Open budget primary

[conseo]

Michael Allan worte:
> Thanks C,
> 
> > Since it is also combinable with our resource accounting, people
> > could both determine the global budget and contribute more than the
> > vote, but their "taxes" rather directly with their vote in form of
> > resources.
> 
> I guess the budget vote is a vote for expenditures (i.e. for a program
> or service or purchase).  Maybe the RAC pledge would be where the
> voter contributes additional revenue as a kind of donation or
> (government) "voluntary tax" toward the same expenditure.
> 
> You asked on IRC whether additional code might be needed for the
> budgeting practice.  Two things I can think of:
> 
>  (1) Tool for finance officer to produce budget itself.  He adds
>      revenue, debt servicing and other forced expenditures, account
>      cancellations, and so forth.  The tool combines these with the
>      current results of the budget primary, and produces the official
>      budget.

I see.

> 
>      Maybe candidate finance officers can produce their budgets in
>      advance, as part of applying for office in the executive primary.
>      Maybe the "opposition" finance officer (out of office) always has
>      a shadow budget, as a kind of critique of the gov't.

Yes, if accounting happened in the same process, then budget drafting would be 
embedded in the process, right? The finance officer would then define the 
according accounts with targets and describe their distribution to budgets in 
the account definitions. That way budgets could be defined globally through 
the primary voting with votes through budget pipes, while resource flow could 
contribute to budgets to allow economic expenditure "locally", in context of 
the application of the budget. Both ends, global only expenditure, e.g. space 
program, and a losely related local economic process beyond the global budget, 
e.g. local growing cooperative, are covered that way. 
Does that make sense to you?

> 
>  (2) Tool to compare official budget with the primary, verifying that
>      the wishes of the primary participants are being met, or what the
>      discrepencies are exactly.
> 
> Probably these two are related, maybe even the same tool.

Ok, sounds interesting. Pipes have some drafting potential.

conseo