NEW BOARD LINK, GO TO THIS LINK FOR THE CURRENT GAME: http://virtualamerica.ipbhost.com
Welcome to Virtual America. We hope you enjoy your visit.

If you're looking to join and sign up for the first time, register here! You'll want to familiarize yourself with the rules of Virtual America which you can find here. And you'll want to read up on how to sign in and create your character here. After all than you can sign in and get to playing! We're all friends here and we're certain you'll enjoy it here at Virtual America!

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
HR 70 PAYGO Reinstatement Act
Topic Started: 14 Jun 2013, 11:20 AM (525 Views)
Heather Holson
Member Avatar

48 hours for debate

Quote:
 
Congressman Peter J. Lucas, for himself, Congressman E. Herbert Johnston, Congresswoman Grace Hollingsworth, Congressman Patrick Callaghan, Congressman Michael Brewer, Congressman Rick Thomas, Congresswoman Melissa Sanchez and Senator Andrea Martinez proposes

A BILL TO reinstate PAYGO requirements.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled as Follows

Section 1 PAYGO

(1) No Bill shall be considered by the US House of Representatives or the US Senate that is not PAYGO compliant.

(2) A Bill is PAYGO compliant if

(a) the Bill does not require or authorize the spending of any money, or

(b) the amount of money reasonably estimated to be saved by the Bill is equal to or exceeds the amount of money required or authorized to be spent by the Bill

(3) Costs involved in the passage of a bill through Congress, including any reports on the Bill by the Congressional Budget Office and similar agencies, shall be disregarded, as shall the costs of signing ceremonies and the publication and archiving of the passed Act.

(4) Costs involved in taking steps reasonably expected to realize savings that exceed the cost of taking those steps within a period of 5 years shall be discounted.

(5) No person presiding over debate in the US House of Representatives or the US Senate may bring up for debate any Bill that is not PAYGO compliant, nor may such a Bill be brought up by a motion to suspend the rules or by any other mechanism.

(6) If a Bill is passed by the US Congress that is not PAYGO complaint, it shall be treated as if the President had vetoed that Bill at a time when Congress was not in session following the bi-annual Congressional elections.

(7) Any spending resulting from the passage of a Bill that is not PAYGO complaint shall be deemed unlawful. Any Congressman or Senator who voted for or supported such a Bill, knowing the Bill to fail to comply with this Act, may be liable to the Federal Government personally following appropriate due process of law for the reimbursement of a portion of that sum reflective of his contribution to its passage and his ability to pay.

(8) The Congressional authorities shall arrange that all Members of Congress undergo appropriate training on the requirements of this Act.

9) All legislation filed after the date of lawful enactment of this act shall include a "PAYGO Analysis" which will note the estimated net effect of the legislation on the Federal Debt, the time frame being covered, and if not readily apparent, an explanation of how the numbers were derived.

Section 2 Offset

In order to offset spending required under Section 2 (8) of this Act, Funding for Doctoral Dissertations by the Department for Housing and Urban Development shall be terminated (annual saving $230,000).

Section 3. Emergency Override

The provisions of Section 1 of this legislation, for a specific bill, may be suspended by a 60% vote each of the House and Senate. This shall be referred to as a "PAYGO Override Vote", and must occur to bring the legislation to the Floor of each body for debate.

Section 4 Enactment

This Act shall have effect upon being signed into law. It shall not affect any Bill already being debated on that date.
Edited by Heather Holson, 16 Jun 2013, 01:37 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Replies:
Brenninger
Member Avatar
#Swaggy
Aye
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Edward Kensington
Member Avatar

Madame Speaker,

AYE to table.

The Republicans are free, of course, to continue telling lies to themselves and their GOP and Tea Party supporters. We know the truth.

"Reagan," Vice President Dick Cheney famously declared in 2002, "proved deficits don't matter."

Posted Image

Posted Image
Edited by Edward Kensington, 15 Jun 2013, 12:05 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Matt Urbana
Member Avatar

Madam Speaker,

The Majority forgets that we are debating a bill here, one which would reign in federal spending, and not debating a resolution to assign blame for the country's budget deficit.

The bill stands on its merits. It's really quite simple: should all new federal spending be offset by cuts somewhere else unless a significant majority of Congress agrees? Yes.

I yield.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Vissering
Member Avatar
I'm radioactive.
Nay to table.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Edward Kensington
Member Avatar

Madame Speaker,

The Opposition Member was quick to throw a finger at us when his Party is responsible for the lion share of this problem. Furthermore, PAYGO does nothing to address the main contributors to our fiscal imbalance and situation.

1. PAYGO does nothing to control automatic and mandatory spending (SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, Food Stamps, Section 8 Housing Assistance and TANF).

Mandatory federal spending is directly linked to our economic condition.

2. PAYGO does nothing to address the Bush era tax reduction which will be a leading cause of our medium term fiscal imbalance.

