-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
We have space for two voting lobbies to be open simultaneously, if you don't mind, Mr. Acting-Speaker. What is next on the agenda?
I'm going to jump in here and assume the Economic Recovery and Tax Reform Act would be next. It is next chronologically speaking and it has already recieved a second.
Per Park, my staff and I have investigated your proposed changes. Quite frankly, I'm impressed. Your revisions are superior to my original proposal, as they close the potential for clever accounting to avoid paying any taxes. I'll happily adopt these changes. My staff also tells me that these changes will not affect the projected economic and revenue growth.
Per Park, my staff and I have investigated your proposed changes. Quite frankly, I'm impressed. Your revisions are superior to my original proposal, as they close the potential for clever accounting to avoid paying any taxes. I'll happily adopt these changes. My staff also tells me that these changes will not affect the projected economic and revenue growth.
Also, I'd like to submit the following bills for consideration. Please note the ECB has only published a fiscal impact report for the Veteran's Pension Act, all of the other reports are pending.
1. The Infrastructure Expansion Act
2. The Shipping, Transportation, and Maritime Construction Stimulus Bill
3. The Revised Worker's Rights Bill
4. The Clean Eutopia Act
5. The Veteran's Pension Act
6. The Equal Rights Amendment
1. The Infrastructure Expansion Act
2. The Shipping, Transportation, and Maritime Construction Stimulus Bill
3. The Revised Worker's Rights Bill
4. The Clean Eutopia Act
5. The Veteran's Pension Act
6. The Equal Rights Amendment
I would thank the Acting Speaker for opening the voting on the dividend tax reform bill, which I believe had been sufficiently debated, but would ask him to also open voting on the Emergency Industrial Administration Bill as well. It is the most time sensitive of the three, and judging by the progress of debate on the floor, which seems to have moved onto another topic, is ready for a vote now as well.
Mr. Leary has seen fit to propose six additional bills at once, a twist on a concern of the largest party, as this could be described fillibuster of legislation, rather than a fillibuster of amendments. We could spend the rest of this term debating these proposals, so I would ask the acting speaker to interrupt the sequence of consideration whenever a bill from a larger party is proposed. I don't mean to say that these proposals should always be last in line, but rather that he has just had two bills debated which are being voted on, and I, as a legislator from the ELP have had one, so if a legislator from the ENP or MRP should propose some legislation, it would courteous to consider that as soon as the debate on whatever it was concluded, or sooner if it were emergency legislation. If it were only he and I proposing bills, then if the ECB fiscal impact were completed, then alternance rather than chronological order of submission would be preferable. The Minister of Social Services has proposed a rearrangement of the budget for his department, as is his right. I believe we should consider that first.
Awaiting a ruling from the Acting Speaker, I have some comments on some of Mr. Leary's bills. The first was on infrastructure expansion. I am in favor of infrastructure expansion. I said so in the campaign. The budget we passed included funds for infrastructure expansion. This bill appears to add another 1% for interprovincial highway construction. Given how contentious the budget process was, I am not sure that it is a good idea to revisit that matter at this time. Much of the rest of the bill specifies which interprovincial highway routes should be added, which airports should be expanded, and which ports should be improved. I believe this is properly within the authority of the Minister of the Interior, and that we should allow him to do his work, rather than insist where to spend his budget. If Mr. Leary is unsatisfied with the performance of the Minister of the Interior, he could propose his impeachment, which I would oppose. I do not know whether Mr. Leary has discussed his plans with the Minister of the Interior, but that might be appropriate first, to see what he is planning and what portions of the Mr. Leary's plans he might accept. After that, he could return with a stripped down bill, authorizing taxes to support airport expansion, or any other items require legislative approval.
