2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Law'd)

[MasterJedi]

Well PS wanted to defend it before it went to a vote. So defend it now before I open up the vote after work.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

(Warning: The following post was made under extreme sleep deprivation and may be slightly rambling.)

I find this amendment unnecessary and it sets a nasty precedent. By this logic we should now include clauses giving regions the option of holding an up or down vote on any spending bill, if not all legislation.

We already have proposals that go through such a process; Constitutional amendments. And regions are more free to take legislation to court or act on their own. Encouraging regions to vote on every single piece of budgeting is not how you run a country. This amendment is useless and serves no purpose other than pro-regional showmanship and to give anarchists a chance to throw a cog in the wheels.

Purple State's question earlier was something like "Could silence be taken as rejection of money?"

Um.. No. That's not what happens with every piece of legislation and how every other system like this in the world governs as well. I can't imagine how anyone could think that question even needed to be asked. We implement a program, and it's run. We budget money to a goal, and it's sent out. In what world, and by what crooked interpretation, does not holding referendum over an issue imply rejection?

We are representatives of the people and as such this amendment is, as I said unnecessary and just mind boggling as to why it was even presented. We do not govern by referenda here.

[Purple State]

Thanks Jedi.

The idea behind the amendment is the same as it was when this body passed the Help Atlasia Study Act. While certain money can be apportioned beyond the regions (such as Medicare), much funding is region specific, meaning it is up to the regional legislatures/people to choose if and how to spend the money. If we apportion the money to the regions, but the regions never act to use it, can we assume it was ever spent at all?

This amendment fills that gap, saying that if they don't actively accept or reject it after two months, it is automatically accepted and apportioned.

[tmthforu94]

Thanks Jedi.

The idea behind the amendment is the same as it was when this body passed the Help Atlasia Study Act. While certain money can be apportioned beyond the regions (such as Medicare), much funding is region specific, meaning it is up to the regional legislatures/people to choose if and how to spend the money. If we apportion the money to the regions, but the regions never act to use it, can we assume it was ever spent at all?

This amendment fills that gap, saying that if they don't actively accept or reject it after two months, it is automatically accepted and apportioned.

So basically, we'd just be giving money to each region, which they get to decide how to spend? Personally, I think if the region is silent about it after 2 months, it should be stripped from the region, and distributed to the other 4 regions.

[Purple State]

Thanks Jedi.

The idea behind the amendment is the same as it was when this body passed the Help Atlasia Study Act. While certain money can be apportioned beyond the regions (such as Medicare), much funding is region specific, meaning it is up to the regional legislatures/people to choose if and how to spend the money. If we apportion the money to the regions, but the regions never act to use it, can we assume it was ever spent at all?

This amendment fills that gap, saying that if they don't actively accept or reject it after two months, it is automatically accepted and apportioned.

So basically, we'd just be giving money to each region, which they get to decide how to spend? Personally, I think if the region is silent about it after 2 months, it should be stripped from the region, and distributed to the other 4 regions.

No. There is money in the bill that gives the regions leeway in how to spend it.

Also, some regions are simply not active enough to "accept" or "reject" the funding, so it is better that it just be considered accepted if a region does not act.

[afleitch]

Thanks Jedi.

The idea behind the amendment is the same as it was when this body passed the Help Atlasia Study Act. While certain money can be apportioned beyond the regions (such as Medicare), much funding is region specific, meaning it is up to the regional legislatures/people to choose if and how to spend the money. If we apportion the money to the regions, but the regions never act to use it, can we assume it was ever spent at all?

This amendment fills that gap, saying that if they don't actively accept or reject it after two months, it is automatically accepted and apportioned.

So basically, we'd just be giving money to each region, which they get to decide how to spend? Personally, I think if the region is silent about it after 2 months, it should be stripped from the region, and distributed to the other 4 regions.

No. There is money in the bill that gives the regions leeway in how to spend it.

Also, some regions are simply not active enough to "accept" or "reject" the funding, so it is better that it just be considered accepted if a region does not act.

