[BRIBED] Repeal: WA General Fund

[Knootoss]

Repeal: WA General Fund

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many of the programmes and committees established by the General Assembly cost money;

BELIEVING that the World Assembly should be fair, honest and transparent about how these programmes and committees are funded;

REAFFIRMING the belief stated in "WA General Fund" that a system of contributions from national and private benefactors would be better than a coerced taxation scheme;

NOTING WITH REGRET that the "WA General Fund" does not meet these standards, demanding that Member States pay "donations" which are determined based on an assessment of "national wealth and ability to give" while leaving it unclear if these donations are really just a coerced taxation scheme with a different label;

HOPING that any future resolution on the funding of World Assembly expenditures will be more honest, transparent and fair about its intent and purpose;

Hereby,

REPEALS the "WA General Fund".

!Endorse it now! ---> Repeal "WA General Fund" <--- !Endorse it now!

This Assembly,

Committed to providing for a stable, reliable source of funding for the World Assembly and its operations;

Convinced, however, that a program of solicited donations from national and private benefactors would serve the WA's purpose much greater than a coerced taxation scheme;

Disappointed by the previous practice of continually establishing programs and imposing mandates upon member states without stipulating how they will be funded;

Concerned by the possibility of corruption and wasteful spending, and determined to prevent such practices in the establishment of WA funding,

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

2. Establishes the WA General Fund, which shall be the central source for the funding of WA operations, and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly;

3. Establishes the WA General Accounting Office (GAO), to collect donations to the General Fund, calculate available and projected funds for each fiscal year, publish an annual budget for the World Assembly, and certify that all appropriations therein are disbursed and utilized in a responsible manner;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

5. Further provides that annual surpluses in the WA budget shall be returned to national donors, in equal proportion to the amount of their contribution;

6. Further instructs the GAO to submit to regular audits from outside agencies;

7. Forbids the WA from engaging in deficit spending; and,

Recognizing that donations given to the World Assembly by member nations are likely to originate from public funds,

8. Affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices;

9. Strongly encourages member states to provide for an appropriate degree of public accountability and transparency in decisions made regarding budgets and taxation.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Q: But the donations from the WA General Fund aren't mandatory!
A: If that is the case, this resolution will be removed from the queue as an "honest mistake", and a moderator ruling will back up the right NOT to pay donations.

Q: Waaaah replacement.
A: I have a replacement ready if this passes. Everyone else is also free to submit their own.

Q: Think of the children.
A: The children deserve a transparent, honest resolution on how the WA will be funded. I am confident that such a resolution can be passed in short order.

[Mousebumples]

One of the more ... persuasive arguments in my mind is that the existence of this law makes it more difficult for OTHER funding-related laws to be passed. (OOC: as was discussed in some of the Tech Forum category reconfiguration stuff) I don't know if you'd be interested in adding language to that effect, enumerating some concepts that are unable to be legislated on due to the existence of the General Fund. Of course, that may also give those eeeeeevil IntFeds ( ) ideas as to what other needless regulation we all need.

I'm not decided yet as to whether or not I'll support this repeal, but I'm not necessarily opposed. We'll see how the debate develops.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Knootoss]

I do not mind an honest debate on how the WA should be funded, and would welcome a debate that includes all legislators - regardless of their political persuasion. A new funding resolution or new funding resolutions can surely do better than this (admittedly, successful) attempt by the Kennyites to con the assembly into approving a generic funding mechanism for the fanciful spending plans of its lawmakers.

In fact, I would welcome a funding mechanism that makes the source of the money more explicit, since right now, there is a general belief that WA programmes are funded from magic fairy money, leading to some unnecessary expenditures.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If you have a replacement, please make it public, so that we can judge whether or not it's even likely to pass. Glen-Rhodes isn't going to vote to strip the World Assembly of its progressive funding mechanism, only to end up in a situation where no other mechanism is ever passed. So many resolutions depend upon the General Fund. We've used it to remove the necessity of spending half our resolution text on determining how something should be funded. If the replacement is not viable, then how do you suppose these things will be funded?

- Dr. B. Castro

[Knootoss]

My ancient General Fund Replacement is already public, as a matter of fact. However, I expect that the World Assembly will be energised by a vibrant debate on funding in the event of a repeal. My proposal will not be alone.

Or does Mr. Castro honestly believe that only Kennyite duplicity could possibly ensure a majority for the WA spending money on things?

[Glen-Rhodes]

My ancient General Fund Replacement is already public, as a matter of fact. However, I expect that the World Assembly will be energised by a vibrant debate on funding in the event of a repeal. My proposal will not be alone.