Awaiting a ruling from the Acting Speaker, I have some comments on some of Mr. Leary's bills. The first was on infrastructure expansion. I am in favor of infrastructure expansion. I said so in the campaign. The budget we passed included funds for infrastructure expansion. This bill appears to add another 1% for interprovincial highway construction. Given how contentious the budget process was, I am not sure that it is a good idea to revisit that matter at this time. Much of the rest of the bill specifies which interprovincial highway routes should be added, which airports should be expanded, and which ports should be improved. I believe this is properly within the authority of the Minister of the Interior, and that we should allow him to do his work, rather than insist where to spend his budget. If Mr. Leary is unsatisfied with the performance of the Minister of the Interior, he could propose his impeachment, which I would oppose. I do not know whether Mr. Leary has discussed his plans with the Minister of the Interior, but that might be appropriate first, to see what he is planning and what portions of the Mr. Leary's plans he might accept. After that, he could return with a stripped down bill, authorizing taxes to support airport expansion, or any other items require legislative approval.
As to the Veterans Pension Act, I would prefer to see that be a part of the increase already approved for the defense budget, rather than as an additional increase in that area.
Finally, I don't think so-called Equal Rights Amendment as written would accomplish what the Party of Liberty has as a plank in their platform. Marriage is well established a being between a man and a woman. The wording of that amendment does not change that precedent or understanding. Men and women, straight, gay, or other, already have the right to marry someone of the other sex, and if married, to divorce, to be considered as adoptive parents, to own property in common, and to inherit from the person to which they were married. Thus the only impact of this amendment, unless the definition of marriage is also changed, would be to outlaw private employers from discriminating on the basis of sex in matters of pay, as the constitution already prevents the government from doing so. Mr. Leary has attempted to dress up contentious idea in noble wording, but failed to get unambigiously to the point of what he was attempting. Our Constitution is not the place for ambiguities. Please withdraw that version and write what you mean more explicitly.
Finally, I don't think so-called Equal Rights Amendment as written would accomplish what the Party of Liberty has as a plank in their platform. Marriage is well established a being between a man and a woman. The wording of that amendment does not change that precedent or understanding. Men and women, straight, gay, or other, already have the right to marry someone of the other sex, and if married, to divorce, to be considered as adoptive parents, to own property in common, and to inherit from the person to which they were married. Thus the only impact of this amendment, unless the definition of marriage is also changed, would be to outlaw private employers from discriminating on the basis of sex in matters of pay, as the constitution already prevents the government from doing so. Mr. Leary has attempted to dress up contentious idea in noble wording, but failed to get unambigiously to the point of what he was attempting. Our Constitution is not the place for ambiguities. Please withdraw that version and write what you mean more explicitly.
Would Mr. Leary be so good as to select the bill which he wishes to be presented first?
"Well, I believe the Minister of Social Services proposed budget changes should be the next thing discussed. All motions on the floor lack a second, and his was the first submitted. As to the order of my bills, I wish for them to be considered in the order I submitted them. (OOC: Just follow the numbering)"
"That said, I'd like to address some of the issues raised by Per Park. I'll start with his concerns regarding the Infrastructure Expansion Act. First off, I have no interest in impeaching the sitting minister. However, there is plenty of precedence regarding the legislative body specifically outlining tasks for various cabinet level ministries to perform. Specifically relating to infrastructure, the Airport Expansion act of Term IV specifically named New Lancaster as the location of the expansion. The freeway bill also laid out the specific routes of our existing freeway system. As to changing the budget, such an expansion comes at a cost. The only alternatives are to rely strictly on local taxes and levies or to force the Minister of the Interior to radically underfund other areas of the Land Transportation budget. I find both of these alternatives to be less than appealing. I'd also add the Narcotics Bill calls for an adjustment of the budget, but no one has protested that clause."
"On to the Veteran's Pension Act, it was intended that the increase come from the already allocated budget. Looking at the bill now, I can see how the wording is not entirely clear and I'll adjust it.
