We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes to change the allocation of funds in the budget. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. This bill will pass as soon as the required yes votes are in, or will be defeated if unsufficient votes are reached on the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2572
Description[?]:
| Based on comments made in budget debate bill: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=187720 By all means, please add more. Got very little details in terms of spending comments. OVERALL -------------- The goal was to get spending at around 200 Billion SEK, excluding the Office of Head of Government. FOREIGN AFFAIRS -------------------------- FINANCE ------------- HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES ---------------------------------------------- We have an underfunded public health care system. Population has grown over many years and we require more medical staff to accommodate the greater population. EDUCATION AND CULTURE ---------------------------------------- SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ------------------------------------------ 13% of the government spending on a ministry that can be funded more efficiently by the private sector is useless. The proposal to reduce this to 7.5% keeps current commitments and allows for consumer-related technological advances to be mostly funded by the private sector. ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM ------------------------------------------- TRADE AND INDUSTRY --------------------------------- The extra funding would be for grants to new and current small businesses which account for more than 95% of any modern market. |
Proposals
Article 1
| Ministry | Current Budget | Old Budget | Propesed Budget |
| Head of Government | 80,000,000 SEK | 4,500,000 SEK | 4,500,000 SEK |
| Foreign Affairs | 500,000,000 SEK | 9,000,000,000 SEK | 5,000,000,000 SEK |
| Internal Affairs | 550,000,000 SEK | 10,000,000,000 SEK | 10,000,000,000 SEK |
| Finance | 600,000,000 SEK | 3,900,000,000 SEK | 3,500,000,000 SEK |
| Defence | 9,900,000,000 SEK | 40,000,000,000 SEK | 40,000,000,000 SEK |
| Justice | 5,000,000,000 SEK | 5,000,000,000 SEK | 5,000,000,000 SEK |
| Infrastructure and Transport | 15,000,000,000 SEK | 15,000,000,000 SEK | 15,000,000,000 SEK |
| Health and Social Services | 25,000,000,000 SEK | 31,000,000,000 SEK | 40,000,000,000 SEK |
| Education and Culture | 12,000,000,000 SEK | 20,000,000,000 SEK | 26,500,000,000 SEK |
| Science and Technology | 12,000,000,000 SEK | 25,000,000,000 SEK | 15,000,000,000 SEK |
| Food and Agriculture | 12,000,000,000 SEK | 20,000,000,000 SEK | 20,000,000,000 SEK |
| Environment and Tourism | 15,000,000,000 SEK | 14,000,000,000 SEK | 10,000,000,000 SEK |
| Trade and Industry | 11,000,000,000 SEK | 5,000,000,000 SEK | 10,000,000,000 SEK |
| Total | 118,630,000,000 SEK | 197,904,500,000 SEK | 200,004,500,000 SEK |
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:41:50, May 02, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | We're opposed, as it lowers budgets for two of the most important ministires. |
| Date | 05:11:59, May 02, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | Our assumptions would be the DSP is dissatisfied by the decrease in the ministries of "Foreign Affairs" and "Science and Technology". Although the Ministry is currently working on the proposal and is still in progress, we will explain in brief the reasons for the two cost cuttings. First and foremost, the goal was to maintain a similar spending value as revenue earned: 200 Billion SEK. Secondly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not maintain any commitments in terms of foreign aid. Since we have only a moderate policy as opposed to high policy of foreign aid, 4.5% of total spending is too high. We understand DSP has an attachment to such ministries however it should instruct its financial advisers to be more objective. Unless it is us who is mistaken and the DSP's advisers wish to enlighten us by explaining their superior spending policies? Dr. Jrg Felix Schumacher Minister of Finance OOC: In reality, looking at the values from USA, Canada and UK, Science and Technology is less than 1.5% for each nation in the past decade so there is a trend. Foreign Ministries are all less than 2%. |
| Date | 07:00:18, May 02, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | The amount will eventually go back up, since never does the amount we give in foreign aid stay the same to terribly long. Further more Science and technology is one of the single most important things that we need to invest massively in, lest we fall behind and have to underfund our various agencies and research. OOC: That's exactly the reason the US is fucked up to, people are more concerned with buying their SUV's and forcing their religious garbage on everyone else. I'm starting to think maybe Technocracy is'nt such a bad thing anymore. |
| Date | 08:57:47, May 02, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | [[For what it's worth, the (NY) Times ran an article today about how many people in Europe are starting to realize that their qualitfy of life will be lower than that of their parents. Hurrah for Socialism! The US may seem bad, but its current recession is minimal, and it's not suffering really any of the problems significantly which are causing big problems in many other countries right now.]] While we agree with the general shift of funds (mostly), we dislike the massive increases to Social Services & Trade and Industry (especially the latter), dislike the massive decrease to Science and Technology, and oppose overall. Part of our reasons for opposing is that this would increase the overall tax burden on Sekowo. If this budget were cut by about 5B SEK, we would support, particularly if some of the Industry/Social Services funds were redirected to Technology. |
