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: Budget proposal of July 4218
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Republican 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: July 4219
Description[?]:
| The Conservative Republican Party propose to adjust the government's spending budget to better address the economic and social situation of the Republic of Beluzia. |
Proposals
Article 1
| Ministry | Current Budget | Old Budget | Propesed Budget |
| Head of Government | 550,000 BEL | 200,000 BEL | 100,000 BEL |
| Foreign Affairs | 220,000,000 BEL | 30,200,000,000 BEL | 30,000,000,000 BEL |
| Internal Affairs | 1,300,000,000 BEL | 31,380,600,000 BEL | 40,000,000,000 BEL |
| Finance | 1,000,000,000 BEL | 15,990,000,000 BEL | 5,000,000,000 BEL |
| Defence | 1,070,000,000 BEL | 12,910,500,356 BEL | 40,000,000,000 BEL |
| Justice | 9,300,000,000 BEL | 35,518,595,000 BEL | 28,000,000,000 BEL |
| Infrastructure and Transport | 10,000,000,000 BEL | 9,999,500,000 BEL | 15,000,000,000 BEL |
| Health and Social Services | 42,600,000,000 BEL | 63,980,500,000 BEL | 58,000,000,000 BEL |
| Education and Culture | 50,000,000,000 BEL | 133,978,390,980 BEL | 120,000,000,000 BEL |
| Science and Technology | 14,000,000,000 BEL | 29,522,700,000 BEL | 30,000,000,000 BEL |
| Food and Agriculture | 13,000,000,000 BEL | 22,995,295,385 BEL | 20,000,000,000 BEL |
| Environment and Tourism | 1,600,000,000 BEL | 32,358,979,538 BEL | 30,000,000,000 BEL |
| Trade and Industry | 8,500,000,000 BEL | 21,845,759,000 BEL | 25,000,000,000 BEL |
| Total | 152,590,550,000 BEL | 440,681,020,259 BEL | 441,000,100,000 BEL |
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:31:06, May 30, 2017 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the Budget proposal of July 4218 |
| Message | This is the Conservative Republican spending plan - it represents the first of our many planned steps to bring our nation back to prosperity and self-respect. We are currently classified as a "small power," barely able to defend our territory and reliant with other more powerful nations for our own security. The Conservative Republicans find this to be an unacceptable state of affairs, and will thus embark on a multi-year program of strengthening the military. Thus, this budget proposed a dramatic rise in defense spending. Likewise, we feel that our internal security is in need of bolstering. The Internal Affairs Department will see its budget rise by around $9,000,000,000, to be put towards hiring more police officers and other steps necessary to fighting crime and preserving order. Copious investment in our infrastructure is a simple necessity if we are to progress economically and socially. The Conservative Republican budget will thus allocate $5,000,000,000 more to Infrastructure and Transport - a rise of approximately 1/3. Similarly, we will invest more in Trade and Industry and, marginally, in Science and Technology research. To offset this vital spending, some offsets are necessary. Therefore, spending on Agriculture and Education has been slightly reduced, relative to their current values. We are confident that the quality of our education system, especially, will not be negatively impacted by this reduction, given the already massive level of spending. Further, extremely moderate cuts will be carried out on the Health Service. Justice's reductions were taken with a view to proportionality - we've simply been spending an unjustifiably unrealistic amount on prisons vs. on law enforcement. The Treasury Department does not actually conduct much original spending - its expenditures ought to be mostly administrative. Therefore, we are reducing it sharply, to bring it in line with that more modest mission. This is a desperately overdue re-ordering of our spending priorities. Margaret Lawson Conservative Republican Spokeswoman for Finance |
| Date | 21:38:06, May 30, 2017 CET | From | United Party | To | Debating the Budget proposal of July 4218 |
| Message | "The proposed budget cuts funding to many parts of our government including Health and Human Services in exchange for military funding when we are at peace and there is no threat of war. As Minister of Finance I hope that the congress will respect my opinion." Robert Newman Minister of Finance |
| Date | 22:15:11, May 30, 2017 CET | From | Beluzian Democratic Party | To | Debating the Budget proposal of July 4218 |
| Message | "How can we put our childrens futures and their health at risk just to raise armed forces funding when we face no immediate threat." |
| Date | 03:59:41, May 31, 2017 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the Budget proposal of July 4218 |
| Message | "The idea that we are putting children's futures and health at risk is, we must say, a bit ridiculous. Education in particular already enjoys massive levels of funding. The reductions proposed are exceptionally moderate. The prevention of the rise of threats is precisely why more investment in defense is necessary. Recently released military power studies have ranked our nation as a "small power," whose ability even to just defend our own territory is highly uncertain. That is not acceptable. If we are to truly ensure our security, we must have the capacity to both defend our own nation and deter others by possessing the capability to project power abroad." Margaret Lawson and James Matterly Conservative Republican Spokespeople for Finance and Defense |
| Date | 14:59:13, May 31, 2017 CET | From | Unionist Party | To | Debating the Budget proposal of July 4218 |
| Message | "The Liberal Party supports the increases to the Defense and Internal Affairs departments, the cuts to the Education and Finance departments are not acceptable. We need to be able to protect Beluzia, but we also have to make sure that our children have the education to create a competitive economy." Catherine Schuyler-Hamilton Congressional Liberal Leader, MC |
| Date | 15:28:06, May 31, 2017 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the Budget proposal of July 4218 |
| Message | What exactly does the Finance department spend money on? It doesn't provide services. It doesn't have infrastructure to administer. It doesn't even have a large staff. Most economic spending falls under the "trade and industry" heading. We believe a reduction in the treasury department is simply a matter of realism. |
| Date | 16:00:55, May 31, 2017 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Budget proposal of July 4218 |
| Message | Mr Speaker, The CRP questioning what the Department of Finance is deeply concerning. Again, we know that they are a relatively new party in the political stage, but questioning one of our nation's most important government departments is deeply concerning. And the notion that the Department of Trade and Industry is in charge of economic spending is deeply concerning too. The Department of Finance, may we remind you is charged with the responsibility of assisting the government across a wide range of policy areas to ensure its outcomes are met, particularly with regard to expenditure, financial management, and the operations of government. Secondly, the Department of Trade and Industry is charged with consolidating and enhancing our good relations with trading partners and promote bilateral and regional economic and trade cooperations, maintaining a fair and stable trade regime and ensuring that Beluzia fulfils its international obligations. It is deeply concerning if a party formed by Beluzians does not know their government institutions. We yield the floor. Lord Nicolas Razovac Hemaragijin PhD, M.Ed., M.Phil, A.P.S, B.A, LL.M Shadow Spokesperson for Finance |
| Date | 17:16:45, May 31, 2017 CET | From | Conservative Republican Party | To | Debating the Budget proposal of July 4218 |
| Message | We dispute none of that. It is, however a question of proportionality. The Treasury is an exceptionally important department, but not necessarily a high-spending one. The idea that we're spending more on "assisting the government...with regard to expenditure, financial management, etc." than on building/maintaining infrastructure or on our armed forces strain credulity. The Treasury top task is to manage public spending and the public finances - a task that does not require much original spending in and of itself. (OOC: this is a trend you can see eveyrwhere irl - the treasury depts. of various countries simply don't have very large budgets, it just makes no sense). |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 685 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 65 |
| Random fact: Make sure your nation casts its nominations in Particracy's very own Security Council elections! For more information, see http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=8453 |
| Random quote: "In America today, you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the cops." - Paul Brooks |