[CRL] BHAID: Palestinian Children's Relief Act

[Sir Lüc]

I did suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that it would have been much quicker, not to mention generally the correct approach if passing a Budget has any point, to spend the allocated money rather than pass a separate appropriations bill. The Leader of the Opposition declined, perhaps because he did not understand my suggestion or because there indeed was confusion about how the $50 were to be spent.

I declined because the intent of my BHAID bill was a separate allocation for the designated organization. [...] Further, there is no requirement for the BHAID to be limited to only one disbursement regardless of budgetary decisions.

This genuinely makes me wonder what people think the line in the Budget that says "$50 for expenditure by BHAID" means. It's not a new problem either - last term, TWO separate appropriations totaling $100 were passed for humanitarian aid purposes, while the whole $50 BHAID pot in the Budget went unspent. This to me reveals a general misunderstanding of what the Budget is for, and an annoying selective mutism between legislators and successive ministers.

The second bit is absolutely true and I never claimed otherwise - but if the budget says we envision to spend $50 on foreign aid, that doesn't mean the government wants to spend $50 and anyone else can spend whatever it wants, because the Budget

The Government can choose whether it wants to make my bill moot because my proposed charitable recipient is a wiser selection.

Again, there's some selective mutism going on here at the very least. Simply talking to each beforehand would have prevented all this muddlement.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I did suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that it would have been much quicker, not to mention generally the correct approach if passing a Budget has any point, to spend the allocated money rather than pass a separate appropriations bill. The Leader of the Opposition declined, perhaps because he did not understand my suggestion or because there indeed was confusion about how the $50 were to be spent.

I declined because the intent of my BHAID bill was a separate allocation for the designated organization. [...] Further, there is no requirement for the BHAID to be limited to only one disbursement regardless of budgetary decisions.

This genuinely makes me wonder what people think the line in the Budget that says "$50 for expenditure by BHAID" means. It's not a new problem either - last term, TWO separate appropriations totaling $100 were passed for humanitarian aid purposes, while the whole $50 BHAID pot in the Budget went unspent. This to me reveals a general misunderstanding of what the Budget is for, and an annoying selective mutism between legislators and successive ministers.

The second bit is absolutely true and I never claimed otherwise - but if the budget says we envision to spend $50 on foreign aid, that doesn't mean the government wants to spend $50 and anyone else can spend whatever it wants, because the Budget

The Government can choose whether it wants to make my bill moot because my proposed charitable recipient is a wiser selection.

Again, there's some selective mutism going on here at the very least. Simply talking to each beforehand would have prevented all this muddlement.

I'm not going to attempt a diagnosis on Bentxami or other Cabinet members but selective mutism does not explain it for me. I declined because I intended it as a separate allocation with the hope and expectation that the Government would also make that Budget expenditure. Again, your budget line item does not prohibit other proposals no matter how much it offends your administrative sensibilities, Luc.

[Sir Lüc]

I'm not going to attempt a diagnosis on Bentxami or other Cabinet members but selective mutism does not explain it for me. I declined because I intended it as a separate allocation with the hope and expectation that the Government would also make that Budget expenditure. Again, your budget line item does not prohibit other proposals no matter how much it offends your administrative sensibilities, Luc.

But I never claimed this, and I'm not "pissed you spent our money", or whatever you think this is about.

What I'm saying is that the Government intended our aid budget to be $50, with no specific included proposal on where to spend it on - understandably I think, since the Budget needs to be ready very early on in the term. I repeatedly said your proposed donation is meritorious, had been vetted and okay-ed by the Seneschal, and I'll go beyond that to say that it's basically the best place we could spend the money given the current unfortunate geopolitical situation.

So the budget line item was quite literally ready to be spent for your proposal, if only you cared to talk to us. The money could have left the Treasury one week ago, September 27th, if a disbursment notice was issued by MinFor at the time you presented your bill; and instead it won't be able to be issued until November 14th at the earliest.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I'm not going to attempt a diagnosis on Bentxami or other Cabinet members but selective mutism does not explain it for me. I declined because I intended it as a separate allocation with the hope and expectation that the Government would also make that Budget expenditure. Again, your budget line item does not prohibit other proposals no matter how much it offends your administrative sensibilities, Luc.

But I never claimed this, and I'm not "pissed you spent our money", or whatever you think this is about.

What I'm saying is that the Government intended our aid budget to be $50, with no specific included proposal on where to spend it on - understandably I think, since the Budget needs to be ready very early on in the term. I repeatedly said your proposed donation is meritorious, had been vetted and okay-ed by the Seneschal, and I'll go beyond that to say that it's basically the best place we could spend the money given the current unfortunate geopolitical situation.

So the budget line item was quite literally ready to be spent for your proposal, if only you cared to talk to us. The money could have left the Treasury one week ago, September 27th, if a disbursment notice was issued by MinFor at the time you presented your bill; and instead it won't be able to be issued until November 14th at the earliest.

Again, Luc, I will repeat this because it does not appear to be breaking through. As I have now mentioned three times my intent of proposing the bill was for it to be a separate expenditure not for it to fall within what you allocated in the budget.

You are complaining because I did not do it the way you believe is preferable. That is what I think this is about. And I am repeatedly explaining that my intent, in the first place, was never to do it that way. This was intended as extra BHAID activity, to be supported or not, by the Government.

Add the Government's $50 budget allocation to my proposal and make it $100?

[Sir Lüc]

Again, Luc, I will repeat this because it does not appear to be breaking through. As I have now mentioned three times my intent of proposing the bill was for it to be a separate expenditure not for it to fall within what you allocated in the budget.

Why did you not want to spend the money we allocated for BHAID?

You are complaining because I did not do it the way you believe is preferable. That is what I think this is about. And I am repeatedly explaining that my intent, in the first place, was never to do it that way. This was intended as extra BHAID activity, to be supported or not, by the Government.

Two things:

1) we evidently disagree on what BHAID is, since by law it is supposed to be a part of the Government, so the concept of "extra BHAID activity, to be supported or not, by the Government" does not make sense under current practice;

2) the Government allocated money for you, BHAID, to use, as specifically mentioned in the budget bill, and you chose not to use it, for whatever reasons. Why?

Add the Government's $50 budget allocation to my proposal and make it $100?

Well no, as I explained already, the $50 were $50 because we wanted Talossa to spend that much in aid spending.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I'm not sure where the threads are coming loose in this discussion but it may be differing views on what the BHAID is, yes. So I can see how when I say "extra BHAID activity," that may be confusing. My intent from the beginning, however, has been for this to be an expenditure outside of the announced budget which has occurred several times in the past. So there should be no surprise that I did not approach the Government on this because I did not intend it to use the $50 budget allocation.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Is this conversation even necessary in this particular thread? The bill is already before the Ziu. Maybe you guys should take it out of the CRL to discuss further.