin this assessment work in January.

   

As I told Badger, session doesn't end until Friday next week, so you guys don't have to worry about getting this passed before Thursday. We have almost two full weeks. It's the amendments we need to hurry with, so that Inks is able to put them on the ballot.   
 

[HappyWarrior]

I as a Mideast citizen hope that this bill will be passed in swift order.

[big bad fab]

On the economic bill:

I'm sorry to ask this again, but how much does a 1% increase represent in section III and how much a 1% increase in section IV ?

Frankly, I think we are talking about millions in section IV and about billions in section III...

Rather than proposing myself another amendment, I just suggest that, if you've worked on precise numbers (which are not secret... whatever laws on PMs ! ), one of you, Speaker, fellow Assemblyman or GM, gives them in front of the Assembly.

If you haven't more rpecise numbers, I would recommend to reduce the amount of section II's spendings to 9 bn $, to stay at 7% in section III and to put a 25% increase in section IV.

I don't want to seem monomaniac on this, it's just a question of common sense:
when you have 1000 which is increased by 7%, you've got 1070
when you have 20 which is increased by 5%, you've got 20.4
when you have 20 which is increased by 50%, you've got 30
What I mean is very simple when we discuss on real numbers (and when I take 1000 and 20, I'm very highly undervaluing the real difference I think...).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I still have a problem with the first Amendment.  It seems as if it would make it illegal to defend yourself against somebody who was trying to kill you.  So if I had somebody shooting at me, it'd be illegal to shoot back.

[Purple State]

For the record, I provide Badger with permission to post my private analyses of the economic package.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amendment accpeted as friendly unless BBF objects.


There hasn't been any debate on Big Bad Fab's amendments for 24 hours, so I herby move to vote on them.


Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance, except by law enforcement officers when allowed to use deadly force to protect threatened innocent lives and by soldiers when allowed to use deadly force against enemies in time of war. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."


Protection of Private Property Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

II. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be taken or used by another private legal entity. Private property shall not be taken by a public legal entity for public use, without just compensation."


Right to Education Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 18. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"18. All persons under eighteen shall have the right to a publicly funded, well-balanced education. All persons under fourteen are required to receive education along lines and minimal requirements set by Law, in public or private institutions or in families."

[big bad fab]

Oups, I haven't seen our Governor's objection on my first amendment.

Sorry to put more mess, but, even if I think the word "removed" implies a notion of intent and will that is not in self-defense, I think our Governor's remark should be taken into account.

I'm deeply sorry, Mr. Speaker, but could you submit again the first proposal with my own and -last...- amendment, written as follows ?


Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance, except in case of self-defense, by law enforcement officers when allowed to use deadly force to protect threatened innocent lives and by soldiers when allowed to use deadly force against enemies in time of war. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."

[big bad fab]

For the record, I provide Badger with permission to post my private analyses of the economic package.

I wish to see these analyses and these numbers before giving you a final opinion on Badger's amendment.

Anyway, with my other suggestions, you'd have to re-write some other points.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

For the record, I provide Badger with permission to post my private analyses of the economic package.

Is this like a CBO score, or just your opinion?

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amendment accpeted as friendly unless BBF objects.


There hasn't been any debate on Big Bad Fab's amendments for 24 hours, so I herby move to vote on them.


Protection of Human Life Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  Human Life shall not be removed under any circumstance, except by law enforcement officers when allowed to use deadly force to protect threatened innocent lives and by soldiers when allowed to use deadly force against enemies in time of war. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."


Protection of Private Property Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

II. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be taken or used by another private legal entity. Private property shall not be taken by a public legal entity for public use, without just compensation."


Right to Education Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

The clause 18. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"18. All persons under eighteen shall have the right to a publicly funded, well-balanced education. All persons under fourteen are required to receive education along lines and minimal requirements set by Law, in public or private institutions or in families."

NAY.