[SENATE] 1930 Budget Proposal

[Luc]

Sebastião do Rego Barros, President of the Chamber of Deputies

Given the general lack of debate and the urgency of this bill, I will henceforth put it to a vote.

[Flamelord]

The Federal Union Party (93) votes Yes on the modified PUF budget proposal

[Flaming Bolshevik]

The AIB (3) will vote no on the PUF proposal on the basis of its neglect towards multiple crucial areas.

[Westar]

We are glad that a finalised proposal can be put to the vote.

The National Liberal Alliance (70) will vote in favour.

[Snacks]

In light of the PUF and their president's refusal to discuss the earmarking of budget for anti-corruption efforts, to provide this congress any evidence that something is being done by the executive branch to address the strain on our national finances caused by corruption or to even begin providing an explanation for how they will accommodate the sizeable cuts in spending on Health and Education, the BLOC (2) is forced to vote against.

[Smyg]

We echo the BLOC.

The PCB (4) votes in against.

We apologize for our tardiness in debating this, but will hopefully propose an alternate budget soon.

[TRC]

PLD votes Nay, in response to cuts

[Flamelord]

It is an unfortunate fact of our current situation that cuts have to be made if this government is to keep operating at a point where it is not outspending its means. It is unfortunate as well that certain areas must be prioritized over others when it comes to the issue of the budget. The Federal Union party is disappointed to see so many members of this Chamber putting a secondary priority on the safety and security of the Brazilian population, doubtlessly to push their own personal agendas.

In areas where cuts have been made, we have confidence that the states can make up any shortfalls that occur until the economic situation has stabilized and our stream of revenue has returned to normal.

As for corruption, while this is an issue it is not one that can simply be solved by throwing money at the problem and hoping it goes away. As such, efforts to address the issue of corruption are best served being discussed on their own, rather than as part of the larger issue of the budget.

But of course, if the members of this Chamber want to shut down our Federal Government because of misplaced sympathy for some bandits, who are we to argue?

[Snacks]

As the sitting president is a member of the party proposing this budget, it is only reasonable to expect that he, if not they, have at least *some* plan to direct the executive offices responsible for public health and education as to how they are to cope with the loss of funding- unless you are expecting the states to contribute money to make up for shortfalls in the *federal* budget then we ask how or if the PUF expects to compensate for them.

Furthermore, the PUF has completely ignored the substance of our questions about corruption in favor of building a strawman called 'throwing money at corruption. Members of the military police are responsible for the kidnapping, torture, and murder of civilians in the Bahia as only one of the most heinous of abuses of power and acts induced by corruption by law enforcement officers in our country. To know of such things and not to stipulate that even part of the law enforcement funding in this budget must be designated for control by some sort of oversight is like giving an alcoholic keys to a liquor cabinet. One might notice that even the BLOC has not actually called for a reduction in police spending, but that this congress must be satisfied that the money pumped into law enforcement institutions is not being squandered.

The only party here who has even mentioned any bandits is the PUF, much less sympathy for them, so we will not even dignify this nonsense with a rebuttal.

The safety and security of the Brazilian population is exactly why the BLOC and others have called for the PUF to address the concerns we have mentioned, only for them to build a paranoid narrative that scapegoats everyone who opposes their reckless and callous governance. I believe that if anyone from the PUF actually made an attempt to explain and justify their seemingly arbitrary spending cuts instead of acting so vindictively, they might find the votes they seek for their budget- even from the BLOC. Instead we get a PUF representative flippantly inviting a government shutdown if other parties do not cater to them.

[Flamelord]

This response is amusing to us, because the only other budget on the table, proposed by the AIB, has the exact same cuts to Education and Health, as well as drastic cuts to the Police in an effort to solve a problem from a completely wrong direction, yet it is somehow more acceptable to the BLOC and the other parties who have rejected our budget proposal. vIf you are so adamant that you do have the good of the Brazilian people in mind, perhaps you should propose your own budget which solved all of our current problems, no?

[Flaming Bolshevik]

Army: -49
Navy: -29
Air Force: -9
Road/Railroad Maintenance: -40
Police Departments: -35
Courts and Law System: -15
Prisons: -15
Government Administration: -20
Pensions: -12
Public Education: -30
Public Health: -30
State Industry: -30
State Agriculture: -20
Energy: -28
Sewage and Water: -20
Debt: -5

As you can see, we've made extremely minor cuts to some branches of the Military, as regrettable as it is. We've diverted these funds to the court and law systems. We've made cuts to the Police and diverted 5 credits to the prison systems. 2 credits were cut from the Energy sector and are also diverted to the court and law systems.

As much as we hate to make these cuts, once corruption begins to be less of an issue we can redirect funds back to affected areas and be able to invest more money into things such as the Economy or the Military.

We invite the Military to speak on said cuts and would ask their feelings on this bill. As usual, this is open to negotiations.

(((Vote on the other bill, this is just a revised version of my other proposal in case Flamelords fails)))

[Luc]

Army: -49
Navy: -29
Air Force: -9
Road/Railroad Maintenance: -40
Police Departments: -35
Courts and Law System: -15
Prisons: -15
Government Administration: -20
Pensions: -12
Public Education: -30
Public Health: -30
State Industry: -30
State Agriculture: -20
Energy: -28
Sewage and Water: -20
Debt: -5

As you can see, we've made extremely minor cuts to some branches of the Military, as regrettable as it is. We've diverted these funds to the court and law systems. We've made cuts to the Police and diverted 5 credits to the prison systems. 2 credits were cut from the Energy sector and are also diverted to the court and law systems.

As much as we hate to make these cuts, once corruption begins to be less of an issue we can redirect funds back to affected areas and be able to invest more money into things such as the Economy or the Military.

We invite the Military to speak on said cuts and would ask their feelings on this bill. As usual, this is open to negotiations.

(((Vote on the other bill, this is just a revised version of my other proposal in case Flamelords fails)))

Sebastião do Rego Barros, President of the Chamber of Deputies

We welcome the Integralist proposal, but would like to remind that this house is already voting on a budget proposal. If the current budget proposal is turned down, this house can debate this bill. To the other members of the house, please continue to vote on the current budget.

[acecipher]

Similar to the PLD, the SPD (27) find the budgetary cuts unacceptable and votes against. While a balanced budget is a righteous goal for good governance during fair weather, the Brazilian economy has encountered stormy seas, and simply laying people off work, or cutting them off of support, is the wrong way to go about solving this crisis we find ourselves in.

[Luc]

The Democratic Party (42) votes IN FAVOUR of this bill.

The Liberator Party (15) votes IN FAVOUR of this bill.

The Socialist Revolutionary Party (3) votes AGAINST this bill.

[Luc]

Sebastião do Rego Barros, President of the Chamber of Deputies

Due to a majority of 90 votes, this budget proposal is officially passed by this house. It shall now be sent to the Senate, where it shall be reviewed and voted upon by our colleagues in the Upper House.