| Date | 18:37:09, May 02, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | DSP, if the Minister of Foreign Affairs can list our agreements with our allies, then I see no reason to honour it. NPP, the shift from science to industry should be more favourable to the views of NPP. The intention was to subsidized grants to new small businesses which generally account for over 95% of any modern market. And allow the private sector to fund investment based on demand and not government intervention. OOC: <grumbles> Next time, I am writing everything in Word before posting! Hopefully I can remember. =D I disagree with DSP about the US being messed up because they lack Science funding? That's silly. In most Western countries (I can't think of any that doesn't), science funding is privately acquired. Companies make the investment, not the government. NPP, ja, it's true. Social spending is good but it has to have limits. There are flaws with the EU. It's not taking full advantage of the US situation as it could. However, in 2009, when the US stabilizes, things should improve for you guys. |
| Date | 00:46:56, May 03, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | OOC: The United States was one of the most technologically advanced countries on the planet because we put alot of funding into science and technology, now look at us, we've slipped backwards greatly, Japan is currently the most advanced country (which I have no problem with) and China is most likely going to gain super power status in the next 30 years because of all the money they put into science and technology among other things. As for funding of science while it is done by private groups, it is also funded by the government, IE space agencies and grants to universities and other scientific organizations. As for quality of life, everyone in every country is going to experience that since we became consumerist whores after WW2, and when it comes down to it, society can not function like that, our resources are finite, and we're seeing the results of trying to live like that, many of our major resources are either peaking, or have already done so and our becoming less abundant and therefore more expensive, causing what is perceived as a lower quality of life. |
| Date | 08:50:10, May 03, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | [[Actually, DSP, the US government puts more money into science and technology than it ever has. What we have now is more federal restrictions on technology, longer copyrights, more subsidies at the federal level. This is one of the reasons Cuba has just changed its agricultural policycontrolling Agriculture at the federal level was creating so much inefficiency that it was impossible to deny for them. [[China is currently not developing new technologies, for the most part. They are simply using the technologies which already exist, and making them cheaper (because they have fewer regulations on work)labour is cheaper, materials can be acquired for less, etc. Name three significant inventions put out by China in the last 60 years, eh? [[And, for what it's worth, the recession may be near its end. Gas prices are down, Wall street has been doing rather well. Some people are saying that things are now looking up, etc. At least the cost of food isn't rising 4x as fast as average incomes in the US, as it is in France, eh?]] [[CP: Actually, a huge chunk (I want to say "most", but I don't have a specific statistic) of modern innovation in the West happens at Universities, and a lot of that is funded by government grants. Some of it is indeed private, but a lot of it is federal. It didn't used to be this way, but it is now.]] Spending money on industry wont help technology at all, but may help the economy. Spending money on industry would be like subsidizing solar panel construction, giving tax refunds to small corporations, etc. Generally, this stuff works against a free market, though it is sometimes very beneficial. We see no reason to raise federal spending. We are opposed for that reason, and those previously given. |
| Date | 08:52:36, May 03, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | [[Somewhat disjointed, I was going to say with that 1st paragraph that we now have MORE government involvement, and not less (but generally NOT in the anti-monopoly way which is most effective for growth), and if there is any reason for a regression, then that's exactly it.]] |
| Date | 10:20:20, May 03, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | OOC: I did'nt mean they produce lots of new technology and science, rather that they put more into existing stuff and improving on that, hence China being the third nation to put a person into space by itself, though I won't be that surprised to see some major sci/tech breakthrough come out of China in the next 20 years. |
| Date | 00:41:43, May 04, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | OOC: NPP, I agree that much of advancements are made at university but I disagree on that most is funded by government. Pick any major company and look at it's R&D budget (especially in tech industry), it's private funding due to competition. Granted that many of the methods used to make an iPod were developed at universities however, iPods were engineered through fund of Apple Inc., not the U.S. government. If the U.S. government did have any part, I'm really hoping you elect an improved guy next time. In Quebec, almost all our research projects (in engineering and computer science) are co-funded by private sector. Only one of my friends (reducing noise pollution over wireless transmissions) is not funded by a company. DSP, first off, Japan only has 2.88% of their spending on science funding. Careful next time before stating incorrect facts. Therefore, the proposed budget allowance of 7.5% of spending is not unreasonable. Far from it. DSP, second off, China's ambition in the space race is related to defence. It's a show of might, not of intelligence. The money for those ventures are from the defence budget, not a science budget. China's economy is based on cheap mass manufacturing of existing goods. The day China gives pharmaceutical advances to the world or eliminates toxins in children's toys, maybe then can you boast that China is a leader in development. |
