Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences
1
Chicago Debate League
2012/13
Core Files
Researched by Brian Peterson, Kevin Hirn, and Hanna Nasser
Edited by David Song and Les Lynn
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.
2012/13 Core Files 2
Table of Contents (1/2)
I. AFFIRMATIVE CASES AND CASE NEGATIVES
*Affirmatives are listed in order of complexity – JV debaters will find Afghanistan most easy to use, then Japan. Varsity debaters will probably want to start by looking at Korea and Turkey.
Rail Investment Affirmative 4 - 22
Rail Investment Negative 23 - 34
Port Security Affirmative 35 - 54
Port Security Negative 55 - 67
Public Service Employment Affirmative 68 - 102
Public Service Employment Negative 103 - 119
NAFTA Affirmative 120 - 155
NAFTA Negative 156 - 174
II. DISADVANTAGES
Economy Negative 175 - 198
Economy Affirmative 199 - 213
Federalism Negative 214 - 240
Federalism Affirmative 241 - 249
Military Trade-off Negative 250 - 270
Military Trade-off Affirmative 271 - 280
Presidential Elections Negative 281 - 302
Presidential Elections Affirmative 303 - 317
III. COUNTERPLAN
States Counterplan Negative 318 - 330
States Counterplan Affirmative 331 -343
2012/13 Core Files 3
Table of Contents (2/2)
IV. TOPICALITY VIOLATIONS
Rail Investment Topicality– “Its” Negative 345 - 351
Port Security Topicality– “Transportation Infrastructure” Negative 352 - 359
NAFTA Topicality - “In” Negative 360 - 367
Public Service Employment Topicality - “Investment” Negative 368 - 374
Rail Investment Topicality – “Its” Affirmative 376-377
Port Security Topicality– “Transportation Infrastructure” Affirmative 378-379
NAFTA Topicality - “In” Affirmative 380-383
Public Service Employment Topicality - “Investment” Affirmative 384-386
Rail Investment Affirmative 4
Background Information: Rail Investment 1
Rail Investment 1AC 1
Add-on Advantage: Economic Growth 1
2AC Inherency – A/t: #1 1
2AC Harms [Environment] – A/t: #1 1
2AC Harms [Environment] – A/t: #2 1
2AC Harms [Environment] – A/t: #3 1
2AC Harms [Environment] – A/t: #4 1
2AC Solvency – A/t: #1 1
2AC Solvency – A/t: #2 1
1AR Extension – Rail solves economic growth 2
Background Notes: Rail Investment 5
The Basic Science of Global Warming:
“Introduction
Global warming is the increase of average world temperatures as a result of what is known as the greenhouse effect. Certain gases in the atmosphere act like glass in a greenhouse, allowing sunlight through to heat the earth's surface but trapping the heat as it radiates back into space. As the greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere the Earth gets hotter. This process is leading to a rapid change in climate, also known as climate change.
Causes
One of the main greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2). […]
Other Greenhouse gases
CO2 contributes about 50% to the greenhouse effect. The other greenhouse gases are methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide (N2O)
Feedback Process
As the world warms it causes feedback processes. Increases in temperature cause the liberation of CO2 and methane which then cause further warming. Another feedback mechanism arises through higher air temperatures evaporating more water and so providing more cloud which both traps heat from below and reflects back sunlight from above. As the world warms, the effect of clouds could become more and more significant.
CO2 - about half the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is absorbed by the oceans. It is taken up by tiny sea creatures or dragged to the ocean depths by the circulation of water. Recent research suggests that as the earth heats up, the oceans will be less efficient in absorbing CO2 , leaving more in the atmosphere and so adding further to global warming.
Methane - as global temperatures become greater, so large quantities of methane stored in the frozen tundra of the north may be released. Also methane trapped in the sea bed may be freed by temperature rises.”
Rail Investment 1AC 6
Contention 1 is INHERENCY:
The federal government is not investing enough money in new rail infrastructure, leading to too many Americans relying on cars for transportation.
A. The federal government has spent decades under-investing in rail, resulting in the current failing system.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group, 2010
[Phineas Baxandall, PhD Political Science at MIT, senior policy analyst at US PIRG and formerly Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Taubman Center for State and Local Government; Tony Dutzik, senior policy analyst, M.A. journalism Boston University and former education reporter for Eagle-Tribune; and Siena Kaplan, analyst, US Frontier Group; “The Right Track: Building a 21st Century High-Speed Rail System for America,” ]
America’s passenger rail system is in its current sorry shape largely because of the failure to adequately invest in maintaining and upgrading the system over the last half century. During a postwar period in which America built tens of thousands of miles of gleaming new expressways and hundreds of airports, our rail system was allowed to deteriorate such that today, at the beginning of the 21st century, we still rely, in some places, on infrastructure dating from before the Civil War. In some cases, it takes far longer to complete a rail journey today than it did in the 1920s. The worst, most costly mistake America can make going into the 21st century is to not invest adequate resources in upgrading and expanding our passenger rail network. Failing to invest will necessitate even greater spending on highways and airports, deepen our costly dependence on foreign oil, and forestall the economic growth that can result from improved connections among people, businesses and institutions. The first step in determining an adequate level of investment is to recognize that America is digging out of a very deep hole when it comes to our nation’s rail infrastructure. If the federal government had invested the same amount of money over the last half-century in rail as it had in aviation, roughly $400 billion worth of upgrades would have been possible. That amount of money would have been more than enough to build a high-speed rail network worthy of the world’s most economically advanced nation.
B. Population growth means transportation will become more dangerous and pollution will only grow. Now is the key time to get cars off the highways.
BAXANDALL, 2008
[Phineas, PhD Political Science at MIT, senior policy analyst at US Public Interest Research Group and formerly Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Taubman Center for State and Local Government, “A Better Way to Go: Meeting America’s 21st Century Transportation Challenges with Modern Public Transit,” March, ]
The challenges facing America’s transportation system today are large, and they will only grow larger over time. America’s population is projected to increase by nearly 50 percent between 2000 and 2050, adding more than 110 million people between now and midcentury. Continuing along our current transportation path is all but certain to lead to more congestion, more pollution, greater oil dependence and more expense in the years ahead. Because transportation investments take years to plan and implement, the transportation decisions we make today will shape America’s transportation future for decades to come.
Rail Investment 1AC 7
Contention Two is HARMS:
America’s use of cars is causing global carbon emissions to increase, which is the most important factor to global warming.
A. American cars give off more carbon emissions than the total pollution of all but one other country in the world. We can’t do anything about global warming without addressing transportation
BAXANDALL, 2008
[Phineas, PhD Political Science at MIT, senior policy analyst at US Public Interest Research Group and formerly Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Taubman Center for State and Local Government, “A Better Way to Go: Meeting America’s 21st Century Transportation Challenges with Modern Public Transit,” March, ]
Global warming is real, is happening now, and will have devastating effects on the environment and our economy. Transportation is the leading contributor to global warming in the United States. In 2005, the United States was responsible for approximately 22 percent of the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading global warming pollutant. America’s transportation system produced one-third of those emissions. Indeed, our transportation system produced more carbon dioxide than the entire economy of any other nation in the world, other than China. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that America’s transportation system will consume 24 percent more energy to power light-duty vehicles by 2030; emissions of carbon dioxide could be expected to increase at a similar rate. The most recent science, meanwhile indicates that the world will need to achieve dramatic reductions in emissions—on the order of a 20 percent reduction by 2020 and an 80 percent reduction by 2050 in the United States—in order to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. Allowing for further increases in emissions from transportation in the United States would make it virtually impossible for the world to achieve the emission reductions needed to prevent the worst impacts of global warming.
B. Switching from cars to trains is key to greenhouse gas emissions
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYS, 2010
[Holger Dalkmann, Ceri James, Derek Palmer (all TRL Limited) and Margrethe Sagevik; “Keeping Climate Change Solutions on Track: The Role of Rail,” download.php/publication/515E.pdf]
CO2 emissions from transport are dominated by road. It may be notable, however, that CO2 emissions in this sector remained stable between 2007 and 2008. Global demand for transport appears unlikely to decrease in the foreseeable future; transport demand could grow by 45% by 2030, although this will depend on the speed of recovery in private demand. In addition, transport energy-related CO2 emissions are predicted to increase by 38% from 2006 to 2030 (about 1.25% a year)3. The significant proportion of global emissions from transport indicates that the sector can play a key role within the challenge of tackling climate change and sustainable development. The inclusion of transport within the successor to the Kyoto Protocol will be a key step to recognising and developing the role of transport, including rail, in reducing global emissions. A strong focus will need to be directed towards the development of road transport policies and mechanisms, as this sector emits 73% of total global transport emissions by modal share; rail is responsible for only 2% of CO2 emissions in the transport sector . It is important however to recognise the importance of rail within sustainable transport development, and the key role this mode can play within the challenge of achieving ambitious emissions reduction targets.