"Yes, many of the rights you list are given to both homosexuals and heterosexuals, however, they are subject to revision by this body on a simple majority vote. An amendment would go further towards protecting those rights. However, you may have a point regarding my use of the term marriage and its legal implications. A court could concievably rule that marriage is defined as a man and a woman and this amendment grants homosexuals the right to marry someone of the opposite sex - hardly my intent. Perhaps, Per Park, you have a suggestion to clear up this ambiguity, unless of course you object to the intent of the proposed amendment."
"That said, I'd like to address some of the issues raised by Per Park. I'll start with his concerns regarding the Infrastructure Expansion Act. First off, I have no interest in impeaching the sitting minister. However, there is plenty of precedence regarding the legislative body specifically outlining tasks for various cabinet level ministries to perform. Specifically relating to infrastructure, the Airport Expansion act of Term IV specifically named New Lancaster as the location of the expansion. The freeway bill also laid out the specific routes of our existing freeway system. As to changing the budget, such an expansion comes at a cost. The only alternatives are to rely strictly on local taxes and levies or to force the Minister of the Interior to radically underfund other areas of the Land Transportation budget. I find both of these alternatives to be less than appealing. I'd also add the Narcotics Bill calls for an adjustment of the budget, but no one has protested that clause."
"On to the Veteran's Pension Act, it was intended that the increase come from the already allocated budget. Looking at the bill now, I can see how the wording is not entirely clear and I'll adjust it.
"Yes, many of the rights you list are given to both homosexuals and heterosexuals, however, they are subject to revision by this body on a simple majority vote. An amendment would go further towards protecting those rights. However, you may have a point regarding my use of the term marriage and its legal implications. A court could concievably rule that marriage is defined as a man and a woman and this amendment grants homosexuals the right to marry someone of the opposite sex - hardly my intent. Perhaps, Per Park, you have a suggestion to clear up this ambiguity, unless of course you object to the intent of the proposed amendment."
"Also, to address Per Park's concerns about a "legislative fillibuster", I'd simply point out a few facts. First, the nature of my proposed bills is not frivolous or geared towards grinding the legislative process to a halt, which what a fillibuster is meant to do. If my proposals were clearly meant to waste time and obstruct other legislation from being discussed, the Speaker would be correct to rule them out of order and dismiss them from the floor."
"Second, I haven't sat in this body any longer than any other member. We've all had the same amount of time to create, research, and propose legislation. I fail to see any inherent unfairness in my proposing several pieces of legitimate legislation at once. Quite frankly, I've spent a great deal of time in creating these proposals. The fact that I got to the floor first with them should be rewarded, not punished."
"That said, currently all of these proposals lack a second and only one has a published impact report from the ECB. I would agree that my proposals would be superceded at this time by any bill that meets both requirements. Furthermore, if emergency legislation of a time sensative nature came along, I would be perfefctly willing to allow it to be debated on the floor ahead of my proposals. Per Park, you'll note my swift response to your proposed emergency act and my joining you in a call for an equally swift vote."
"Per Park, I'd also like to address another of yoru concerns regarding the infrastructure bill that slipped my mind. I have not consulted with the minister personally, but the infrastructure bill is based on the findings of several reports published by the MoI and previous equivalent offices. I'd be happy to share them with this body, or with any legislator who requests them."
"Second, I haven't sat in this body any longer than any other member. We've all had the same amount of time to create, research, and propose legislation. I fail to see any inherent unfairness in my proposing several pieces of legitimate legislation at once. Quite frankly, I've spent a great deal of time in creating these proposals. The fact that I got to the floor first with them should be rewarded, not punished."
"That said, currently all of these proposals lack a second and only one has a published impact report from the ECB. I would agree that my proposals would be superceded at this time by any bill that meets both requirements. Furthermore, if emergency legislation of a time sensative nature came along, I would be perfefctly willing to allow it to be debated on the floor ahead of my proposals. Per Park, you'll note my swift response to your proposed emergency act and my joining you in a call for an equally swift vote."
