[SEMI-PUBLIC] The Wreckage of the General Assembly - Term XIV

[Craig Ashley]

"Gentlemen, while I appreciate the discussion, the Tax Relief and Reform Act is still on the floor, as several members of the ELP indicated they had more to say on the bill. Please limit your discussion to the bill at hand. If no one has anything to add regarding the TRRA, we can move to a vote and then proceed from there."

 

[unmerged(4021)]

Mr. Speaker, now that the Budget vote has formally concluded I will comment on the TRRA.

It is my belief that these funds should go to those who are most likely to spend the money. That would not be corporations. That would not be the rich. No, Mr. Speaker, that would be the poorest among our society. It is my belief that these funds would be well spent there and not relieving corporations of the obligations that they have to this island. Let us not forget that the wealthest and biggest among us have the most to gain by a powerful and stable Democratic government as this stablity and control protects their assests.

Mr. Speaker, I call on the President to sign the legislation and for the Minister of Finance to use his discretionary powers to allocate the tax cuts procsribed under the budget. If the bill currently under consideration passes, I call on the President to veto it and he may rest assured that he will have my vote to uphold that veto. I yield.

 

[unmerged(28894)]

"The ELP stands behind Dr Glasser on this. Our poor need a tax cut much more than the rich, that is simple logic. Moreover this tax cut would be better undertaken by the Minister of Finance. That is the view the ELP has arrived at after much discussion and I can't see us being convinced otherwise.

Moving on, I don't argue with the Admiral's view that we need checks and balances. Spoken like a true social democrat, sir. I argue with his depiction of a badly-worded subsidy as a balance. Private companies must look to themselves to support themselves. Government should only subsidise them in special circumstances, which I do not believe these are.

Now Per Florian's suggestion that we subsidise vehicles not running on fossil fuels, that I could support. I think that would be a fine recipient of R&D funds, but paying companies to achieve standards the rest of the world achieved decades ago, I do not think that would be as worthy."

 

[Carthade]

Antonin strolls into the GA, to find it completely silent.

"...."

"BOOBIES!" He shrieks, to see if they really are zombies.

OOC:

 

[Voshkod]

Without waiting for orders from the Chair, security hauls Antonin out of the chamber. "Don't disturb the zombies, sir," one whispers, "we don't want them to rampage."

 

[unmerged(28894)]

Berenguerr looks around, surprised by the silence.

In a guttural voice, he mutters "braaaaaaaaaaains!"

 

[Voshkod]

It starts with the ELP backbenchers. One of them starts tapping his pencil impatiently on his desk, waiting for something to happen. Others begin to pick it up, and then someone starts stamping his foot. The noise grows, spreads to the backbenchers from the other parties. Soon almost all of the back rows are pounding their feet or their fists, and shouting "Shame! Shame! Shame!"

 

[HJ Tulp]

"Well Per Berenguerr. It is the same as with checks and balances. You want something done, you make a law. However it financially hurts certain companies, it hurts their employees and it hurts the consumer. We have to balance that.

Furthermore, I'm deeply disappointed with the ELP. Compromise is that name of the game called democracy but it seems that the ELP wishes to play a little game of tyrany."

 

[aussieboy]

Admiral, I respect your opinions, both as a politician and as a former subordinate who has served under you in the Navy.

However, it must be said that those who need tax cuts the most is the average Eutopian. Let's face it - the big corporations can afford to lose some of its profits. It would just be a little lower. Heck, I'm willing to pay more taxes, since I actually run a corporation. However, I've told you what we want, now tell us what you want.

 

[unmerged(4021)]

Mr. Speaker, as discussions are ongoing, regardless of the ill informed statements of MGA Tulp, about a possible compromise bill, it seems foolish to hold up the work of the rest of the GA during such discussions. I am not trying to prevent a tax bill from passing, but rather trying to allow us to continue with work while the ELP and other interested parties discuss the best way to move foward on this important legislation. Therefore, I move to table the current bill until after the end of debate on the next bill on the agenda.

 

[aussieboy]

The Member for Tara North seconds Mr. Glasser's motion.

 

[unmerged(31558)]

I also second Per Glasser's motion.

 

[unmerged(35921)]

"Per Glasser, I take it you move to end debate upon the current bill? If such, your motion has recieved a second and ought to, as per the floor rules, be put to a vote to offer a ruling." [OCC: I would put a vote up, to encourage motion of the GA, seeing as Craig seems busy. However, I've got no idea if I can do that as per circumstances being only the d-Speaker.]

 

[aussieboy]

OOC: You can.

 

[unmerged(35921)]

“A vote will be held upon Per Glasser’s motion to encourage quick motion of the GA. Should Per Leary, upon his re-arrival in the Assembly tomorrow [let’s assume Colin missed a day and I’m not just trying to wake up the zombies], see fit to accept Per Glaser’s motion, the vote will be null.”

 

[unmerged(35921)]

"As per the vote on Per Glasser's motion, we move on to the next issue, which is really moving back to the Vehicle Exhaust Bill. Upon that point, I wish to speak to former comments. – I believe a 24 hour discussion period will suffice for this subject seeing as it has already received mild debate.

“Firstly, Per Berrenguer, you suggested higher standards than those of 1981. I'm not opposed to the concept of putting into practice something to the tune America's EPA 1991 standards, which cover more complex issues like gas evaporation, public transport, and refueling. However, the concept goes against the policy that I suggested earlier of slow and gradual change that will not put too much strain upon the market. If, all the same, there is support within the body for changes, I will gladly look into altering the form. Just as a note, the level of exhaust emissions noted in the original document will not likely change much in such a circumstance. Rather, more stringent standards, if my mind does not deceive me, look into the output of byproduct chemicals.