Rail Investment 1AC 8
C. Now is the key tipping point for global warming – without action, scientists agree climate change will cause mass species extinction
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 2012
[David Perlman, staff writer; “Warming nears point of no return, scientists say,” 6/07, ]
The Earth is reaching a "tipping point" in climate change that will lead to increasingly rapid and irreversible destruction of the global environment unless its forces are controlled by concerted international action, an international group of scientists warns. Unchecked population growth, the disappearance of critical plant and animal species, the over-exploitation of energy resources, and the rapidly warming climate are all combining to bring mounting pressure on the Earth's environmental health, they say. Scientists from five nations, led by UC Berkeley biologist Anthony Barnosky, report their analysis Thursday in the journal Nature. They likened the potential impact of the forces to previous major changes - both gradual and abrupt - in the planet's history that triggered mass extinctions and expansions, and produced completely new worldwide environments. The most recent of those was the sporadic end of the last ice age that began 14,000 years ago and shifted rapidly from warm to cold and then back to warm again over a few thousand years. That period saw the extinction of half the world's large animal life, and then the spread of an expanding human population to every continent on the planet.
D. Runaway temperature increases will cause the death of billions and even extinction as the Earth becomes impossible to live on
TICKELL, 2008
[Oliver, researcher of the Oxford Climate Associates, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction,” 8/11, ]
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King [Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford], who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5 million years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100 meters higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
Rail Investment 1AC 9
Thus, we present the following PLAN:
The United States federal government should substantially increase its grants to state governments for the development of energy-efficient rail infrastructure.
Rail Investment 1AC 10
Contention Three is SOLVENCY:
Federal investment will create a successful rail industry that gets cars off the road and decreases emissions.
A. Rail is a low-carbon form of transportation that can play a key role in reducing fossil fuel use and carbon emissions
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYS, 2010
[Holger Dalkmann, Ceri James, Derek Palmer (all TRL Limited) and Margrethe Sagevik; “Keeping Climate Change Solutions on Track: The Role of Rail,” download.php/publication/515E.pdf]
Transport brings enormous benefits to society through access and mobility, but it also has many external costs, including its contribution to climate change. Transport has a key role to play within solutions to climate change as current transport structures are responsible for extreme pressures on energy resources and ecosystems through a dependence on fossil fuels. Rail presents a low carbon mode of transport, and continued energy efficiency improvements and increases in modal shift to rail from road and air are crucial to support the transition to low carbon mobility. The technological and operational developments in rail, financial investments from international funds and governments, and the commitment of rail operators demonstrate not only the current status of rail, but more importantly the potential for rail to contribute to global emissions reductions in 2010 and beyond. Indeed the rail sector is ready to be part of the solution to climate change; the UIC Declaration on Sustainable Mobility and Transport (attached at the end of this document) outlines this commitment.
B. Energy-efficient trains don’t need oil and are a long-lasting infrastructure investment
U.S. Public Interest Research Group, 2010
[Phineas Baxandall, PhD Political Science at MIT, senior policy analyst at US PIRG and formerly Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Taubman Center for State and Local Government; Tony Dutzik, senior policy analyst, M.A. journalism Boston University and former education reporter for Eagle-Tribune; and Siena Kaplan, analyst, US Frontier Group; “The Right Track: Building a 21st Century High-Speed Rail System for America,” ]
With regard to energy, one of the greatest potential national benefits of high-speed rail is its ability to help wean the United States from its dependence on oil. The use of diesel locomotives can help achieve this objective, given the greater energy efficiency of passenger rail. But given the urgent need to reduce global warming pollution from transportation and lingering questions about the long-term availability of cheap oil, electric power is a far preferable choice. Railway electrification is expensive, but it comes with great benefits. Electric trains are more energy efficient, less noisy and produce less local air pollution than diesel trains, and the electricity used to power the trains can be obtained from clean energy sources, dramatically reducing the “carbon footprint” of rail transportation and virtually eliminating the use of oil. Federal investments should encourage electrification of rails wherever feasible, and ensure that rail vehicles—whether electric or diesel—achieve the maximum possible energy efficiency and environmental performance. Rail investments are long-lasting—rail infrastructure investments can last for a century or more, while the average age of a locomotive in the Amtrak fleet is 20 years. It is important that the investments we make in passenger rail are not just the best investments for today, but also the best investments for the future.
Rail Investment 1AC 11
C. The United States pollutes so much that no other country will agree on global warming action until we adopt a green transportation system. Taking action now will encourage the world to follow our lead.
BURWELL, 2010
[David, director of the Energy and Climate Program at the Carnegie Endowment, JD University of Virginia, former President of Surface Transportation Policy Project, “Transportation—The Leading Cause of Global Warming,” 4/15, ]
The United States consumes 25 percent of the world’s petroleum and that’s primarily because of the way we travel. Seventy percent of oil consumption in the United States is transportation and that is because we’re spread out, we drive everywhere, and we have over 700 cars per 1,000 people in order to support our driving habits. The rest of the world is much less dependent on cars and much more efficient consumers of petroleum. If we don’t adopt measures that reduce our need to travel—for our own benefit—we can’t expect the rest of the world not to behave in the same way. By addressing the way we travel, by helping ourselves, by giving ourselves more transportation choices, by connecting transportation to land use development, we are not only helping ourselves, but we are providing a model for the rest of the world of how they can develop in a way that is sustainable, low carbon, and provides more choices for everybody. If the United States passed a climate bill that priced transportation carbon and linked it to a transportation bill that would reinvest the revenues into a green transportation system, the United States would be on track to meet its stated obligation of a 17 to 20 percent absolute decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. That would give comfort to other countries—particularly China, India, and other emerging economies—that the United States is serious about reducing its transportation carbon and it would contribute to the likelihood of a global climate agreement.
C. Finally, rail can decrease total emissions by 60% by taking other vehicles off the road.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group, 2010
[Phineas Baxandall, PhD Political Science at MIT, senior policy analyst at US PIRG and formerly Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Taubman Center for State and Local Government; Tony Dutzik, senior policy analyst, M.A. journalism Boston University and former education reporter for Eagle-Tribune; and Siena Kaplan, analyst, US Frontier Group; “The Right Track: Building a 21st Century High-Speed Rail System for America,” ]
Passenger rail is a cleaner form of transportation than car or air travel, emitting less global warming pollution and less health threatening air pollution. Building a high speed rail network in the United States would attract passengers who otherwise would have taken cars or planes, reducing the country’s global warming emissions and cleaning up our air. Modernizing our tracks would also benefit freight trains, taking large trucks off of highways and adding to the environmental and health benefits of investment in rail. Passenger rail already emits less global warming pollution than cars or planes, and these savings will increase as the United States develops a high-speed rail network. The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP)/ Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) study showed that today, passenger rail travel emits 60 percent less carbon dioxide per passenger mile then cars and 66 percent less than planes. The faster diesel trains that would likely be used to upgrade current service would emit slightly more emissions, but would still emit much less than cars and planes and would draw more passengers than current passenger rail.
Add-on Advantage: Economic Growth 12
A. Rail investment would create jobs, technology, and business productivity
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION, 2011
[“The Case for Business Investment in High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail,” Feb,
]
High-speed rail has arrived just in time for America to incorporate it into a forward-looking economic policy. Its economic returns are demonstrated in numerous national and international studies. Expenditures for high-speed rail construction are estimated to support 24,000 jobs for each billion dollars of investment. The California High-Speed Rail Authority projects 600,000 full time construction jobs will be created over the course of building their project and 450,000 permanent new jobs will result from high-speed rail related economic growth over the next 25 years. The Economic Development Research Group for the U.S. Conference of Mayor’s studied the economic impact of high-speed rail on four different urban regions. The results focused on five factors. High-speed-rail service can help drive higher density, mixed use development at train stations; increase business productivity through travel efficiency gains; help expand visitor markets and generate additional spending; broaden regional labor markets; and support the growth of technology clusters.