| Date | 00:59:18, May 04, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | As well, I forgot to mention, related to Health & Social Services, if we can find way to increase funding for it, then Sekowo can not support a free public health system. |
| Date | 01:48:42, May 04, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | ... If we can't find .... |
| Date | 06:15:54, May 04, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | [[The government still pours an awful lot into technology, at least in the US. I didn't disagree that much/most of the funding comes from private sources, however.]] |
| Date | 07:04:37, May 04, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | OOC: NPP, you are only thinking in absolute amounts. Think of it in terms of percentage of the whole. U.S. budgeted 0.9% of its spending on Science and Technology in 2006 and 0.8% in 2007. I'm reducing Sekowo's spending down to 7.5% of total spending. Still 9 times higher than the U.S. and the U.S. already spends an "awful lot". Imagine 9 times that amount. |
| Date | 08:04:31, May 04, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | [[I don't necessarily disagree. But that money should not be redirected elsewhere]] |
| Date | 08:06:45, May 04, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | OOC: I did'nt mean Japan spends more, I was just stating the facts, Japan is the most advanced country. As for China, it does'nt really matter where the money comes from, if it is being put into sci/tech, it still counts. Anyways, China will most likely become a superpower, not because it makes breakthroughs, but because it has cheap, unregulated labour and spends (unofficially) half as much annually on it's military as the US does, and as times goes by will be able to spend even more. Oh, also DARPA gets 3.2 billion a year, and while they are technically a defence agency, they are focused more on just scientific R&D, not actually making the military versions of it. Not sure if you counted them. |
| Date | 18:56:00, May 04, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | OOC: NPP, I'm just basing on normal economic policy. Trade and Industry in every major country of the world has a larger sum than Science & Tech. If you don't think it should be redirected elsewhere, then the other Ministries have to increase accordingly which I know you wouldn't like. DSP, it depends at what. Arguably, in cellphones, of course any developed country outside North America (I always import my telephones from Europe) is ahead with Japan leading the way. In pharmaceuticals, Switzerland leads there. In military aerospace, US leads. Calling one nation the most advanced country is pointless because that's impossible to determine. A nation can only lead categories. DSP, I can't find any bill with regards to DARPA getting 3.2 billion a year. |
| Date | 03:23:36, May 05, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | OOC: Wiki it, DARPA is the Defence Advanced Research Agency. DARPA has gien us lots of things, including the Internet. |
| Date | 03:26:06, May 05, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | OOC: I did wikia for DARPA and didn't find anything. That's why I asked. |
| Date | 03:46:11, May 05, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | OOC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA Sorry, I emant Wikipedia, not Wikia, DARP is an agency of the United States, not Sekowo. |
| Date | 04:23:49, May 05, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | We are currently unlikely to support any proposal which increases the scope of government at this time. |
| Date | 07:08:59, May 05, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | Okay. So, this spending proposal will fail. What do the majority parties want instead? The aim is to make a nice round 200 billion excluding the Office of HoG. OOC: =D Sorry, Iori. I thought you meant a Sekowan agency. In 2007, the U.S. budgeted about 25 billion per year on Science & Tech. They also have a spending budget of 2,900 billion. |
| Date | 07:31:14, May 06, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | OOC: Putting this to a vote to get more comments on how people want things changed. |
| Date | 23:08:19, May 06, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | My preferences; -Higher Foreign Affairs. -Higher Sci-Tech. -Having a budget in which the last nine digits are zeroes. |
| Date | 05:47:35, May 07, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Sekowan Budget Spending Proposal of 2570 |
| Message | To DSP: -that might be fine -No. Already proved why its not going higher -I agree but that requires HoG to be 1 billion SEK budget. We can transform it into an office similar to the U.K. to justify the increase. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 289 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 203 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 108 |
| Random fact: Each user account may only be used by the player who set it up. Handing over an account to another player is not allowed. |
| Random quote: "Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil." - Niccolo Machiavelli |