I would consider it most unusual for a region to reject 'free money' allocated to it by federal government; in rejecting it they do not gain anything in return as I am assuming funding is comeing from fairly uniform federal taxation. For example we do not say 'don't want $50bn?, here have a $50bn tax cut'; we simply claim it back and divide up amongst the rest.

In a sense we aren't really giving regions a choice are we? They don't 'gain' anything by rejecting funding.

[Lief 🗽]

I agree with Marokai's argument here. What other bills has this Senate ever passed that required the individual approval of the regions? At the end of the day, the Senate has its spending domain and the regions have theirs; if a region believes that the Senate has overstepped their "spending domain" under the constitution with this bill, then they may bring their case to the courts.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I agree with President Lief, surprisingly.

[afleitch]

I agree with President Lief, surprisingly.

As do I. As I mentioned, there is nothing granted in 'return' (like lower taxes or a lower contribution to the 'federal pot') for a region rejecting all or some of the funding; so why would they? I think that makes the amendment unnecessary.

[Purple State]

I would just like to point out that the Help Atlasia Study Act of 2009 did give the regions certain leeway in dispensing of funds. How about we bring the language of the amendment to this instead:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This lets the regions actually make the contracts that they are supposed to be able to, but makes sure that they don't take money for infrastructure and use it for other purposes. Is that better?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Why? Why is this necessary? You're not explaining why we need to give regions the say in where this money goes. This bill is very detailed and the money is going to very specific things, what "leeway" could they possibly need?

Besides, we're giving regions financial aid, which is general money to spend where necessary, which is enough leeway. Regions can hold this vote if they so desire, they don't need a clause in the bill to tell them to.

And again, one bill giving regions some leeway in where to spend it is not the equivalent of giving regions the opportunity to reject it. I have no idea why you're pushing so hard to attach regional strings.

[Purple State]

Alright, seeing as I'm unlikely to gain traction with this, I withdraw the amendment for the sake of letting this move forward in a timely fashion.

[MasterJedi]

This is the last amendment then, debate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Is that Afleitch's? I believe I accepted that, unless someone else objected and I didn't notice or he specifically laid it out for a vote.

[MasterJedi]

Is that Afleitch's? I believe I accepted that, unless someone else objected and I didn't notice or he specifically laid it out for a vote.

I missed that you accepted it as friendly so yeah, it's in there since I don't think anyone objected. So then, I'll give this until tomorrow morning for any other amendments. If not we can get a final vote started.

[MaxQue]

Clause 1a has a real problem. Medicaid is abolished by the healthcare bill.

True, although it only phases it out slowly, while this is a short-term solution. But it is a good cocnern, so how about this amendment, offered as friendly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Accepted, though I doubt it will be a major problem either way, as the health care bill transfers everything from those programs to the new program.

You forgot that friendly amendment, MasterJedi.

[Franzl]

Could someone maybe summarize really shortly what has been going on here....? If it's not too much trouble....This thread is damn long....

I don't need precise details...

[Purple State]

Could someone maybe summarize really shortly what has been going on here....? If it's not too much trouble....This thread is damn long....

I don't need precise details...

We have a stimulus bill without Buy America, with about $1 trillion worth of funding, promoting shovel-ready projects, and possibly under threat that the Filthy South (they renamed?) won't accept some funding.

It also promotes renewable energy reforms.

[Franzl]

OK, thanks PS.

What happened to the auto industry?

[Marokai Backbeat]

OK, thanks PS.

What happened to the auto industry?

Increased the "emergency loans" as they were pitifully low.

[Franzl]

OK, thanks PS.

What happened to the auto industry?

Increased the "emergency loans" as they were pitifully low.

So I take it the nationalization is completely out of the picture?

[Marokai Backbeat]

OK, thanks PS.

What happened to the auto industry?

Increased the "emergency loans" as they were pitifully low.

So I take it the nationalization is completely out of the picture?

It is indeed.

[Franzl]

OK, thanks PS.

What happened to the auto industry?

Increased the "emergency loans" as they were pitifully low.

So I take it the nationalization is completely out of the picture?

It is indeed.

Alright, thanks!

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up a final vote on the bill below. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye