Mideast Assembly Thread

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

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 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 9 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 by 7% the coming two years.

Section IV: The region's funding for science for new effective and green energy will be increased with 25%.   

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.


I call for a vote on this proposal.

[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 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 9 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 by 7% the coming two years.

Section IV: The region's funding for science for new effective and green energy will be increased with 25%.   

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.

AYE

[Badger]

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 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 9 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 by 7% the coming two years.

Section IV: The region's funding for science for new effective and green energy will be increased with 25%.   

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.


I call for a vote on this proposal.

AYE.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

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 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 9 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 by 7% the coming two years.

Section IV: The region's funding for science for new effective and green energy will be increased with 25%.   

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.


I call for a vote on this proposal.

  Aye


The bill pass and is transferred to the Governor's office for his signature or veto.

Yay

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Ok less than a week left, let's move on to the next subject.

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.

Ok the first thing I'd like to address with this bill is the following

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe some clairification on this is needed. Do you mean five actual years or do you mean five months? Here in Atlasia we often use months as years, for example we have four month long presidential terms instead of four years, so I'm asuming this is what you mean. However the bill should still say five months earlier, not five years. But then since you say:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess that you very well mean actual years.

I want to clear this up before making my other points on this legislation.


     

     

[big bad fab]

It's 5 actual years.
In 2010, we will review all the Statute Laws adopted in 2005 (1st year of Atlasia).
In 2011, all the Laws adopted in 2006, etc.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Five years is too long in my opinion.

[big bad fab]

Five years is too long in my opinion.

There are some reasons for my choice:
- we need to review EVERY law, so we need to start with 2005,
- reviewing SERIOUSLY is quite a work and, even if we're 5 now, it will take time,
- we must let some time for a law to be implemented completely and with some hindsight.

Therefore, I've opted for this delay of reviewing.

That must be a great step forward for our region and it may be extended in all Atlasia...

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I too think five years might be a bit too long.

As you pointed out, five years is how long Atlasia has existed at this point, a very long time in other words. Few RPGs live this long, and it is very likely that this game has long been ended at the point it's time to review the statue laws we pass today. Therefore to make the time from a laws passage to the time it will be reviewed five years, would be way too long if you ask me.   

I also believe most statue laws that was passed in the Mideast in 05 has already been changed or altered in some way or another. If we were to dig up the statue laws from then, two-thirds would most likely be afterwords amended or repealed. Not to mention that before we had an active assembly, there wasn't as much regional law made as there is now. So the number of laws from 05 that actually would need a review is probably pretty small.

I would instead suggest two years. It's not a too short period, nor a too long.

[big bad fab]

I too think five years might be a bit too long.

As you pointed out, five years is how long Atlasia has existed at this point, a very long time in other words. Few RPGs live this long, and it is very likely that this game has long been ended at the point it's time to review the statue laws we pass today. Therefore to make the time from a laws passage to the time it will be reviewed five years, would be way too long if you ask me.   

I also believe most statue laws that was passed in the Mideast in 05 has already been changed or altered in some way or another. If we were to dig up the statue laws from then, two-thirds would most likely be afterwords amended or repealed. Not to mention that before we had an active assembly, there wasn't as much regional law made as there is now. So the number of laws from 05 that actually would need a review is probably pretty small.

I would instead suggest two years. It's not a too short period, nor a too long.

I'm open on this and 2 years may be well;
still, there is the "stock" of laws passed in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Should we review them throughout the first year of implementation of my proposed bill ?

Or do you intend to make the bill effective only for future statue laws ? That wouldn't be fair and would miss a big part of the aims of this reviewing.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I too think five years might be a bit too long.

As you pointed out, five years is how long Atlasia has existed at this point, a very long time in other words. Few RPGs live this long, and it is very likely that this game has long been ended at the point it's time to review the statue laws we pass today. Therefore to make the time from a laws passage to the time it will be reviewed five years, would be way too long if you ask me.   

I also believe most statue laws that was passed in the Mideast in 05 has already been changed or altered in some way or another. If we were to dig up the statue laws from then, two-thirds would most likely be afterwords amended or repealed. Not to mention that before we had an active assembly, there wasn't as much regional law made as there is now. So the number of laws from 05 that actually would need a review is probably pretty small.

I would instead suggest two years. It's not a too short period, nor a too long.

I'm open on this and 2 years may be well;
still, there is the "stock" of laws passed in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Should we review them throughout the first year of implementation of my proposed bill ?

Or do you intend to make the bill effective only for future statue laws ? That wouldn't be fair and would miss a big part of the aims of this reviewing.