B. Rail investment connects cities, boosting business and tourism
U.S. Public Interest Research Group, 2010
[Phineas Baxandall, PhD Political Science at MIT, senior policy analyst at US PIRG; Tony Dutzik, senior policy analyst, M.A. journalism Boston University and former education reporter for Eagle-Tribune; and Siena Kaplan, analyst, US Frontier Group; “The Right Track: Building a 21st Century High-Speed Rail System for America,” ]
The development of economically successful regions depends upon the ability to share information and insights quickly and conveniently. The growth of the Internet and other forms of telecommunication has not replaced the vital role of face-to-face interactions in generating new ideas and increasing economic productivity. In-person business and technology meetings are considered essential for building relationships and trust. Consider the benefits gained by students in Cleveland who come to hear a lecture from a university professor in Chicago, or of employees from throughout the Southeast called in for a one-day sales training in Atlanta. Our current transportation system, unfortunately, does a poor job of connecting residents and workers in the nation’s megaregions. The main highways linking cities within megaregions tend to be congested—think of Interstate 95 in the Northeast or Interstate 5 in the Pacific Northwest or Southern California. Air travel for short trips within a megaregion can be challenging as well. For many short flights, the amount of time that it takes to travel to the airport and go through security can be greater than the amount of time actually spent in flight. Passenger rail—particularly high-speed rail—has the potential to link cities within megaregions together in a faster and more efficient way. Easier travel within megaregions means that businesses and organizations will effectively be closer together, making it easier to travel between branches, meet with potential employees and clients, and make the other connections that strengthen an economy. It will also make the United States a more attractive location internationally, attracting potential economic boosts such as tourism and international meetings.
2AC Inherency – A/t: #1 13
1. Extend our U.S. Public Interest Research Group 2010 evidence from the 1AC. The federal government has always spent too little on rail for the industry to succeed.
2. Even if the government is spending more on rail, it is not spending enough in comparison to highway spending. This is causing an imbalance in favor of cars.
BAXANDALL, 2008
[Phineas, PhD Political Science at MIT, senior policy analyst at US Public Interest Research Group and formerly Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Taubman Center for State and Local Government, “A Better Way to Go: Meeting America’s 21st Century Transportation Challenges with Modern Public Transit,” March, ]
Highways have received the vast bulk of public investment over the last half century. Since 1956, federal, state and local governments have invested nine times more capital funding in highway subsidies than in transit. • While the federal government invests more in transit than in the past, the process for securing funding for new transit lines is far more onerous and less certain than for highway projects, with the federal government generally picking up a smaller share of the tab for new transit lines than for new highway projects.
3. The lack of government support means private investors will not think long-term enough to invest in rail.
LONGMAN, 2009
[Phillip, Senior Research Fellow with the New America Foundation’s Health Policy Program, former deputy assistant managing editor and senior writer at US News and World Report, winner of UCLA Gerald Loeb Award, and Knight-Bagheot Fellow at Columbia University; “Back on Tracks,” Washington Monthly, Jan/Feb, ]
Why don't the railroads just build the new tracks, tunnels,switch yards, and other infrastructure they need? America's major railroad companies are publicly traded companies answerable to often mindless, or predatory, financial Goliaths. While Wall Street was pouring the world's savings into underwriting credit cards and sub-prime mortgages on overvalued tract houses, America's railroads were pleading for the financing they needed to increase their capacity. And for the most part, the answer that came back from Wall Street was no, or worse. CSX, one of the nation's largest railroads, spent much of last year trying to fight off two hedge funds intent on gaining enough control of the company to cut its spending on new track and equipment in order to maximize short-term profits. So the industry, though gaining in market share and profitability after decades of decline, is starved for capital. While its return on investment improved to a respectable 8 percent by the beginning of this decade, its cost of capital outpaced it at around 10 percent--and that was before the credit crunch arrived. This is no small problem, since railroads are capital intensive, spending about five times more just to maintain remaining rail lines and equipment than the average U.S. manufacturing industry does on plant and equipment. Increased investment in railroad infrastructure would produce many public goods,including fewer fatalities from truck crashes, which kill some 5,000 Americans a year. But public goods do not impress Wall Street. Nor does the long-term potential for increased earnings that improved rail infrastructure would bring,except in the eyes of Warren Buffett--who is bullish on railroads--and a few other smart, patient investors.
2AC Harms [Environment] – A/t: #1 14
1. Extend our 1AC BAXANDALL and BURWITZ evidence. Emissions are increasing but there is still time to convince other countries to take action by decreasing American transportation pollution.
2. The next few years will be critical to reverse emissions and stop global warming. If serious action isn’t taken, it will be impossible to solve the problem.
REUTERS, 2012
[Nina Chestney, staff writer; “Global warming close to becoming irreversible-scientists,” 3/26, ]
The world is close to reaching tipping points that will make it irreversibly hotter, making this decade critical in efforts to contain global warming, scientists warned on Monday. Scientific estimates differ but the world's temperature looks set to rise by six degrees Celsius by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are allowed to rise uncontrollably. As emissions grow, scientists say the world is close to reaching thresholds beyond which the effects on the global climate will be irreversible, such as the melting of polar ice sheets and loss of rainforests. "
2AC Harms [Environment] – A/t: #2 15
1. Extend our INTERNATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYS evidence. Cars are the primary contributor to global warming emissions. Even if rail is not completely perfect, it is better than cars, and the car problem is getting worse.
BAXANDALL, 2008
[Phineas, PhD Political Science at MIT, senior policy analyst at US Public Interest Research Group and formerly Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Taubman Center for State and Local Government, “A Better Way to Go: Meeting America’s 21st Century Transportation Challenges with Modern Public Transit,” March, ]
America’s automobile-dependent transportation system is unique in the industrialized world. Other industrialized nations—ranging from Canada to Europe to Japan—have built more balanced transportation systems, in which cars, trains, buses and other forms of transit each play an important role. The United States has 1.9 vehicles per household on average—more vehicles than there are drivers to drive them.3With about 830 automobiles per 1,000 people, America has by far more vehicles per capita than any other nation in the world—over one-third more than Western Europe. We also travel more miles in our cars per year than residents of other industrialized countries. The average American travels more than twice as far by car each year as his or her European counterpart and more than four times as far as the average resident of Japan. (See Figure 1). Cars account for 86 percent of passenger travel in the U.S. compared with 76 percent in Europe and 58 percent in Japan. America’s dependence on cars has grown with each passing year. Between 1970 and 2001, the number of cars on America’s roads and streets increased by 60 percent. And the number of miles driven on U.S. roads has nearly doubled over the last quarter-century—increasing at a rate three times faster than population growth.
2. Road transportation is the greatest contributor to global warming.
BURWELL, 2010
[David, director of the Energy and Climate Program at the Carnegie Endowment, “Transportation—The Leading Cause of Global Warming,” 4/15, ]
Road transportation is the greatest contributor to global warming for the next 50 years according to a recent study by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. By analyzing the climate impact of each sector of the economy, the study determined that motor vehicles emit significant levels of pollutants that warm the atmosphere with few counteracting pollutants that create a cooling effect.
2AC Harms [Environment] – A/t: #2 16
3. Rail transit is ten times as efficient as road transit, resulting in lower emissions.
LONGMAN, 2009
[Phillip, Senior Research Fellow with the New America Foundation’s Health Policy Program, former deputy assistant managing editor and senior writer at US News and World Report, winner of UCLA Gerald Loeb Award, and Knight-Bagheot Fellow at Columbia University; “Back on Tracks,” Washington Monthly, Jan/Feb, ]
The vision of intermodal transport the railroads were seeking to promote made perfect sense. Rail transport lacks the flexibility of the rubber wheel kind, but it has other advantages that make it far superior when the circumstances allow. The biggest is a unique quality of the technology itself. Steel wheels on steel rails meet with very little rolling resistance. They don't compress and absorb energy from the surface the way a tire does, and the rail itself is much smoother than any road, so trains have only about one-tenth the rolling resistance of trucks. And because of the way rails absorb and spread the weight of a vehicle over long distances, this advantage increases as freight is added. The more you load up a train, the more efficient it becomes compared to a fleet of trucks carrying the same cargo. The Environmental Protection Agency calculates that for distances of more than 1,000 miles, a system in which trucks haul containers only as far as the nearest railhead and then transfer them to a train produces a 65 percent reduction in both fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. As the volume of freight is expected to increase by 57 percent between 2000 and 2020,the potential economic and environmental benefits of such an intermodal system will go higher and higher. Railroads are also potentially very labor efficient. Even in the days of the object-lesson train, when brakes had to be set manually and firemen were needed to stoke steam engines, a five-man crew could easily handle a fifty-car freight train, doing the work of ten times as many modern long-haul truckers.
4. Studies prove that rail investment will decrease emissions.
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION, 2011
[“The Case for Business Investment in High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail,” Feb,
]
Numerous studies have shown high-speed rail to be the route of energy and carbon savings. Figure 3 shows energy efficiency among intercity travel modes determined by the International Union of Railways. For the same energy use, high-speed rail provides eight times the passenger travel as aircraft and four times that of private cars.15 The Center for Neighborhood Technology found that high-speed rail cuts CO2 emissions nationwide and in every corridor where it is proposed to be built. It projected total emissions savings of 6 billion pounds of CO2 per year if all proposed high-speed rail systems studied are built. Their results are summarized on Figure 4. In all cases, high-speed rail creates lower emissions than air or auto travel.
2AC Harms [Environment] – A/t: #3 17
1. Extend our SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE evidence. Global warming is real and we are quickly approaching the tipping point. A consensus of scientists agrees that carbon emissions will soon cause mass species extinction.
2. Oceans are not able to capture enough carbon to offset warming – this proves runaway warming is coming soon.
THE DAILY MAIL, 2012
[Damien Gayle, staff writer; “Global warming is changing Arctic seas from where CO2 is absorbed to where it is produced, new study warns,” 6/19, ]
The Arctic coastal seas are changing from a sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide to a source of the greenhouse gas because of global warming, new research warns. Research into two seas bordering the polar region has shown that they are absorbing ever smaller amounts of atmospheric CO2 and, at points of the year, even becoming a source of the gas. The shock finding suggests that climate change could be fast becoming a vicious, inescapable cycle which can only further accelerate the damage to the environment.
3. New studies prove that warming will have devastating impacts on biodiversity.
SCIENCE DAILY, 2011
[No author credited; “Global Warming May Cause Higher Loss of Biodiversity Than Previously Thought,” 8/24, ]
If global warming continues as expected, it is estimated that almost a third of all flora and fauna species worldwide could become extinct. Scientists from the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (Biodiversität und Klima Forschungszentrum, BiK-F) and the SENCKENBERG Gesellschaft für Naturkunde discovered that the proportion of actual biodiversity loss should quite clearly be revised upwards: by 2080, more than 80 % of genetic diversity within species may disappear in certain groups of organisms, according to researchers in the title story of the journal Nature Climate Change. The study is the first world-wide to quantify the loss of biological diversity on the basis of genetic diversity.
2AC Harms [Environment] – A/t: #4 18
1. Extend our SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE and TICKELL evidence. Warming will cause widespread species extinctions, killing up to 80% of all life on Earth in the short-term and eventually making the planet uninhabitable.
2. Even if the entire species doesn’t go extinct, warming causes a loss of genetic diversity which causes extinction.
SCIENCE DAILY, 2011
[No author credited; “Global Warming May Cause Higher Loss of Biodiversity Than Previously Thought,” 8/24, ]
Carsten Nowak of the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F) and the Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturkunde, explains: "Our models of future distribution show that the "species" as such will usually survive. However, the majority of the genetic variations, which in each case exist only in certain places, will not survive. This means that self-contained evolutionary lineages in other regions such as the Carpathians, Pyrenees or the German Central Uplands will be lost. Many of these lines are currently in the process of developing into separate species, but will become extinct before this is achieved, if our model calculations are accurate." Genetic variation within a species is also important for adaptability to changing habitats and climatic conditions. Their loss therefore also reduces the chances for species survival in the long term.
3. Global warming will cause rapid collapse of civilization and human extinction.
MAZO, 2010
[Jeffrey, PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA, Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it]
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.
2AC Solvency – A/t: #1 19
1. Extend our INTERNATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYS and U.S. Public Interest Research Group 2010 evidence. Federal investment will be long-term, and will encourage private companies to invest to fill in any holes in investment.
2. The U.S. has the manufacturing capacity to immediately create and sustain new rail systems.
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION, 2011
[“The Case for Business Investment in High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail,” Feb,
]
Duke University looked at this growing market in its report U.S. Manufacture of Rail Vehicles for Intercity Passenger Rail and Urban Transit. 7 It found that an extensive supply chain for rail manufacturing already exists in large part, and that this geographically diverse network stands ready to respond to a spark in demand. America has a multiple market tailor-made for highspeed rail. This supply chain includes at least 249 U.S. manufacturing locations in 35 states. The report identified a total of 15 railcar builders, 2005 locomotive builders, and 159 component suppliers. These ranged from small firms with fewer than 20 employees and only one manufacturing site, to large, diverse firms with thousands of employees and several relevant U.S. manufacturing locations. The report also noted that the U.S. value chain includes several gaps – specific manufacturing activities that are not typically performed in the United States.
3. Federal funding will encourage states to cooperate and develop new funding sources.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group, 2010
[Phineas Baxandall, PhD Political Science at MIT, senior policy analyst at US PIRG and formerly Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Taubman Center for State and Local Government; Tony Dutzik, senior policy analyst, M.A. journalism Boston University and former education reporter for Eagle-Tribune; and Siena Kaplan, analyst, US Frontier Group; “The Right Track: Building a 21st Century High-Speed Rail System for America,” ]
To begin to dig out of that hole, the federal government should invest steadily increasing levels of funding in passenger rail. We probably cannot hope to match the $300 billion China will be investing in its high-speed rail system between now and 2020, but we should endeavor to match the level of investment provided by other industrialized nations, as a share of GDP, in their rail networks. Currently, America’s public investment in inter-city rail is far lower than that of other industrialized countries. Even with the unprecedented investments in passenger rail included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the U.S. government investment in the national rail system is far below that of many European countries per capita and as a share of GDP. (See Figure 7.) These figures do not include investments made by private U.S. freight railroads, but in any case, to create a truly world-class passenger rail system, the United States will need to invest far more than it has historically. As imporant as the lack of funding has been the instability of funding for passenger rail in the United States, which has made it difficult to undertake longterm capital planning and to build the investor confidence necessary to establish vibrant domestic industries to supply rail equipment. To ensure stable, continuing funding for high-speed rail, the next federal transportation bill should include a dedicated allocation of funds for passenger rail and the federal government should match state investments in rail at no less than the same 80:20 ratio it does for highways. By financing transportation projects equitably, states will be able to make rational transportation decisions based on the needs of their residents, rather than on the chances of securing a lucrative federal match.
2AC Solvency – A/t: #1 20
4. Maps and plans have already been developed, so building renewably electrified rails would happen quickly. This means the risk of disasters stopping construction are minimal.
LONGMAN, 2009
[Phillip, Senior Research Fellow with the New America Foundation’s Health Policy Program, former deputy assistant managing editor and senior writer at US News and World Report, winner of UCLA Gerald Loeb Award, and Knight-Bagheot Fellow at Columbia University; “Back on Tracks,” Washington Monthly, Jan/Feb, ]
Rail electrification also offers significant opportunities for zero-emission freight and passenger transportation. Heirs to the Milwaukee Road's hydropowered line could traverse the Great Plains, powered by the region's wind farms. In fact, there is probably no more practical use for wind than using it to power "wind trains" running across the heartland. Most wind farms are and will be concentrated near rail lines in any event, because the large size of windmills makes them difficult and expensive to move by truck. There is also no loss of energy in transmission when windmills power passing trains--a big problem in other applications. Some companies are already exploring the possibilities: BNSF Railway, which traverses many wind zones, is investigating a deal by which it would lease space for power lines along its rights-of-way to utilities in exchange for access to discounted wind power for its trains. Much of the electrification could start almost immediately.In the 1970s, the National Academy of Science and many others concerned about that decade's energy crisis did extensive work in mapping out the specific lines most suitable to electrification. In 1977, at one of the many technical conferences on the subject, Milton J. Shapp, then governor of Pennsylvania,spoke for many of the visionaries involved when he observed that "particularly in view of the energy crisis, it is essential to the well-being of our nation that our major railroads electrify." A temporary fall in oil prices and an abundance of short-term thinking killed almost every last project, but we still have the benefit of all the studies sitting on shelves. The work involved in constructing overhead wires, orcatenary, requires unique skills, but one can imagine laid-off construction workers taking to it far better than, say, to nursing, and with less retraining. Current studies indicate that labor and construction costs would come to about $2 million per mile-and maybe less, if steel prices continue to sink. Wiring the 36,000 miles of mainline track on the nation's high-density routes would thus come in at a cost of around $72 billion. According to John Schumann,professional engineer at the rail transportation consulting firm LTKEngineering, completing such a project could take as little as six years.