“Your fine reading of the document is further appreciated, sir; I am afraid that my ability to notice typos is rather bad. If my language in the sentence aggravates you so greatly, it may be deleted... Though, you really should not read so deeply into what words might have what synonyms attached to them. In this circumstance, some associate idealistic goals with unworkable ones. However, that is of no concern as it does not seem that either one of us apparently thinks such is the case.

“As to the tax credit, it is a merely an incentive to help keep our small auto-industry from going under too much stress during the change. If you do not mind taking the "risk", then by all means it can also be cut. I’m not in favor of the credit, it was a point added to help attain support from the worker’s advocates, like Dr. Park. Finally, as to the term proportional, I did not have a chance to introduce the bill earlier. The exact number to replace the term was one of the points I wished to touch upon.”

 

[unmerged(28894)]

"I apologise if you find my fine reading of the document aggravating. I merely want to make sure that inexact drafting does not leave us with any unexpected outcomes.

If the 1991 exhaust emission standards in the US are little more stringent than those of 1981, I see little problem in making the change. I certainly wouldn't want to imply that we can't keep up with standards issued nearly two decades before the monarchy came to an end and America has by no means the world's strictest regulations in this respect.

Insofar as the question of the subsidy is concerned, I remain sceptical about how much it would actually aid the workers, since I believe that if a company cannot keep pace with these frankly rather generous standards it is unlikely to be able to survive for long in the free market. However, if there is support for keeping them, can I propose that the section concerning subsidies is redrafted?

To that end, I've prepared an amendment to the bill. I've haven't changed the section concerning exhaust standards, but I have made a few changes with regard to the areas we have thus far discussed."

Vehicle Exhaust Regulations Bill: Berenguerr Amendment


Preface – The purpose of this bill being to establish better standards for the exhaust outputs of atomized vehicles and lay the foundation for a more environment friendly Eutopia.

Background – Emissions from single cars are generally low, relative to the smokestack image many people associate with air pollution. But in many of the country’s most populous cities, the personal automobile is the largest polluter, with the exhaust thousands of vehicles on the road adding-up. Auto emissions are by-products derived from, mostly, the burning of fuels to encourage locomotion and the evaporation of fuel itself. In “perfect” combustion oxygen in the air would convert all hydrogen in the fuel into water and all the carbon into carbon dioxide. Combustion is not, however, perfect and the average car emits several pollutants into the air that damage the environment.

Article I – Manufacturers of steam and internal combustion engines are subject to the reduction of emissions from their machinery. Machinery subject to this new standard includes automobiles, trucks, SUV's, buses, motorcycles and any other conveyance that uses such engines as well as supplemental power generators. The main focus of this act is solely upon tailpipe exhaust;

Tailpipe Exhaust – Tailpipe exhaust is usually associated as the main source of pollutants from the average observer. In order to cope with Eutopia’s lack of standards but still remain economically feasible, this bill will attempt to instate slight standards similar to those mandated within the United States as of 1981. The slightly modified standards are, thus, 0.39 gram per mile total hydrocarbons, 3.4 grams per mile carbon monoxide, 1.0 gram per mile nitrogen oxides. In forcing those reductions, the output of other measurable toxins will be reduced further.

Article II – In order to offset the cost of imposing these regulations, for the next three years, Eutopian manufactures shall be eligible for a tax credit of the value of X [As per recommendation of GA and ECB.] The credit will be granted from the month in which the new emissions standards are attained.

Article III – Those manufacturers that do not comply with the terms of this bill within a period of three years will be subjected to a fine equal to 150% of the profits they have obtained from sub-par machinery sales.

Article IV – As this bill will act only as the foundation for a continued program of environmental cleaning, which will progress as funds are allotted, manufactures might find it prudent to exceed the new exhaust specifications rather than merely meeting them.

"As you can see, this versions lacks the idealism clause and removes ambiguity about what exactly is a proportional fine. More notably, it makes significant changes to the implementation of tax credits. In this version, tax credits shall not be received until the changes have been made, encouraging manufacturers to comply as soon as possible.

I don't view this as the final stage, and would prefer further discussion before deciding if this amendment is friendly or hostile and if any further changes should be made. For example, as I understand it this bill covers only new cars. A clause covering the updating of older cars would be a welcome addition, and certainly there is a case for subsidising the changeover there."

Berenguerr pauses for a minute and looks around the General Assembly.

"Per Deputy Speaker, you are doing a fine job. However, the Vice-President, Per Leary, is conspicuous by his absence, for which he has not given a reason. I do not wish to slavishly follow procedure, but if by the time we finish debating this bill he has not reappeared, I will move that he be removed from his post because of inactivity."

 

[unmerged(35921)]

"Five days, Per Berenguerr; the Speaker's office may be declared absent after a five day absence with no notice... We are currently on day three. - As to the bill, I have said my piece and would like to hear what the rest of the body wishes."

 

[Josephus I]

The Bill is fine....a bit wordy, but fine.

I'd like to know what the ECB estimate on how much this will cost us in credits is.

How many cars do we really make in Eutopia?

How are we going to make sure that imported cars also have the same emissiions standards as ours?

 

[unmerged(31558)]

What is the point of passing a vehicle exhaust regulations bill when it doesnt place the automotive industry on a path of reform? I propose that we modify the bill to force businesses to invest significant amounts of capital and resources in developing hydrogen/electric systems. The health of the people must be protected as cited by the constitution.