That proposal is also patently illegal. Even if it was legal, Knootoss would be attempting to replace an assured source of funding with private investment. Sorry, but Glen-Rhodes does not believe that private investment can pay all of the World Assembly's expenditures.

Furthermore, that is a situation we especially do not want to find the World Assembly in. If we are going to repeal the General Fund, then we need a viable replacement before submitting the repeal. Going months without a replacement is not acceptable.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Knootoss]

This is not a problem. Mr. Castro is free to write a replacement himself, which can be submitted right after the repeal.

My question wasn't answered though: does Mr. Castro honestly believe that only Kennyite duplicity could possibly ensure a majority for the WA spending money on things?

[Glen-Rhodes]

This is not a problem. Mr. Castro is free to write a replacement himself, which can be submitted right after the repeal.

Glen-Rhodes would certainly offer a replacement, only if we can be assured that this repeal will not be submitted before everybody has rallied around it. Like I said, going months without a replacement is not acceptable. Using a repeal to trigger a competition to see who can write the most popular funding resolution is what you will be doing, here. We do not want that. We need to have the debate about a replacement finished by the time the repeal is submitted.

My question wasn't answered though: does Mr. Castro honestly believe that only Kennyite duplicity could possibly ensure a majority for the WA spending money on things?

I think those who care to know do know how the General Fund works. I do not care that the Kennyites purposefully used language to avoid the word 'tax.' We have our funding mechanism, and it is a tax-based mechanism that Glen-Rhodes supports. Any replacement we support would be tax-based.

So we are not particularly interested in repealing the General Fund because it uses misleading tactics. Both of our delegations are no strangers to using those kinds of tactics. But if the repeal does go forward, it would be best for everybody if a replacement is ready to go as soon as possible after the repeal passes.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Knootoss]

I disagree with you that having a tax that isn't called a tax is in any way desirable. That is why this repeal expresses the hope that any future resolution on the funding of World Assembly expenditures will be more honest, transparent and fair about its intent and purpose;

Also, while I'm well-aware of Glen-Rhodes' dislike for competition in resolution-writing I believe it to be a healthy endeavour. Therefore I offer the following concession:

I offer to hold off on submitting this repeal while you draft a replacement for the General Fund, so long as you are genuinely working on it and not just playing for time.

Frankly, if you are unwilling to take up this offer you shouldn't come crying to me about a replacement (which I /also/ have drafted myself!), nor will you have any moral standing to campaign using the "waaah replacement" card.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Moronist Decisions]

The Moronist government stands completely opposed to any attempt to repeal the WAGF.

[Weed]

While I agree with you that it would be better to abandon the term "donation", it was probably done so the resolution would pass. I think if you repeal this and pass one that honestly describes to the mob what the intent is, the resolution will be defeated. And then what would we do? Re-Propose WA General Fund?

I'm hesitant to repeal a flawed resolution when passing a better resolution may be impossible.

[Knootoss]

Large majorities of the World Assembly have enthusiastically voted to spend money on lots of programmes. I'm sure a similar majority can be found to approve spending for these same programmes. I must also say, it is sad to see delegations purposefully embracing acts of duplicity towards their fellow Member States, in exchange for money...

[Glen-Rhodes]

Large majorities of the World Assembly have enthusiastically voted to spend money on lots of programmes. I'm sure a similar majority can be found to approve spending for these same programmes. I must also say, it is sad to see delegations purposefully embracing acts of duplicity towards their fellow Member States, in exchange for money...

OOC: It must not work the same way in the Netherlands as it does in the US. Over here, plenty of voters will demand a lot of spending, but refuse to vote for any politician that wants to raise taxes to pay for that spending.

Regarding your offer, I will take it up. I have real-life engagements this week, though, including possibly heading back to my university to see the President give a speech on energy. I don't know when I'll be able to offer a replacement. But it will probably be before the week is over.

[Weed]

Large majorities of the World Assembly have enthusiastically voted to spend money on lots of programmes. I'm sure a similar majority can be found to approve spending for these same programmes. I must also say, it is sad to see delegations purposefully embracing acts of duplicity towards their fellow Member States, in exchange for money...

Spending money they don't realize comes from their nations, I think. It has always sounded to me as if they believe it comes from the nations foolish enough to voluntarily donate money to the WA. I think if those nations realized they were paying to administer the programs they agree to there would be repeal after repeal pushed through this assembly. It isn't our fault GA #122 was not in effect back when WAGF was passed.