5. Federal investment is critical to getting private industry on-board, and to sustaining long-term projects that develop jobs.
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION, 2011
[“The Case for Business Investment in High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail,” Feb,
]
A Spark for Economic Growth: In a study of high-speed rail investment financing mechanisms, Mercator Advisors and Vantage Point Associates found that: “Investment in a regional rail corridors program...will result in the creation of both direct jobs related to the construction and operation of the system and additional jobs due to the regional benefits and economic activity over the long-term operating period.” 20 The Need for Projects Ripe for Public-Private Partnerships: As America looks to involve the private sector to the fullest extent possible, high-speed rail projects lend themselves well to various models, including operating contracts, concessions, and Design-Build-Operate-MaintainFinance arrangements. Around the world, support of the central government has been needed for the initial construction of the project, with the private sector assuming a large role in project delivery and operations.
2AC Solvency – A/t: #2 21
1. Studies show that millions of cars would be replaced by new rail lines.
LONGMAN, 2009
[Phillip, Senior Research Fellow with the New America Foundation’s Health Policy Program, former deputy assistant managing editor and senior writer at US News and World Report, winner of UCLA Gerald Loeb Award, and Knight-Bagheot Fellow at Columbia University; “Back on Tracks,” Washington Monthly, Jan/Feb, ]
The railroad has long been reluctant to accept government investment in its infrastructure out of fear of public meddling, such as being compelled to run money-losing passenger trains. But now, like most of the industry, it has changed its mind, and it happily accepted Virginia's offer last year to fund a small portion--$40 million--of the investment needed to get more freight traffic off I-81 and onto the Crescent Corridor. The railroad estimates that with an additional $2 billion in infrastructure investment, it could divert a million trucks off the road, which is currently carrying just under five million. State officials are thinking even bigger: a study sponsored by the Virginia DOT finds that a cumulative investment over ten to twelve years of less than $8 billion would divert 30 percent of the growing truck traffic on I-81 to rail. That would be far more bang for the state's buck than the $11 billion it would take to add more lanes to the highway, especially since it would bring many other public benefits, from reduced highway accidents and lower repair costs to enormous improvements in fuel efficiency and pollution reduction. Today, a single train can move as many containers as 280 trucks while using one-third as much energy--and that's before any improvements to rail infrastructure.
2. Rail passengers are increasing even counting for underinvestment.
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION, 2011
[“The Case for Business Investment in High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail,” Feb,
]
The overall rail passenger market in the United States is growing at an impressive rate, sustained by a multi-decade trend. The scale of this growing market is reaching the critical mass that will make the market for vehicle procurements and state-of-good-repair investments strong and consistent year in and year out. Market growth can be measured in a number of ways. Of the 35 light rail systems in existence today, only seven were present in 1980. Of the 28 commuter rail systems today, only 10 were in operation in 1980. Ridership on commuter rail, light rail, and heavy rail grew from 2.627 billion trips in 1995 to 4.513 billion trips in 2008, an increase of 72 percent. Despite chronic underinvestment, annual passenger trips aboard Amtrak have risen from 21 million in 2000 to 28.7 million in 2010, a 37 percent increase. In 2010, annual passenger trips were at their highest level ever.1
1AR Extension – Rail solves economic growth 22
Rail investment will connect regional markets and allow for rapid transportation, which is necessary for economic growth.
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION, 2011
[“The Case for Business Investment in High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail,” Feb,
]
Population growth in the United States has and will continue to concentrate in areas of economic opportunity. Several parts of the United States have seen the emergence of very high population clustering, accompanied by integrated regional labor markets, infrastructure, cultural and land-use patterns. Economically, these megaregions have become the engines of American prosperity. Connecting these regions to one another has become a key objective for our transportation system. The Urban Land Institute’s Infrastructure 2010: Investment Imperative asserts that failure to invest could delay economic recovery and put the United States at increased disadvantages in the global marketplace. The report clarifies the need for infrastructure investment including investment in high-speed rail to modernize America’s rail transportation system. High-speed rail is seen as the solution for taking pressure off airports and highways in regional intercity markets as travel demand increases. The report states that: “Car dependence and ever-escalating driving delays in most large American cities have exposed the need for more passenger rail service to take the pressure off crowded interstates and clogged airports, which struggle to handle current traffic volumes. The urgency of addressing the issue becomes more apparent since the country’s population will increase by 120 million over the next 40 years, with growth concentrated in the nation’s primary urban centers and surrounding suburbs. All these people will want to move around and current systems won’t be able to handle prospective volumes.” 13
Rail Investment Negative 23
1NC Inherency Frontline 1
1NC Harms [Environment] Frontline 1
1NC Harms [Environment] 2
2NC Harms [Environment] – Extension #1 1
2NC Harms [Environment] – Extension #2 1
2NC Harms [Environment] – Extension #3 1
1NC Solvency Frontline 1
2NC Solvency – Extension #1 1
2NC Solvency – Extension #2 1
2NC Harms [Economy] Frontline 1
1NC Inherency Frontline 24
1. Federal spending on rail is already increasing and budgeted for the next several years.
AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION, 2011
[“The Case for Business Investment in High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail,” Feb,
]
On February 17, 2009 the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was signed
into law. As part of this legislation, $8 billion was provided for intercity and high-speed rail
projects. On July 10, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received pre-applications
from 40 states totaling $103 billion. The FRA is implementing these passenger rail programs
through the statutory program structure of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act
of 2008, signed into law by President Bush. Congress has supplemented the initial $8 billion
with additional appropriations of $2.5 billion in FY 2010. The Administration has proposed
an authorization of $53 billion for high-speed rail over the six years from FY 2012 through
2017. This is a high priority program in the FY 2012 budget that highlights the importance of
transportation infrastructure for jobs, economic growth, and international competition. This
has been presented by the White House as a down payment on future investment. A U.S.
Department of Treasury report found this to be an ideal time for such investment given the
low cost of capital, low construction costs, and high levels of unemployment in the construction
industry.4
1NC Harms [Environment] Frontline 25
1. The Earth has already passed the point of no return on climate change – no matter what actions we take, the environment cannot recover.
THE INDEPENDENT, 2006
[Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor; “Global warming: passing the 'tipping point',” 2/11, ]
A crucial global warming "tipping point" for the Earth, highlighted only last week by the British Government, has already been passed, with devastating consequences. Research commissioned by The Independent reveals that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has now crossed a threshold, set down by scientists from around the world at a conference in Britain last year, beyond which really dangerous climate change is likely to be unstoppable. The implication is that some of global warming's worst predicted effects, from destruction of ecosystems to increased hunger and water shortages for billions of people, cannot now be avoided, whatever we do. It gives considerable force to the contention by the green guru Professor James Lovelock, put forward last month in The Independent, that climate change is now past the point of no return.
2. Rail use is not more environmentally friendly than car use, and focusing on making cars cleaner would be more effective.
O’TOOLE, 2010
[Randal, Cato Institute Senior Fellow; “Urban Transit,” June, transportation/urban-transit]
Many people take it for granted that rail transit is good for the environment. The reality is that rail transit uses about as much energy and emits about as much pollution, per passenger mile, as automobiles. To the extent that rail transit might save any energy at all, the financial cost of getting a few people to ride trains and drive less is huge. People who sincerely want to save energy and reduce pollution should focus on making automobiles more environmentally friendly, not on trying to get people to ride rail transit. Charles Lave called this the "Law of Large Proportions," meaning "the biggest components matter most."60 In other words, Americans travel 60 times as many passenger miles in urban areas by automobile as by transit, so a small investment in reducing the environmental effects of autos will go much further than a large investment in transit.
