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 May 2278
Details
Submitted by[?]: Segue Democratic Alliance
Status[?]: passed
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: April 2279
Description[?]:
| The Segue Democratic Alliance propose to adjust the government's spending budget to better address the economic and social situation of the Union of Vanuku. |
Proposals
Article 1
| Ministry | Current Budget | Old Budget | Propesed Budget |
| Head of Government | 2,000,000,000 VAN | 3,961,000,000 VAN | 1,161,000,000 VAN |
| Foreign Affairs | 3,000,000,000 VAN | 36,961,000,000 VAN | 40,961,000,000 VAN |
| Internal Affairs | 50,000,000,000 VAN | 30,961,000,000 VAN | 45,961,000,000 VAN |
| Finance | 5,000,000,000 VAN | 6,961,000,000 VAN | 961,000,000 VAN |
| Defence | 150,000,000,000 VAN | 35,961,000,000 VAN | 55,961,000,000 VAN |
| Justice | 100,000,000,000 VAN | 10,961,000,000 VAN | 15,961,000,000 VAN |
| Infrastructure and Transport | 80,000,000,000 VAN | 35,961,000,000 VAN | 45,961,000,000 VAN |
| Health and Social Services | 200,000,000,000 VAN | 70,961,000,000 VAN | 130,961,000,000 VAN |
| Education and Culture | 95,000,000,000 VAN | 55,961,000,000 VAN | 85,961,000,000 VAN |
| Science and Technology | 100,000,000,000 VAN | 20,961,000,000 VAN | 30,961,000,000 VAN |
| Food and Agriculture | 80,000,000,000 VAN | 10,961,000,000 VAN | 10,961,000,000 VAN |
| Environment and Tourism | 60,000,000,000 VAN | 30,961,000,000 VAN | 40,961,000,000 VAN |
| Trade and Industry | 100,000,000,000 VAN | 10,961,000,000 VAN | 10,961,000,000 VAN |
| Total | 1,025,000,000,000 VAN | 362,493,000,000 VAN | 517,693,000,000 VAN |
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:07:17, September 03, 2006 CET | From | Segue Democratic Alliance | To | Debating the Budget proposal of May 2278 |
| Message | Zoltan Kodaly, Finance Minister: Ladies and Gentlemen, my proposed budget bill has drastically increased spending, and so firstly I'd like to thank previous administrations, of all colours, for creating the economic conditions that allowed me to propose this bill. I am reluctant to adjust taxation levels at this juncture - the current levels have served us well and I see no real reason to change them. Keen budget watchers (if such things exist) may therefore notice that I propose spending a little more each year than we bring in. Due to the massive surpluses that Vanuku has been running for over a century now, there is absolutely no reason worry about this. The extra government investment in the economy, together with the increase in consumer demand associated with the recent minimum wage increase gives my economic team every reason to expect that tax revenues will remain high and perhaps increase. Now, I will briefly explain the main points of this budget. Some of you may have seen leaked copies, however there have been substantial revisions, taking on board informal comments from other parties. The budget of the Head of Government has been drastically reduced. This has been redistributed around the several departments. The HoG needs to maintain a highly qualified, well-resourced staff, which can effectively handle information and coordinate government. Money needs to be set aside for official entertainment, travel, as well as costs associated with Bartlett House and security. However, the proposed budget levels are more than enough for this, considering our president has the whole government to back him up. Our Foreign Affairs ministry was already one of the most effective in Terra, however with this increase, we can continue to ensure that our diplomatic interests are handled as effectively as possible. Internal Affairs sees a 50% increase. This represents a large increase for police and public safety funding, to be shared with regional forces. Money has also been set aside for crime prevention and rehabilitation projects. As we were not servicing any debt, the huge budgets my predecessors allocated to Finance always baffled me. Suffice to say I am writing this on a very nice desk. This budget is now cut to more realistic levels, allowing for administration, economic forecasting and intelligence, and costs associated with tax collection and enforcement (responsibility shared with Internal Affairs law enforcement). Defence has seen a 57% increase. As the Nationalists noted, the military has not seen significant investment since the earlier Bartlett administrations. With this money, our soldiers will receive well-deserved pay rises and equipment upgrades. Our training will shortly be among the best in Terra. Justice has seen its budget increase. Our nations' courthouses will finally enter the 23rd century, with full computer access. However, funds will mainly be targeted at government prosecutors, who will finally have the resources to prosecute organised crime effectively, as well as sending a message to corporations that they will no longer be able to beat the government in court through their bankers. The bulk of the increase for infrastructure and transport is intended to be distributed to the regions to spend as they see fit, however the Transport Dept will now finally be able to engage in a