"Per Park, I'd also like to address another of yoru concerns regarding the infrastructure bill that slipped my mind. I have not consulted with the minister personally, but the infrastructure bill is based on the findings of several reports published by the MoI and previous equivalent offices. I'd be happy to share them with this body, or with any legislator who requests them."
I second the bill proposed by the Minister of Social Services reallocating his budget. I also second the Veteran's Pension Act, now that the source of the funding has been clarified.
Mr. Leary, I also believe, as an ordained Presbyterian minister, that marriage is between a man and a woman, so you will have to come up with your own modification.
Mr. Leary, I also believe, as an ordained Presbyterian minister, that marriage is between a man and a woman, so you will have to come up with your own modification.
Well, since the minister's proposed budget changes now have a second, I suggest we move discussion tot hat matter. Also the Veteran's Pension Act has a second and a fiscal impact report. I suspect that this bill will not generate a large amount of discussion, but if anyone has anything to say please speak up, if not, we can move to a vote there.
As to the minister's proposed changes, I think we should hear the reasoning behind these proposed changes before we pass judgment. Obviously, the minister's objective is to increase funding for Welfare and balance the change by trimming Omnicare, Sports, and Research.
A few questions, if I may, Mr. Minister. Why do you feel that welfare needs such an increase? I also should point out that your proposed figure of 14.3% of the budget represents a 1.3% increase, not a 2.3% increase. This clerical error might lead the minister to reconsider some of his proposed cuts. That said, why were Omnicare, Sports, and Research singled out for cuts, and how will these cuts affect those departments?
As to the minister's proposed changes, I think we should hear the reasoning behind these proposed changes before we pass judgment. Obviously, the minister's objective is to increase funding for Welfare and balance the change by trimming Omnicare, Sports, and Research.
A few questions, if I may, Mr. Minister. Why do you feel that welfare needs such an increase? I also should point out that your proposed figure of 14.3% of the budget represents a 1.3% increase, not a 2.3% increase. This clerical error might lead the minister to reconsider some of his proposed cuts. That said, why were Omnicare, Sports, and Research singled out for cuts, and how will these cuts affect those departments?
I would like to hear the Minister's explanations as well, although I approve of the restoration of the prior cuts to welfare. It is one thing to announce something like that well in advance, but another to have to cast someone off the roll immediately.
As we all know the Ministry has been put under great finical stress recently. Now the reason made this bill was for the ministry to be able to fix the welfare problem by its self or at least aid in fixing the problem so while that 1.3 increase look's little on paper it means a great deal to those sitting out on the streets.
The reason why I chose the Omnicare Sports and Research department's was that they were l the departments which I felt comfortable with the withdrawing of funding. The sports department's funding was cut as by with the introduction of the Eutopian Institute of sport national sports basically look after them selves.
While Omnicare and Research the cuts which I took of for them were relatively minor and should not pose any problems.
The reason why I chose the Omnicare Sports and Research department's was that they were l the departments which I felt comfortable with the withdrawing of funding. The sports department's funding was cut as by with the introduction of the Eutopian Institute of sport national sports basically look after them selves.
While Omnicare and Research the cuts which I took of for them were relatively minor and should not pose any problems.
Thank-you, Minister. If this bill doesn't pass, what will happen? What will the impact be on current welfare recipients?
Well I am currently working with Mr Hapsburgs charity well will be working with If I can find him. Which will be needed In order to minimise the damage except the problem which I see is that we will not be able to completely help those who were aided by welfare in the Leveage years. Which still means that their shall be some that will be left behind but also even if this bill does pass we still will not be able to help every one.
But with the immidate effects of the bill if it does not get passed the social services ministry will not beable to support the group that got struck off the wealfare role, also it will have to become even more selective than it all ready is as we have to make sure that the limited funds are going to where it is really needed, and also we will also most likey have to lower the amount of money given out to indivaduals through wealfare.