1NC Harms [Environment] Frontline 26
3. Warming claims are wrong because the Earth is releasing more heat than it traps in.
CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK, 2011
[Dale Hurd, staff writer; “Investigation Adds to Global Warming Doubt,” 8/01, ]
NASA satellite data from the last 11 years shows Earth's atmosphere is allowing more heat to escape into space than computer models had predicted. The study in the peer-reviewed journal "Remote Sensing" means much less greenhouse gases are trapped in the upper atmosphere and that global warming may not be the big deal some have made it out to be. It's no surprise to global warming skeptics like Joseph D'Aleo, the first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel. D'Aleo said the methodology used for showing the earth is warming has been unreliable and unscientific.
4. Their impact is all hyperbole; it doesn’t say anything about human extinction and even concedes that life has survived warming periods before.
2NC Harms [Environment] – Extension #1 27
Extend our INDEPENDENT evidence: it is impossible to stop global warming because the Earth is already passed the tipping point. Even if we got every car off the road and stopped all emissions today, the environment has taken too much damage to recover.
And, the plan will not be nearly enough to stop the overwhelming emissions already in place. First, businesses and huge polluters like India and China will not cut emissions.
THE GUARDIAN, 2012
[Will Hutton, staff writer; “A catastrophe if global warming falls off the international agenda,” 6/23, ]
There was the usual cast of suspects. China and India were determined that action on carbon emissions must be undertaken by the west and not by them, so creating political deadlock. American oil, car and airline companies lobby intensely to stop any tax being levied on oil and gas, while global banks lobby no less furiously against a financial transactions tax whose proceeds might be used to alleviate the impact of climate change on those countries and regions most badly affected – usually the very poorest.
And, rail lines will not have a significant effect on carbon emissions.
KAGESON, Professor of Environment System Analysis at Royal Institute of Technology, 2009
[Per, PhD Environment and Energy System Analysis, University of Lund (Sweden); “Environmental aspects of inter-city passenger transport,” Nov; ]
There is no cause to prohibit investment in high speed rail on environmental grounds so long as the carbon gains made in traffic balances the emissions caused during construction. The rail sector, however, often claims that investment in rail infrastructure will bring large environmental benefits (Banverket, 2008, UNIFE 2008, UIC 2008). Independent research, on the other hand, concludes that these benefits are not so important (de Rus, 2008, WSP and KTH Järnvägsgruppen, 2008, Nilsson and Pydokke, 2009). The results of this report support the latter view. Investment in high speed rail cannot be expected to contribute much to climate change mitigation. Investment in conventional fast trains may in some circumstances be significantly more beneficial. It may be time for many environmentalists to reconsider their attitude to high speed rail. While in some cases calling for huge investment in high speed rail, the environmental organizations want speed restrictions for road vehicles to be tightened, aircraft to be designed for lower speeds and ship operators to involve in slow-steaming.
2NC Harms [Environment] – Extension #2 28
Extend our O’TOOLE 2010 evidence. Rail transit uses the same energy and pollutes just as much as cars do. So many more people travel by road than by rail that the plan will have no impact on emissions.
And, the majority of trains will use diesel fuel which pollutes more than gasoline.
BAXANDALL, 2008
[Phineas, PhD Political Science at MIT, senior policy analyst at US Public Interest Research Group and formerly Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Taubman Center for State and Local Government, “A Better Way to Go: Meeting America’s 21st Century Transportation Challenges with Modern Public Transit,” March, ]
One key difference between transit vehicles and cars is that many transit vehicles —particularly buses and trains – use diesel fuel rather than gasoline. Diesel engines are typically more fuel-efficient than gasoline engines, and therefore get more work done with less fuel, contributing to the oil-saving benefits of transit. However, diesel fuel also contains more carbon per gallon than gasoline, meaning that diesel engines are less effective at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide than they are at conserving oil. Transit agencies can further reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by switching to lower-carbon fuels such as natural gas and (in some parts of the country) electricity.
And, new trains would emit just as much as cars, and would not be more energy efficient.
O’TOOLE, 2010
[Randal, Cato Institute Senior Fellow; “Urban Transit,” June, transportation/urban-transit]
The environmental benefits of high-speed rail would be negligible at best. President Obama's moderate-speed trains are expected to be powered by diesel locomotives, which burn petroleum and emit pollutants and greenhouse gases. Even electrically powered, true high-speed rail is unlikely to be clean. California rated its proposal as environmentally sound only by projecting impossibly high ridership numbers and unrealistically assuming that future automobiles and airplanes would be no more energy-efficient than they are today. In 2005, Florida's High-Speed Rail Authority proposed a 125-mph rail line between Tampa and Orlando. The environmental impact statement for the proposal estimated that the trains would produce more nitrogen oxide pollution and volatile organic compounds than would be saved by the automobiles taken off the road.35 It also calculated that operating and maintaining the gas-turbine locomotives would consume 3.5 to 6.0 times as much energy as would be saved by the cars replaced.36 The statement concluded that "the environmentally preferred alternative is the No Build Alternative" because it "would result in less direct and indirect impact to the environment."37
2NC Harms [Environment] – Extension #3 29
Extend our CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK evidence. The science behind global warming is wrong because data cannot account for all factors. The Earth has actually been releasing heat rather than storing it in.
And, any impact to global warming is theoretical and long-term. There is no risk of a tipping point, and the plan isn’t enough to make serious change.
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 2012
[David Perlman, staff writer; “Warming nears point of no return, scientists say,” 6/07, ]
The scientists concede there is "considerable uncertainty" that these forces will inevitably lead to such a rapid and radical transformation of the world's environment - a "state shift," as they call it - but they argue such a shift is "highly plausible" and may have already begun. Slowing or reversing that transition will require international cooperation to slow population growth, curb dependence on fossil fuels, increase the efficiency of food production, and manage both lands and oceans as reservoirs of biodiversity, the scientist say. Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has been a vociferous skeptic on the urgency of global warming, called the warnings by Barnosky and his colleagues "highly implausible." "Even if their models of the future were correct, what's crucial is the time frame, and no one thinks that something terrible will happen in anything like the future they see," Lindzen said. "Their population predictions are extremely unlikely, and their climate predictions are always hypothetical."
And, global warming is a natural phenomenon that is part of the Earth’s normal cycle.
FOREX TV NEWS, 2011
[Conor Kelly, staff writer; “NASA’s Antarctic Study Casts Doubt on Global Warming,” 6/19, ]
A recent study published by University of Southern California researchers suggests that Antarctica featured drastically different conditions in its past—particularly during the Miocene Era. The study, conducted with the purpose of predicting conditions following further climate change, found that global temperature changes in the past have drastically altered the climates of the poles. By drilling into the crust beneath Antarctic ice sheets, the scientists were able to analyze waxed leaf fossils, suggesting that the climate allowed for vegetation. Past experiments have reached difficulties using this technique, as shifting ice sheets destroy fossils. However, Sarah J. Feakins, leader of the study, was tipped off by pollen samples that suggested hints of plant life. By looking at hydrogen isotopes present in the plant matter, the team was able to determine air and water conditions during the plant’s life. In a paper published in Nature Geoscience, the researchers reported hotter and wetter conditions in Antarctica’s past than were previously believed. The research has been used by many to claim evidence that global warming is part of a natural phenomenon involving cyclic climate change. Carbon monoxide readings during the Miocene Era fall somewhere between 400 and 600 parts per million (ppm). Readings today are steadily reaching 393 ppm, one of the highest readings in several million years, a trend geologists say match with this period in Earth’s history. USC researchers suggest that at the current rate, global temperatures will reach Miocene Era levels by the end of this century.
1NC Solvency Frontline 30
1. Rail is not sustainable because infrastructure is easily destroyed by weather and natural disasters.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYS, 2010
[Holger Dalkmann, Ceri James, Derek Palmer (all TRL Limited) and Margrethe Sagevik; “Keeping Climate Change Solutions on Track: The Role of Rail,” download.php/publication/515E.pdf]
Traditionally, the threat of natural hazards has been an integrated element in the planning and construction of rail infrastructure. For example, Swedish construction of roads and tracks incorporates a specific dimensioning in order to cope with the ‘50 years deluge’. However, much international rail infrastructure was constructed more than 100 years ago, and in many places rail tracks have suffered from lack of proper maintenance, due primarily to company cutbacks. As the number, and the intensity, of incidents caused by extreme weather events will arise in the future, the pressure on the capacity of the rail system will rise together with the costs for the sector. If the right measures are taken at the right time, the risk will be bearable. Heat waves, flooding and high wind can and are already, having an adverse affect on current rail infrastructure and are effecting performance. The Southern Australian heatwaves in January 2009 and 2010 saw rail tracks buckle under record 44ºC heat, cancelling trains and stranding passengers. Heavy rain and flood water cause damage to rail infrastructure, undermining earthworks and overwhelming drainage systems which in the past have been adequate. In addition high winds can cause overhead lines to become damaged, leading to the cancellation of services.