comprehensive survey and improvement of our nation's highway and rail systems. Nowhere is the current coalition’s commitment to social justice more evident than in this unprecedented increase for health and social services. The recent increase in benefit payments absorb some of this money, however there is also some significant new investment in our healthcare system, to ensure that no citizen need suffer ill health because they cannot afford treatment. Education is our future, and this is reflected in the 60% increase in the education budget. Included in this is government funding of higher education for all those who can benefit from it. Science and technology has also been increased, in part along with the education budget. This signals a commitment by the current government for Vanuku to lead the world in green technology, to be a beacon for all of Terra. Food and agriculture has remained unchanged, as has Trade and Industry, meaning a de-facto budget cut with inflation. This will be absorbed with administrative streamlining. Very few civil servants will be made redundant however, as many will be offered placements in other departments. Environmental issues are also coming to the fore with a 25% increase for Environment and Tourism. We can ensure that Vanuku remains a green and pleasant land for our grandchildren. Thankyou very much everyone, I'll be happy to take questions for the next quarter hour, however I have a meeting with regional leaders in Sovesta this afternoon so timing will have to be strict. |
| Date | 02:11:36, September 03, 2006 CET | From | Segue Democratic Alliance | To | Debating the Budget proposal of May 2278 |
| Message | HERE IS THE DEBATE CONTRIBUTION OF THE SOCIAL DEVOLUTIONIST PARTY TO A PREVIOUS DRAFT BILL, SUPERCEDED BY THIS ONE. Some of it may still be relevent, at any rate it didn't seem fair to delete it when I cancelled my earlier bill. SOCIAL DEVOLUTIONISTS: There are two finance bills being proposed (BOTH SINCE CANCELLED), both slighlty different but with the same name, could I ask the finance minister to either withdraw one bill or clearly differentiate them in order that the parliament is not confused as to what it debates. Of the two bills i prefer this one, but would make three comments in any event. 1) The fact that Vanuku has a significant budget surplus to spend owes a great deal to the sound fiscal management of presidents over the last 100 years I am sure the SDA would join with me in recognising and paying credit to responsible finalcial management of previous adminsitratons. 2) as a government it is entirely correst that we use this surplus to improve services for our citizens and constituents provided such services and such spending can be maintained, I sggest this budget does that, returning money to the people of vanuku. 4) I think this budget generally has it's priorities correct, reducing the cost of the head of govt department which is primarily admin, and focusing on the provision of services through social services, health education and culture. Whilst the SD is not a militaristic party however I would have thought a greater increase might have been found for defence. I appreciate that foreign affairs has had a substabtial increase but defence remains the sharp end of our diplomacy, and must not be forgotten. The Social devolutionsists will support this bill. SDA: I am grateful of your support for the previous bill, and have taken on board your reccommendations. |
| Date | 03:59:20, September 03, 2006 CET | From | Vanuku Nationalists Party | To | Debating the Budget proposal of May 2278 |
| Message | This budget is Great. The Nationalist party support it and thank the SDA for making it. |
| Date | 04:16:04, September 03, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Democrat Party | To | Debating the Budget proposal of May 2278 |
| Message | The LDP acknowledge that certain provisions of this budget are extremely good, however we cannot go past the fact that you are proposing to run the budget to the point of deficet again. As it was acknowledged, the hard work of previous Presidents (of which the LDP hold approxiamtely 1/3 of that time period) is to be destroyed by overspending. And some of the spending increases and in some cases decreases are unjustifiable. How can you propose to run the budget at a deficiet which is dangerous if it is not closely analyised, whilst cutting the finance department? Furthermore why is there no increase in food and agriculture. We currently do not export any products, and buy alot from other nations. With a nation thats population has grown enormously over the last 100 years, and will continue to do so, with the vast majority of the population under the age of 30, how can there be no provision to increase food production. Are you really prepared to let the people of the nation go hungry? |
| Date | 08:25:21, September 03, 2006 CET | From | Social Devolutionist | To | Debating the Budget proposal of May 2278 |