But with the immidate effects of the bill if it does not get passed the social services ministry will not beable to support the group that got struck off the wealfare role, also it will have to become even more selective than it all ready is as we have to make sure that the limited funds are going to where it is really needed, and also we will also most likey have to lower the amount of money given out to indivaduals through wealfare.
"Actually I don't know about the problems on the Ministry Major Braxton. Furthermore, why don't you lower the amount of money allocated for people without jobs? Is there even a sollicitation-duty for jobless people? Wouldn't lowering the amount of people result in less jobless people?
Per Leary, I would like to expand the Veteran Pension Bill to a Veteran Bill. What about a 2-day National Holiday? The first one, commemoration day, would remember all the people, civilians and military people, that died in service of our nation. The second day would celebrate our Veterans and our Nation as a whole."
Per Leary, I would like to expand the Veteran Pension Bill to a Veteran Bill. What about a 2-day National Holiday? The first one, commemoration day, would remember all the people, civilians and military people, that died in service of our nation. The second day would celebrate our Veterans and our Nation as a whole."
"I'm curious is the minister has any actual reports to support his assertations. The fact is, this General Assembly and President both supported welfare cuts. I would guess the fiscal stress you refer to is the expected rise in heating costs this winter. I would agree it may be wise for the government to discuss increasing funding to help the unfortunate during this time. However, I seriously doubt that an increase of 1.3% of all federal spending is needed to cover this one time expense."
"Also, does the minister have any reports covering the impact of his proposed cuts. What research projects would be cut by the reduced funding? How will Omnicare be affected? Considering it was already cut when the budget was passed, would a second, deeper cut really be a wise decision without some serious look at how Omnicare operates?"
"Per Tulp, I think the holidays you proposed are an excellent idea. However, I don't think they are really connected the Veteran's Pension Act. I would favor the crafting of a new bill to address your proposal. Of course, I would welcome you to craft the bill, since it was your idea, or if you prefer, I could set my office to the task."
"Also, does the minister have any reports covering the impact of his proposed cuts. What research projects would be cut by the reduced funding? How will Omnicare be affected? Considering it was already cut when the budget was passed, would a second, deeper cut really be a wise decision without some serious look at how Omnicare operates?"
"Per Tulp, I think the holidays you proposed are an excellent idea. However, I don't think they are really connected the Veteran's Pension Act. I would favor the crafting of a new bill to address your proposal. Of course, I would welcome you to craft the bill, since it was your idea, or if you prefer, I could set my office to the task."
Well I ca't say much at the time being but if you wish I shall send the bill up to the ECB to be checked out. and no this bill is one which I should of made ages ago as we need to help the people who where suddenly taken off the wealfare roles due to the budget cuts. Also regarding the support to the Budget cuts I have been assured by the president that he shall support the bill if it gets passed, also I am sure members of the GA and members of the public would prefer to have their social service welfare function on its own instead of having to rely on the support of a private charity.
Though in saying that I am by no means saying that I do not wish to have the support of Mr Hapsburgs charity I am merly saying that is surly a bad time when the governemnt can't even look after its own people by it's self.
Though in saying that I am by no means saying that I do not wish to have the support of Mr Hapsburgs charity I am merly saying that is surly a bad time when the governemnt can't even look after its own people by it's self.
Would it be fair to say that you aren't opposed to eventual welfare cuts, but that sudden cuts would mean particularly cruel cuts, that could lead to deaths, would be made before alternatives could have been arranged? That the welfare budget might be trimmed next term, as the rate of spending later in this term would expected to be lower, with some of the changes you are implementing? If so please sketch out what is being implemented.
Or are you just undoing the budget cuts for welfare, as there are better areas to trim expenses? I which case, please explain what will be cut regarding Omnicare.
Or are you just undoing the budget cuts for welfare, as there are better areas to trim expenses? I which case, please explain what will be cut regarding Omnicare.