I will have to look it up to be entierly sure, but considering we didn't have an assembly in 05, 06, and 07 I think the amount of statue law to review from those years are about as big as the amount from 08 when the assembly was introduced, so I think we'd be able to review all the statue laws passed those years in one year. 

I'll have to look how many statue laws from those years exactly we have however.

And no, the point of the bill is obviously to get all our old statue reviwed, so I do of course support the bill including legislation passed in previous years and not just be implamented in the future.

[big bad fab]

Pleased to hear it from you, Mr. Speaker.

The "stock" may indeed be manageable in the first year or the first 2 years.

May I add that my proposal will also be a way to (push everyone to) ensure that we've got an updated and complete list of our Laws and of their text ?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

May I add that my proposal will also be a way to (push everyone to) ensure that we've got an updated and complete list of our Laws and of their text ?

Something we truely need. Everytime I need to search for a Mideast regional law, I envy the tidy and orderly list with legislation past and present the Senate has for federal law.

 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

May I add that my proposal will also be a way to (push everyone to) ensure that we've got an updated and complete list of our Laws and of their text ?

Something we truely need. Everytime I need to search for a Mideast regional law, I envy the tidy and orderly list with legislation past and present the Senate has for federal law.

 

I know, I know - I was working on it for a bit and got about another 7% done last week, but I'm still way too far behind.  I'll work on it some today hopefully.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I have nominated Peter for the position of Superior Court Judge, whose tenure will last through the case Badger & Benconstine v. Inks.LWC

[Badger]

I have nominated Peter for the position of Superior Court Judge, whose tenure will last through the case Badger & Benconstine v. Inks.LWC

Although I believe the Governor's choice is a good one, for reasons stated by Fab and my own involvement with the case I believe I must vote:

ABSTAIN

[Peter]

Members of the Assembly,

Due to the nature of some of the discussion elsewhere, I feel I ought to elucidate my feelings on a few things.

Whilst I can never be totally sure that I have eliminated all subjective bias (we are great self-kidders after all), if appointed I will swear an additional judicial oath stating my desire to dispose of this case without regard to the identities of the parties or the political outcome of my judgement. I think in my time here I have shown that I will always put the rule of Law above my own personal feelings.

Before I received a PM from Inks asking my availability for this case, I knew little of it other than the original controversy; I had a few thoughts at the time, but fortunately I kept these to myself, and for no particular reason did I keep them to myself. Since his PM, I have read a little more into the case, naturally, but I remain open to persuasion from all parties if confirmed.

In terms of disposing of the case, if confirmed I will do my best to push arguments through quickly and to have a final opinion by the end of the weekend.

I hope this gives some feeling as to my initial thoughts, and suitability, to take the case.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I have complete trust in Peter to be an impartial and fair judge. He has a long record as a legal expert in Atlasia, for example as a Surpreme Court Justice, and I have never heard that he  would ever have been biased in any of his decissions before, so I really doubt that he's gonna start now just for a single Assembly seat.

Like the Governor, I have confidence that Peter will not allow his own political views play any part in the decission between two candidates that are both far from his own views.

Therefore I'm glad to say that I approve of the Governor's nominee.

  Aye

[big bad fab]

Our Governor has chosen and I have no reason for not trusting his good choice:

AYE

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Peter is herby confirmed as Superior Court Judge of the Mideast Region with the vote 2-0.

Good luck with the case Peter

Now, Friday is coming closer, so let's get back on topic.

[big bad fab]

Yes !

Our Governor wanted you to certify the vote on my proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights on the Right to Education.
Mayeb you should make it clear again.

And back to my bill on reviewing "old" laws: what do our fellow Assemblyman Badger think about it ?
But, Mr. Speaker you may have had other objections ?

[Badger]

Yes !

Our Governor wanted you to certify the vote on my proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights on the Right to Education.
Mayeb you should make it clear again.

And back to my bill on reviewing "old" laws: what do our fellow Assemblyman Badger think about it ?
But, Mr. Speaker you may have had other objections ?

Yes, sorry I've been a tad busy. Now my trial (uh, real world that is; Atlasian one is just beginning of course) :-) is over I hope to take a therough review of it this afternoon and post then.

[Badger]

May I add that my proposal will also be a way to (push everyone to) ensure that we've got an updated and complete list of our Laws and of their text ?

Something we truely need. Everytime I need to search for a Mideast regional law, I envy the tidy and orderly list with legislation past and present the Senate has for federal law.

 

On this we all agree.

[Badger]

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.

I have to say that I do not support this measure as it lacks either practicality or necessity.