| Message | As noted my comments related to a previous bill and the current proposals appear to have taken on board my comments, the SD will support this bill though it matters little at this time anyway as I have no votes. I share with the LDP the concern about going into deficit, whilst I have no immediate objection to it, it will of course have to be closely monitored, it may be that with a growing population of working age, anda growing economy Vanuku soon gobbles up the deficit anyway, but if not the SD would expect some swift readjustments before things spiral out of control. I am less concerned about the failure to increase spending on food and agriculture. I would remind all parties that this bill relates to government spending, in a field not to total spending. If farmers are making money from food production, and with a growing population they should be, there is no need to provide subsidies. If supermarkets import food which they sell at a profit, there is no need to support those organisations. I would suggest the budget provision for food and agriculture would cover such things administration (branding and tagging registration, egg quotas, meat inspectors and occassional natural disaster relief) and accordingly I would not think the core of the industry is jeopardised by a failure to increase government funding. |
| Date | 13:30:54, September 03, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Democrat Party | To | Debating the Budget proposal of May 2278 |
| Message | The problem is maybe not enough people are going into farming, causing us to purchase more from overseas governments. Why purchase more and spend extra when we can put our people to work here, cutting unemployement and saving money from going overseas. Our concern about "swift" readjusments are as always tax increases, once we begin spending at these levels it will be very difficult to stop. The people do not wish to see a cut in services which is the only other option, and common sense says no to tax increases. Why run the risk. It is not sound fiscal policy, and as someone who has studied some accounting and economics... it is simply not common sense |
| Date | 15:27:56, September 03, 2006 CET | From | Segue Democratic Alliance | To | Debating the Budget proposal of May 2278 |
| Message | The government has accumulated literally zillions of VAN after over a century of running a hefty surplus. This money was just being hoarded previously. Currently, the surplus runs at about 30% of the total budget, and has done for many years. Given this massive surplus, which does not appear on the balance sheet for this year, we can maintain current levels of expenditure for many years to come. Some of the expenditure, ie Transport and Infrastructure and some of the health and defence spending is one-off capital investment that does not need to be sustained at such high levels - ie it costs a lot more to build a mortorway, school or hospital than it does to maintain and run it per year. I have requested the Justice Dept to investigate what I consider to be irregularities in the finance department in recent years. Its bloated budget simply cannot be accounted for. Withy its current budget, it is more than capable of stewarding the economy successfully. The reason there is little agriculture spending is that under the law, these areas are do not require huge government investment. Subsidies come from local government. Trade and Industry has had no increase as the nationalized companies that we have (mainly in the energy sector) are generally breaking even, and I have had no request to raise their budget. We do not share the LDP concern over farming. Modern farming is generally mechanised and not labour intensive, and in the few cases where it can be labour intensive (eg fruit picking) seasonal migrant workers can be relied upon to plug the gap. We simply do not beleive that there is a crisis in agriculture. We are also not concerned about using food imports -there are areas of Terra much better suited to growing grain, for example, than our own tropical climate. If the LDP member is truly concerned about Vanukans going hungry, he will applaud the recent SDA bills raising the minimum wage and increasing benefit levels to ensure that everyone can afford food for their families. |
| Date | 09:57:20, September 04, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Democrat Party | To | Debating the Budget proposal of May 2278 |
| Message | No the LDP does not applaud those bills. We applaud bills that help people to help themselves. Minimum wage is an excellent increase, but we are always raising entitlements for people when many do not deserve them |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 365 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 181 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 14 |
| Random fact: It is the collective responsibility of the players in a nation to ensure all currently binding RP laws are clearly outlined in an OOC reference bill in the "Bills under debate" section of the nation page. Confusion should not be created by displaying only some of the current RP laws or displaying RP laws which are no longer current. |
| Random quote: "I got nothing against no Viet Cong. No Vietnamese ever called me a nigger." - Muhammad Ali, 1967, refusing to fight in Vietnam |