2. Rail is only passenger efficient in New York City. There aren’t enough users anywhere else, and rail spending trades off with better plans.
O’TOOLE, 2010
[Randal, Cato Institute Senior Fellow; “Urban Transit,” June, transportation/urban-transit]
Transit funding is costly to taxpayers, and it is not a proper function of the federal government. It encourages state and local governments to pursue high-cost and less-efficient transportation solutions—in particular, rail transit. Outside of a few hyper-dense cities in the world, rail transit is a luxury for the few paid for by everyone. Commuter trains and subways may be necessary to keep Manhattan going, but that doesn't mean that everyone else in the nation should subsidize them. Outside of New York City, rail transit makes little economic sense. The federal government should end its transit subsidies, and American cities should focus on more economically sound and consumer-driven approaches to easing congestion. Policymakers at all levels should work to revive private transit options for cities, and they should allow consumers to pursue their transportation choices in a neutral and competitive market environment.
2NC Solvency – Extension #1 31
Extend our INTERNATIONAL UNION OF RAILWAYS evidence. Rail systems are vulnerable to slight shifts in weather or disasters, meaning it likely the new railways the plan builds will break down.
And, rail is the most expensive transit system to build meaning degrading lines will not be rebuilt or improved.
O’TOOLE, 2010
[Randal, Cato Institute Senior Fellow; “Urban Transit,” June, transportation/urban-transit]
The most important thing to understand about rail transit is that it is very, very expensive. The Government Accountability Office has shown, for example, that buses can provide service as fast and frequently as light rail at a lower operating cost and for about two percent of the capital cost. Outside of a few very dense places such as Manhattan, Tokyo, and Hong Kong, there is nothing trains can do that buses cannot do faster, better, more flexibly, and for a lot less money. The typical light-rail project being planned or built today costs $20 million per track mile, although one being planned in Seattle is expected to cost more than $100 million per mile. Heavy rail typically costs at least twice as much as light rail: An extension of the Washington Metrorail system is expected to cost $225 million per mile for example. Commuter-rail typically costs $5 to $10 million per mile. Freeways typically cost much less than rail. The Fort Bend Tollway Authority recently completed a four-lane freeway on the outskirts of Houston, complete with interchanges and over- and underpasses, for $2.4 million per lane mile. The Colorado Department of Transportation recently widened Interstate 25 through the heart of Denver, which required numerous overpasses, at a cost of $19 million per lane mile. Counting urban and suburban areas together, the average cost is less than $10 million per lane mile.
2NC Solvency – Extension #2 32
Extend our O’TOOLE 2010 evidence. Rail only works in very populated areas where there are riders. In other locations, nobody will choose to ride the rail making it ineffective.
And, comparing the numbers of riders prove people will still use their cars.
O’TOOLE, 2010
[Randal, Cato Institute Senior Fellow; “Urban Transit,” June, transportation/urban-transit]
Rail advocates claim that rail lines can move as many people as several freeway lanes, however capacity counts for much less than actual use. In 2007, the average track mile of light and commuter rail carried less than 15 percent as many passenger miles as the average freeway lane mile in urban areas with rail transit. Outside of New York, the average heavy rail mile carried only 70 percent as many passenger miles as the average urban freeway lane mile.12 In comparing rail and highway productivities, rail supporters often use a double standard: comparing full railcars with the average occupancy of commuter automobiles. In fact, like automobiles, the average transit vehicle carries far fewer people than its capacity. Most rail cars and buses carried less than one-sixth of their capacity in 2007.13 Even sport utility vehicles do better than that.
Harms [Economy Add-On] Frontline 33
1. Lack of revenue means government will have to continually bail-out the rail industry, creating budget overstretch for years.
WORLD BANK, 2010
[Paul Amos, Dick Bullock, and Jitendra Sondhi “High-Speed Rail: The Fast
Track to Economic Development?” July, ]
Operating and maintenance costs are generally low by comparison with the capital costs because speed delivers better equipment utilisation and train crew turn-rounds. Most lines at least recover their operating and maintenance costs. But is very difficult for most stand-alone high-speed railways to recover much of the capital costs from the passenger revenue stream alone, except in the very densest traffic corridors. Governments contemplating the benefits of a new high-speed railway, whether procured by public or private or combined public-private project structures, should also contemplate the near-certainty of copious and continuing budget support for the debt. A developing country must reasonably expect at least 20 million passengers/year with significant purchasing power, just to have the possibility of covering the working expenses and interest costs of providing that capacity with high-speed service; and probably double that number of passengers to have any possibility of recovering the capital cost.
2. Rail projects do not stimulate development, they only redistribute it.
O’TOOLE, 2010
[Randal, Cato Institute Senior Fellow; “Urban Transit,” June, transportation/urban-transit]
Rail advocates say that rail transit stimulates economic development. They often point to a streetcar line built in downtown Portland, Oregon, that supposedly stimulated $1.5 billion worth of new development. In fact, much of that development was subsidized with hundreds of millions of dollars of tax-increment financing and other developer subsidies. It is not likely that the streetcar alone would have generated the developments without the subsidies. Does any rail transit stimulate new development? In the mid-1990s, the Federal Transit Administration asked this question of Robert Cervero, who is a strong proponent of transit-oriented developments, and Samuel Seskin, who works for Parsons Brinkerhoff, the consulting firm that has had a hand in almost every major rail transit project since the first New York City subway was built. Despite their bias in favor of rail transit, the authors found that "urban rail transit investments rarely ‘create' new growth." At best, it may "redistribute growth that would have taken place without the investment."45 In other words, rail transit is at best a zero-sum game benefiting some property owners at the expense of others. The property owners who mainly benefit are those who own land downtown because most rail systems are hub-and-spoke systems that focus on downtown. That explains some of the political calculus behind rail: downtown property owners benefit a lot, so they lobby for rail. Other property owners each lose a little, so they have little incentive to lobby against it.
Harms [Economy Add-On] Frontline 34
3. Government investment will fail because of the inability to generate passenger revenue in the short-term.
WORLD BANK, 2010
[Paul Amos, Dick Bullock, and Jitendra Sondhi “High-Speed Rail: The Fast
Track to Economic Development?” July, ]
Experience internationally is that construction and rollingstock capital costs, outside of China where they are significantly lower, typically range from USD 35 -70 million/km, depending on the complexity of civil engineering works, the degree of urbanization along the route and required total rollingstock capacity. Many projects have taken long periods to complete (over a decade is not unusual) creating a heavy capital and debt burden before any cash in-flows. Any delay in passenger ramp-up period, or shortfall in ridership or yield, can quickly create financial stress. Many lines internationally have run into trouble and had to have either restructure debt or seek additional funding from Government.
Port Security Affirmative 35
Background Information: Port Security 1
Port Security 1AC Error! Bookmark not defined.
2AC Inherency 1
2AC Harms [Terrorism] - A/t: #1 1
2AC Harms [Terrorism] - A/t: #2 1
2AC Harms [Terrorism] - A/t: #3 1
2AC Harms [Terrorism] - A/t: #4 1
2AC Solvency: A/t: #1 1
2AC Solvency: A/t: #2 1
Background Notes: Port Security 36
Maritime – “Connected with the sea, esp. in relation to seafaring commercial or military activity: ‘maritime law’.”
What are Weapons of Mass Destruction?
“Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is often referred to by the collection of […] of weapons: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE). These are weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on people, property, and/or infrastructure.”
What is a "dirty bomb"? What are the dangers of the dirty bomb?
“A dirty bomb, or radiological dispersion device, is a bomb that combines conventional explosives, such as dynamite, with radioactive materials in the solid, liquid or gaseous form. A dirty bomb is intended to disperse radioactive material into a small, localized area around an explosion. The main purpose of a dirty bomb is to frighten people and contaminate buildings or land.