If there are laws that are no longer effective, have outlived their puppose, or otherwise need changed it is already the full right of every Assembly member to propose the amendment or repeal of any such extraneous statutes. If there are such laws that are no longer workable, we will undoubtedly discover that either on our own or from complaints from our constituents. If a law on the books is not harming anyone and needs no change, no one complains; if the law is inhibiting Mideasterners in some unintended or unnecessary way, they report it to us quite soon I assure you.

I'm all for reviewing old laws on a case-by-case basis when there's actual concern over their continuing effectiveness, and if Fab or others additionally wish to go through old statutes individually to search for potential unreported redundancies than they are, again, wholly free to do so now. What I object to is creating a mandatory bureaucratic process that forces a needs analysis of every regional law created whether it needs it or not.

The paperwork required here seems highly burdensome: "Assessment Reports"? "Checking with every accurate administrative entity"? "Future risk analysis"? Come on, Fab--I thought conservatives wanted to reduce government paperwork and bureaucracy. ;-) this proposal, however, creates a monstrous amount of both for little more than a fishing expedition for anachronisms that bother no one.

Even in the perfect world if this could be done easily and simply I would have concerns, but in fact these "Assessment Reviews" are huge in their scope. I believe my colleagues will agree I'm not at all adverse to hard work, but the time we each would have to spend on our share of "assessment Reports" would be a dramatic drain on our time that could better spent attending to the Mideast's current problems. Even with the Assembly expanding to 5 we would likely spend at least as much time conducting assessment reviews of old legislation as we do preparing and debating new laws. To me, it's far more important the Assembly should spend its time legislating for the Mideast's future, not for it's past.

Fab, if you bring any law currently on the books before the Assembly and say "this needs to be repealed or amended because ___________", I will gladly hear you out with an open mind, and may very well agree with you too, but to create a mandatory bureaucratic scheme with mounds of reports, forms and assessments seems the height of inefficiency, quite unnecessary, and a poor use of the Assembly's time and energies which could be far better directed to addressing the region's ongoing problems.

I'll gladly continue participating in any debate here, but if you will all excuse me for the moment I have a legal brief to write.

[big bad fab]

First of all, you may know that without a "mandatory" provision, this work of reviewing won't be done, because our Atlasia is functioning in the short time, with people trying to push a bill and then go away without EVER thinking about consequences.
That's a pretty irresponsible behaviour and this bill is also aimed at tackling this problem of RESPONSIBILITY.

I've understood your attempt to put the burden of my idea on myself... but, well, I'll also stop taking part in Atlasia one day or another and this work will have to go on.
And even before I leave, I'm not better than anyone else: without a "mandatory" provision, I probably won't be able to review every statute law.

As for the "bureaucratic" critic, well, keep cool !
A report won't be many pages long... And you know that the reference to "every accurate administrative entity" is only something the Assemblyman who will review CAN do (and something virtual here).
But in real life, it would be completely normal to check with administrative entities who work on the subject or implement the law. That's not bureaucratic, that's obvious.
What my bill wants also to point is that we vote laws without any SERIOUS and PRECISE assessment before. So, we need to checl all those laws voted throughout the years, TRYING to put figures on them or "after" them as they are already in force.

As for the names of reports, well, I have to be precise in a bill and we need to know what we are talking about. Every day, we realize that we aren't precise enough (some electoral rules, for example ).

There are between 12 and 25 laws to review each year: with 5 Assemblymen, it's really doable throughout one year. Of course, there is the issue of the "stock" but it can be dealt with throughout the 2 first years of implementation.

I'd add that every legislative body (even in "small governments"....) has its own workforce, able to make risk analysis and financial assessment.
What is more, a conservative wouldn't deny that a strong legislative body is, on the contrary, good for preventing the Government to expand too much.

You know that the Assembly is already reluctant (that's not a critic, just a fact) to change laws already implemented. So, my reviewing proposal won't

And, lastly, I would say that I'm not dealing with the past. I'm just dealing with the present, as these laws are our current laws, nothing else.
As for the future, well, every Assemblyman has many ideas and I have no worry about this. But we need to know our current legislation, a result of the "past" of course, but that's what partly makes us what we are. And we need first to update, review, modify, improve, check it, before always adding new laws: that's a conservative (and common-sense) stance.
Moreover, reviewing laws currently in force will OF COURSE make new ideas emerging. So it will contribute to our future also.

My bill will also be good for the future, by the way, as, when we will vote a proposal now, we'll know that it will be reviewed and we'll try to be "better" in writing it.

These are the answers I can make, hoping I've takne into account all your points.