Someone should look into what exactly their Treasury officers are doing, actually, not to explain where that money is going... Hmm.

WA Ambassador from Weed,

Clinton Tew

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina stands in stern opposition to any attempts to repeal the WA General Fund. During the debate process, all WA departments and programs will run deficits that will need to be addressed in further resolutions on WA revenues. Although, having a WA budget and donation system that covers all costs is necessary. We can't conceive of another system that better allows us to ensure all resolutions are paid for. If you don't like the money your nation is spending, leave the WA or repeal the resolutions causing the costs. WA General Fund doesn't cost much if anything at all...but it's the other resolutions that cost money. And we should pay for them as long as they are law.

[Knootoss]

Regarding your offer, I will take it up. I have real-life engagements this week, though, including possibly heading back to my university to see the President give a speech on energy. I don't know when I'll be able to offer a replacement. But it will probably be before the week is over.

OOC: Alright. This draft will continue to be up to debate at least until the week is over. Then we'll see what you got!

[Ossitania]

Forgive me if this point has been addressed and I've simply missed it; what exactly would happen to all the standing resolutions that obtain their funding from the WAGF?

[Sanctaria]

Forgive me if this point has been addressed and I've simply missed it; what exactly would happen to all the standing resolutions that obtain their funding from the WAGF?

In the mindset of a ...particularly well-known Delegation, "TEH EBIL NATSOVERS ARE TRYING TO UNDERMINE TEH INTFED RESOLOOSHUNS".

[Scion Lop On]

Forgive me if this point has been addressed and I've simply missed it; what exactly would happen to all the standing resolutions that obtain their funding from the WAGF?

Wouldn't the WAGF still exist in order to satisfy those resolutions? If a proposal specifically states that its funding is derived from the WAGF, then the WAGF will continue to exist, insofar as the resolution stipulates.

[Ossitania]

Forgive me if this point has been addressed and I've simply missed it; what exactly would happen to all the standing resolutions that obtain their funding from the WAGF?

Wouldn't the WAGF still exist in order to satisfy those resolutions? If a proposal specifically states that its funding is derived from the WAGF, then the WAGF will continue to exist, insofar as the resolution stipulates.

If that is the case, then the WAGF would need to continue to be capable of providing funding, which would mean it would continue to operate as it is mandated to operate in the resolution that created it and would continue to be available as a source of funding for future resolutions, which raises the question of what exactly this repeal would actually do.

[Weed]

Wouldn't the WAGF still exist in order to satisfy those resolutions? If a proposal specifically states that its funding is derived from the WAGF, then the WAGF will continue to exist, insofar as the resolution stipulates.

If that is the case, then the WAGF would need to continue to be capable of providing funding, which would mean it would continue to operate as it is mandated to operate in the resolution that created it and would continue to be available as a source of funding for future resolutions, which raises the question of what exactly this repeal would actually do.

Why were those resolutions allowed to build the house of cards anyway? Thought that was illegal.

[Sanctaria]

If that is the case, then the WAGF would need to continue to be capable of providing funding, which would mean it would continue to operate as it is mandated to operate in the resolution that created it and would continue to be available as a source of funding for future resolutions, which raises the question of what exactly this repeal would actually do.

Why were those resolutions allowed to build the house of cards anyway? Thought that was illegal.

Because committees, which the WAGF technically is, continue to operate even after a resolution is repealed.

[Ossitania]

If that is the case, then the WAGF would need to continue to be capable of providing funding, which would mean it would continue to operate as it is mandated to operate in the resolution that created it and would continue to be available as a source of funding for future resolutions, which raises the question of what exactly this repeal would actually do.

Why were those resolutions allowed to build the house of cards anyway? Thought that was illegal.

Using an existing committee or organisation is not a HoC violation, as committees continue to exist even if the resolution in which they are created gets repealed. For example, if I recall correctly, the International Trade Administration has been given duties in multiple resolutions and would retain these duties even if the one in which it was created (Food Welfare Act, I think?). Each time the WAGF is given a new venture to fund, it is being given a new duty and as such would retain these duties even if GA #17 was successfully repealed. I already knew this but decided to phrase it as a question in order to gain independent confirmation for my theory that repealing GA #17 wouldn't actually prevent the WAGF from being used for funding.

[Knootoss]

As such the General Fund would retain the duty to fund certain resolutions, but it would lose the ability to hit nations up for mandatory donations.

[Ossitania]

As such the General Fund would retain the duty to fund certain resolutions, but it would lose the ability to hit nations up for mandatory donations.

How then, praytell, would the General Fund obtain the funds necessary to fulfil its duties?