A Federal Budget: Achieving YOUR Priorities
•
by scrabman
Everybody has an opinion about taxes, how high they should be, how low they should be, what they should be used for and how they should be used in relationship to currency value. Frankly, while tax proposals get all the press in the media (good, bad, rant, etc) the reality is that taxes are just a vehicle for the integral missing component in the debate, a federal budget.
Sure, we can see data on cash flow, or the balance of our treasury, our minimum wage, our average wage, our currency value…we can argue about whether we should pursue a weak dollar to benefit eUSA exporters or a strong dollar to benefit our international military forays …we can argue the effect of new citizen fees when we have a baby boom or the market price of food and weapons and their relationship to immigration, emigration and warfare …but…
Without a federal budget as a goal those arguments will only be of academic, rather that practical value.
The eUSA has a problem that, although many great minds have thought about it and some have even proposed some components of it, will not go away as long as the debate and discourse revolve around the vehicle rather than the destination …a Federal budget.
A Federal budget is within our grasp, many components have already been defined including the scheduled deployment of Hospitals and Defense Systems, a very close approximation of the cost of a battle, the monthly costs associated with our current alliances and contractual agreements, the approximate expenditure on new citizen fees … the challenge that lay before us is to determine frequency of events and then pull all of them into our primary destination. Once established, we must seek, together, consensus that the federal budget may remain semi-static over the course of several presidential and congressional cycles.
One of my first acts as President, if elected, will be to propose a Federal Budget. Note, I said propose … the key is that my administration's proposal may not meet with universal approval … and that is why the consent of congress and the eUSA taxpayer is paramount to success. This is not my budget that I can change on a whim to suit my fancy, this is not Congress’ budget to be debated over and changed with every new Congressional class, this is OUR budget and as such will reflect OUR priorities as a nation. Whether Congress will pass it or obstruct it is yet to be seen as tax debates rage every month, in part, because we don't have a static budget established.
Then, and only then, can we debate the most appropriate vehicle to provide the revenue required. Additionally, the great benefit to having a consensus federal budget as a destination is that we can be assured that when we reach it, whichever vehicle we use to achieve it can be then be tuned-up to achieve that destination more efficiently in the next cycle.
The other great advantage of a static federal budget is that I can propose an innovative idea to eRepublik, though an old idea in RL, that is near and dear to my heart ...
A balanced budget
For those of you that are new to the term, a balanced budget means that the eUSA government knows, and has published, how much will be required to accomplish YOUR priorities (whether that be a battle a week or a new citizen mentoring program) … and when they reach that goal, everything else becomes a surplus … and that surplus can be used for a multitude of things. The advantage running a surplus (or a shortage for that matter) is that it clearly indicates when the dialogue should begin about tax changes.
Therefore, my commitment to you, if elected, is to propose a federal budget to you the taxpayer, with an itemization of the components of the budget. To achieve your consent, and then to determine, with Congress, the correct vehicle necessary to achieve OUR goals as stated in that budget. And, further, when that goal has been reached and can be reasonably projected to maintain achievement in multiple cycles, we will be a greater and more stable nation.
Vote scrabman/PrincessMedyPi on March 5th, 2009
The previous article in this series:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/giving-voice-to-americans-744095/1/all
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
The sad part is that America needs this.
ScrabPi 09!
hmmm I really find that whole ScrabPi name disturbing, lol.
Good artical.
i love your idea also you got my vote for 09
Scrab, you are winning me over. I say let the enumbers guide us, just like in RL. In RL, most people ignore history, and repeat the same mistakes over and over...like the RL US is doing in believing it can spend its way out of a recession. In eRep, the numbers are our history.
One suggestion. I would say that the ideal situation to be in in the eworld is Romania and Indonesia, low taxes, bigger than ours economy, and strong military...seems to me they have achieved all the goals that each eUSA citizen should want for their country. The question is how?
ScrabbyPi for March
A balanced budget that seems so.....un american. Voted
If we have a surplus what would you like to see happen to that money? If we have a deficit what would you cut?
@Muljo
If there were a defict, the government could issue USD, assuming it was a small enough amount.
no offense to you pyro but I was hoping the presidential hopeful could actually answer my question
Scrab, I agree! We do need a Federal Budget.
As a noob, the recent tax debate was bizarre to witness because there was no budget to base it on. How can you debate revenue needs when you don't have an itemized list of expenditures (with price tags) to prioritize? No wonder the debate was circular.
This proposal is a no-brainer. Well articulated and thanks.
Politics onlevel 17 is beyond my game comprehension. Theyt are mostly game info for me. I will still vote for scrabman in the coming presidential election. he has proven to me, his a bility to "think"!
😮
More wall of text
He asked a question ... I gave him an answer. 😉
"TheSupernatural: More wall of text"
You know some of us like to hear more than a one line response to matters of national economy. If it's TL😉R for you then don't read it. You clearly have no real interest in the subject anyways, and only wish to continue trolling.
scrabman, I am liking the direction you want to take the eUSA, and am looking forward to more articles before elections.
You are aware that there something between a one-line answer and a several paragraph answer.
That's what I aim for, and tl;dr means "too long; didn't read", not "too long; do I have to read?".
Do we need a federal budget?
Of course.
Should it be "static" and unchanging from month to month?
Not a f*ing chance in hell.
People like you continue to try to commit the American taxpayers for the long-term, despite the fact that the RULES of the game clearly indicate that these must be approved EVERY month.
You should also be more honest and more disclosing and ADMIT that what you're really saying is you want to try to convince the public to support YOUR "static" budget so that YOU can earn MASSIVE profits through your Constructions company. IF, by some chance, you were able to show that you've sold your Constructions company and will not earn a single dollar from the sale of these constructions to the US Government, only THEN can I even being to listen to what you have to say on this matter.
Sure, let's continue to build hospitals all over the country and then tell all citizens to move to Florida whenever there is a fight. Those other hospitals are really worth the investment!
I shut my construction company down Equality. And I can't buy them without the approval of Congress. So wtf are you talking about?
@ Scrabman: You may have shut it down, for now, since you know that the US Gov't isn't interesting in purchasing ATM. If you thought they would never purchase again, wouldn't you just sell the company? I think the point is valid that this *seems* to be a conflict of interest in that you're running for President suggesting a federal budget that includes infrastructure spending while you *could* (not are) be a beneficiary of the sale of said infrastructure to the government.
Unless, of course, you're selling it to the government at no cost.
Also, perhaps you really are just a fan of infrastructure and want the US to continue to purchase it. I can't see me being convinced of the merit considering the strong evidence against it. But, if you didn't own any constructions companies and wouldn't profit at all from a US Infrastructure play, then I could realize that this is simply your unbiased point of view that I disagree with and I'd move on.