The Budget

[Јas]

As I understand it, it remains a constitutional requirement for the Senate to still consider the idea of passing a budget at this time.

I believe the pertinant details are contained in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

The 4th Amendment vote shall be the first matter for discussion. That being: "The Senate must approve each and every Budget before considering any bill or constitutional amendment. However, the Senate may, by a vote of two-thirds of its number, waive this requirement."

The budget, according to the contstitution, takes precedence over other matters. No new legislation shall be introduced onto the floor until either the above motion is passed, or failing that, a budget is decided.

I am actually unsure whether any debate time is required for this vote. In a surge of vigor and decisiveness, I've decided to open the vote immediately. Objections with legal grounding will be listened to on this point though and actions may be taken accordingly.

Please vote aye, nay or abtsain on the motion.

[Brandon H]

Aye in that we continue with other Senate business while we are discussing the budget.

[Sibboleth]

Aye. The introduction of the budget into the game was one of the worst decisions we've made yet (and yes, I'm well aware that I'm partially to blame for that...)

[DownWithTheLeft]

Aye, the budget would be a giant waste of time and not interesting at all

[Vasall des Midas]

Aye.

[Keystone Phil]

Aye

[Sam Spade]

Aye.  I'm kinda with Al on this one, even though I know I was one of the main people responsible. 

I do wish that we would pass some sort of budget, but just kind of generally.  I think I'll be looking over Article 1, Section 8 to simplify the process and make it routine, rather than annoying.

[Јas]

With a vote of 6-0, being exactly two-thirds of the current Senate number, the motion passes. Senate business shall proceed as normal (or as normally as Senate business ever proceeds ).


Senators should feel free to continue using this thread to continue Budget discussion/deliberations.

[Ebowed]

Nay for the record.

[King]

Ah yes the budget.  It sounded fun until we found out there were numbers involved. Yuck.

[Former Moderate]

So, I'm willing to do some work on this, but I have no idea how to proceed.  The constitution requires we have a GM provide numbers.  Any ideas?

[Speed of Sound]

*cough* get a GM back in place and/or remove this useless piece of Atlasian oversight *cough*

[Ebowed]

remove this useless piece of Atlasian oversight

We're trying, but some Senators (mostly ones who have never had to approve an budget before) aren't happy with the idea.

[Speed of Sound]

remove this useless piece of Atlasian oversight

We're trying, but some Senators (mostly ones who have never had to approve an budget before) aren't happy with the idea.

I understand that, which is why this coughing fit was directed more towards other senators, not so much yourself and your allies in this discussion.

[Sam Spade]

The administration's willingness to turn down good ideas simply makes my position more obstinate.  As Mr. Moderate quite aptly notes, without a GM in the present system, there's no way to move forward on this even if we wanted to.

And as I've said before, without a budget, there's no real reason to play the game, except to personally attack everyone around here - which I might do, but would get bored of very quickly.

But then again, it has been the longstanding purpose of certain members of this forum to do everything within their powers to try and drive people away, eventually resulting in the final conclusion of the game.

[Former Moderate]

I don't understand why there is such staunch opposition to changing the current budget process to a simplified version when there are people here willing to take on the "chore."  Especially when its clear that there are not enough votes in the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment eliminating the budget entirely.

It seems as if people would rather see the budget totally eliminated rather than even give it a shot of working.  I understand it was a chore in the past, but I'd like to maybe have at least a chance to reform the whole process before it's scrapped forever.

I'd gladly begin work on my own version of the budget, but before I do, I'd like at least some assurance that my work won't be completely ignored, unacted on, or otherwise wholly dismissed by the "budgets are no fun" set.

[Јas]

The administration's willingness to turn down good ideas simply makes my position more obstinate.

Speaking for myself, I really didn't see how your proposal would change the system at all. I certainly don't see how it would be any easier than the current provisions allow; nor do I see how it would be possible without a GM or GM type person to provide numbers - numbers which at this stage any GM would just have to pull out of the air.

As Mr. Moderate quite aptly notes, without a GM in the present system, there's no way to move forward on this even if we wanted to.

And as I've said before, without a budget, there's no real reason to play the game, except to personally attack everyone around here - which I might do, but would get bored of very quickly.

Well, I disagree. The 'game' was set up as an election sim with a government sim attached. The focus is not, and should not, be on the budgetary process. It is a large amount of work, carried out by a small number of people, that nobody in Atlasia cares about.

But then again, it has been the longstanding purpose of certain members of this forum to do everything within their powers to try and drive people away, eventually resulting in the final conclusion of the game.

I put forward plenty of measures before the Senate that I hoped would help increase activity if I thought for one minute that producing a budget would provide some impetus I would strongly encourage its making.

[afleitch]

My own problem is as i've said before, if we abolish the budget then, as we are not keeping track of what things cost why would any Senator need to provide any bill that deals in monetary terms? If I want to propose say a £15bn tax cut, why should it matter what it costs as we won't have a budget? It means if any Senator challenges the cost I can legitimately shrug my shoulders.

I don't think that makes for good practice.

[Јas]

My own problem is as i've said before, if we abolish the budget then, as we are not keeping track of what things cost why would any Senator need to provide any bill that deals in monetary terms? If I want to propose say a £15bn tax cut, why should it matter what it costs as we won't have a budget? It means if any Senator challenges the cost I can legitimately shrug my shoulders.

I don't think that makes for good practice.

I understand and it's not an unreasonable point.

I would say though that it's asking a great deal more work from Senators to come up with realistic costings on most matters of expenditure, and it's asking the impossible to ask someone to come up with plausible tax-take projections and changes thereto when discussing changing some tax rate or other.

However, considering the fact that a budget hasn't been worked on, never mind passed, in I don't know how long - and that the game seems to be functioning fine without it, I don't accept the point that some pro-Budget speakers have made that the absence of this accounting practice renders the game worthless.

[Speed of Sound]

My own problem is as i've said before, if we abolish the budget then, as we are not keeping track of what things cost why would any Senator need to provide any bill that deals in monetary terms? If I want to propose say a £15bn tax cut, why should it matter what it costs as we won't have a budget? It means if any Senator challenges the cost I can legitimately shrug my shoulders.

I don't think that makes for good practice.

I understand and it's not an unreasonable point.

I would say though that it's asking a great deal more work from Senators to come up with realistic costings on most matters of expenditure, and it's asking the impossible to ask someone to come up with plausible tax-take projections and changes thereto when discussing changing some tax rate or other.

However, considering the fact that a budget hasn't been worked on, never mind passed, in I don't know how long - and that the game seems to be functioning fine without it, I don't accept the point that some pro-Budget speakers have made that the absence of this accounting practice renders the game worthless.

Mid 2005 is the last time we passed a budget, therefore we havent worked off a budget for about 2 years.

[Ebowed]

It seems as if people would rather see the budget totally eliminated rather than even give it a shot of working.

No offense, but it just sounds too similar to Tony Snow telling us to give the surge another chance in Iraq.

The budget process simply doesn't work.  The less often it is required, the less often you will have to hold a waiver vote.  But it won't mean that a budget is finally passed.

[Former Moderate]

It seems as if people would rather see the budget totally eliminated rather than even give it a shot of working.

No offense, but it just sounds too similar to Tony Snow telling us to give the surge another chance in Iraq.

The budget process simply doesn't work.  The less often it is required, the less often you will have to hold a waiver vote.  But it won't mean that a budget is finally passed.

The major difference here is that "Tony Snow" is the one asking to be sent to Iraq to fight the war himself without requesting a cent of government money.

[Ebowed]

These are the figures we'd be working with.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=31761.msg772559#msg772559