3. PAYGO does nothing to address excessive defense spending and the War in Iraq which were implemented or came about under the Bush Administration.
Edited by Edward Kensington, 15 Jun 2013, 12:17 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Matt Urbana
Member Avatar

Madam Speaker,

Again, the Majority is departing from the real issue at hand here. Is out of hand government spending a problem? Absolutely. Do other factors such as the economic downturn and uncontrolled entitlements contribute significantly to the deficit? Sure. But that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't at least attempt to fix our spending problem.

I yield.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Jack Bentley
Member Avatar

Nay to table.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Edward Kensington
Member Avatar

Madame Speaker,

Is the gentleman from Ohio deaf?

PAYGO will tie our hands when it comes to investing in essential priorities while doing nothing to address the real causes of our deficit and present situation.

PAYGO will prevent us from making improvements to Homeland and Border Security.

PAYGO will prevent us from investing in the kind of Pentagon and Defense Research which led to very useful and practical commercial innovations such as the Microwave, the CDROM and the World Wide Web. All of those stemmed from defense research.

PAYGO will prevent us from investing in infrastructure repair so that Americans do not have to fear plunging to their deaths when another bridge collapses? How many more bridges have to collapse before the Republicans side with us on infrastructure? How many more must die?
Edited by Edward Kensington, 15 Jun 2013, 12:30 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Matt Urbana
Member Avatar

Madam Speaker,

On the contrary, PAYGO will not prevent us from doing any of those things. It may, however, ensure that we cut adequate waste to support the funding of projects that are of higher priority, such as the ones cited by the gentleman.

I yield.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Daniel Hernandez
Member Avatar
Wielder of the Gavel
Rick Thomas

Nay to Table
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Daniel Hernandez
Member Avatar
Wielder of the Gavel
Rick Thomas

Madame Speaker,

I request permission to revise and extend my remarks.

I ask that you call the gentleman from North Carolina to order. His comments about "Is the gentleman deaf?" very clearly violate the rules of decorum on which most members of this body seem capable of conducting themselves. It is unfortunate that certain members of the majority see fit to engage in debate by throwing out childish insults. The people of our nation deserve better than what we have just witnessed.

I yield.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Edward Kensington
Member Avatar

Madame Speaker,

It will cost us in one form or another. Discretionary spending is a very small portion of our overall federal spending. Increasing expenditure on infrastructure to repair our bridges would have to come at the expense of other vital areas. We can reduce waste without tying our hands.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Edward Kensington
Member Avatar

Madame Speaker,

Maybe if the Republicans hadn't wasted over $55 million trying to repeal Obama Care...
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Edward Kensington
Member Avatar

I, for instance, believe we should begin reducing waste right here.

I motion that all sections of this bill be removed, save for the following:

Quote:
 
Funding for Doctoral Dissertations by the Department for Housing and Urban Development shall be terminated (annual saving $230,000).
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Daniel Hernandez
Member Avatar
Wielder of the Gavel
Rick Thomas

Madame Speaker,

I request permission to revise and extend my remarks.

The proposal to amend offered by the gentleman from North Carolina is clearly dilatory, as it would completely change the meaning of the bill. Furthermore, rather than recognize the inappropriateness of the personal attacks made upon other members of this chamber, he chooses instead to make more of them. I repeat my request that the gentleman be called to order for violating the rules of decorum.

I yield.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Landry
Member Avatar
Winter is Coming to the Red States
Madam Speaker,

Is there a reason the gentleman wants to see funding for students cut?

I yield.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
peter
Member Avatar
Lucas for President: Take Back America!
Nay to table
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Melissa Sanchez
Member Avatar

Nay to table.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Melissa Sanchez
Member Avatar

Madam speaker,

I move to extend debate by 48 hours.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Melissa Sanchez
Member Avatar

Madam Speaker,

I shall let the voice of history, as spoken in Wikipedia, answer the question of my support for PAYGO:

Quote:
 

These rules were in effect from FY1991-FY2002.[2] Enacted in 1990, it was extended in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In FY 1991, the Federal deficit was 4.5% of GDP, and by FY 2000, the Federal surplus was 2.4%.[3] Total Federal spending as a percentage of GDP decreased each year from FY1991 through FY 2000, falling from 22.3% to 18.4%. Deficits, though, returned by the last year PAYGO was in effect: There was a "return to deficits ($158 billion, 1.5% of GDP) in 2002".[3]

Beginning in 1998, in response to the first federal budget surplus since 1969, Congress started enacting, and the President signing, increases in discretionary spending above the statutory limit using creative means such as advance appropriations, delays in making obligations and payments, emergency designations, and specific directives.[4] While staying within the technical definition of the law, this allowed spending that otherwise would not be allowed. The result was emergency spending of $34 billion in 1999 and $44 billion in 2000.

The PAYGO statute expired at the end of 2002. After this, Congress enacted President George W. Bush's proposed 2003 tax cuts (enacted as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003), and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.[5] The White House acknowledged that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit plan would not meet the PAYGO requirements:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · House Debate Archives · Next Topic »
Locked Topic


Theme by Sith of the ZBTZ