The primary danger from a dirty bomb containing a low-level radioactive source would be the blast itself. Gauging how much radiation might be present is difficult when the source of the radiation is unknown. However, at the levels created by most sources, there would not be enough radiation in a dirty bomb to cause severe illness from exposure to radiation. Certain radioactive materials dispersed in the air could contaminate several city blocks, create fear and require costly cleanup.”
Port Security 1AC 37
Contention 1 is INHERENCY:
The United States federal government has not acted to institute effective port security policies in the status quo.
A. Current government port security programs barely scratch the surface of potential threats brought in by ships. As a result of delays in enforcement, the risk of a nuclear terrorist attack within the next two years is catastrophic.
BOSTON GLOBE, 2012
[Bobby Caina Calvan, Congressional Reporter and International Center for Journalists Reporting Fellow, “US to miss target for tighter port security,” 6/12,
]
The Department of Homeland Security will miss an initial deadline of July 12 to comply with a sweeping federal law meant to thwart terrorist attacks arriving by sea, frustrating border security advocates who worry that the agency has not done enough to prevent dangerous cargo from coming through the country’s ocean gateways, including the Port of Boston. Only a small fraction of all metal cargo containers have been scanned before arriving at US ports, and advocates for tighter port security say all maritime cargo needs to be scanned or manually inspected to prevent terrorists from using ships bound for the United States to deliver a nuclear bomb. The scenario might be straight out of a Hollywood script, but the threat of terrorism is not limited to airplanes, according to Homeland Security critics, including Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts. Markey accuses the agency of not making a good-faith effort to comply with a 2007 law he coauthored requiring all US-bound maritime shipments to be scanned before departing overseas docks. “We’re not just missing the boat, we could be missing the bomb,’’ the Malden Democrat said. “The reality is that detonating a nuclear bomb in the United States is at the very top of Al Qaeda’s terrorist targets.’’ Only about 5 percent of all cargo containers headed to the United States are screened, according to the government’s own estimate, with some shipments getting only a cursory paperwork review. Homeland Security officials argue that wider screening would be cost-prohibitive, logistically and technologically difficult, and diplomatically challenging. While acknowledging the threat as real, they are exercising their right under the 2007 law to postpone for two years the full implementation of the congressionally mandated scanning program. That would set the new deadline for July 2014. Critics say the consequences of delay could be catastrophic. Terrorists have long sought to obtain uranium or plutonium to construct a nuclear bomb, global security analysts say. Government officials, including President Obama and his predecessor, George W. Bush, have worried that terrorist cells could be plotting further devastation in the United States, perhaps through radioactive explosives called “dirty bombs.’’ Homeland Security “has concluded that 100 percent scanning of incoming maritime cargo is neither the most efficient nor cost-effective approach to securing our global supply chain,’’ said Matt Chandler, an agency spokesman. Homeland Security “continues to work collaboratively with industry, federal partners, and the international community to expand these programs and our capability to detect, analyze, and report on nuclear and radiological materials,’’ Chandler said, adding that “we are more secure than ever before.’’ The agency has used what it calls a “risk-based approach’’ to shipments. As a
[Evidence continues next page, no text deleted…]
Port Security 1AC 38
[BOSTON GLOBE evidence continues, no text deleted…]
result, Homeland Security has focused on cargo originating from 58 of the world’s busiest
seaports, from Hong Kong to Dubai. Last year, US agents stationed at those ports inspected 45,500 shipments determined to be high risk, according to joint testimony by Homeland Security, Coast Guard, and US Customs officials in February before the House Homeland Security Committee. Republicans have been wary of forcing the agency to comply with the scanning mandate because of the presumed cost, perhaps at least $16 billion - a figure disputed by Markey and others who cite estimates that the program could cost a comparatively modest $200 million. Representative Candice Miller, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House subcommittee on border and maritime security, was more inclined to accept the estimate from Homeland Security officials. In light of the country’s budget troubles, “we have to try and prioritize,’’ she said. Scanning cargo “100 percent would be optimal,’’ she conceded, “but it’s not workable.’’ Still, she acknowledged the need to secure the country’s borders, whether by air, land, or sea. There is no dispute that a terrorist attack at a major port could be catastrophic to the global economy. Much of the world’s products - T-shirts sewn in China, designer shoes from Italy, and other foreign-made products - arrives in the United States in large, metal cargo containers. While some countries have voluntarily improved cargo screening, others have not. Large retailers have opposed measures that could increase their costs. Without full scanning compliance, it is often difficult to determine if shipments have been inspected because cargo is sometimes transferred from ship to ship offshore. “The existing system has some real problems,’’ said Stephen Flynn, the founding codirector of the Kostas Research Institute for Homeland Security at Northeastern University. “We should be focusing on how to improve the system,’’ he said, “and that’s really not happening.’’ November will mark a decade since Congress approved the sweeping maritime law that put in place standards and procedures for screening cargo. In 2007, Markey and other Democrats won approval of the 100-percent scanning program, opposed by Homeland Security officials but ultimately signed by President Bush.
Port Security 1AC 39
Contention 2 is the HARMS:
Without a plan to substantially increase port security, a terrorist attack is inevitable, causing many deaths and the collapse of the global economy.
A. Security experts agree that a terrorist attack on our ports is probable by 2015. Even if an attack is unlikely, the overwhelming economic damages of an attack mean that we must do everything we can to prevent one.
Congressional Research Service, 2007
[Paul W. Parfomak, PhD Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon University, and John Frittelli, Master’s degree in Economics, SUNY Albany and former container shipping industry importer; Resources, Science, and Industry Division, Congressional Research Service Report to Congress, “Maritime Security: Potential Terrorist Attacks and Protection Priorities”, 1/09, ]
The Bush Administration’s National Strategy for Maritime Security states that “Weapons of Mass Destruction issues are of the greatest concern since the maritime domain is the likely venue by which Weapons of Mass Destruction will be brought into the United States.” One arms control expert believes that, under current maritime security practices, the likelihood of such an attack within the decade “is more likely than not.” According to a press report, the operations and emergency management director for the Port of Los Angeles has stated that the probability of a nuclear attack at his port is “not low,” and that measures to prevent such an attack are the port’s top priority. Although much attention is paid to the threat of nuclear terrorism, there are divergent opinions about the likelihood of a terrorist group such as al Qaeda constructing or otherwise obtaining a workable nuclear weapon. Expert estimates of the probability of terrorists obtaining a nuclear device have ranged from 50% to less than 1%. Among other challenges to obtaining such a device, experts believe it unlikely that countries with nuclear weapons or materials would knowingly supply them to a terrorist group. It also may be technically difficult to successfully detonate such a nuclear device. North Korea experienced technical failures in conducting its 2006 nuclear weapons test, and this test took place under highly controlled conditions. Attempting to detonate a nuclear device in a maritime terror attack could pose even greater operational challenges. Consistent with these perspectives, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has stated, “I don't think that in the near term there's a significant likelihood of a traditional nuclear device being detonated” in the United States. Other experts concede that evaluating the likelihood of nuclear terrorism is inherently uncertain, but that such potential attacks warrant attention even if they are unlikely. “The probability of a terrorist attack with an actual nuclear weapon cannot be reliably estimated, and it is surely lower than the probability of virtually any other type of terrorist attack. But the devastation from such an attack would be so overwhelming that, based on expected damages — the probability multiplied by the consequences — this threat must be considered one of the greatest dangers America faces....” (de Rugy, Veronique. “Is Port Security Spending Making Us Safer?” American Enterprise
Institute. Working Paper #115. Sept. 7, 2005. p. 8.) Terrorist attacks on U.S. ports with radiological dispersion devices (“dirty” bombs) is also considered among the gravest maritime terrorism scenarios. A 2003 simulation of a series of such attacks concluded that they “could cripple global trade and have a devastating impact on the nation’s economy.” Many terrorism analysts view such a dirty bomb attack as relatively likely. In a 2005 survey, for example, nuclear non-proliferation experts expressed their beliefs (on average) that there was a 25% chance of a dirty bomb attack in the United States by 2010 and a 40% chance of such an attack by 2015. Studies suggest that the materials required to make a dirty bomb may be widely available and poorly controlled internationally. According to some press reports, U.S. and British intelligence agencies have reportedly concluded that Al Qaeda has succeeded in making such a bomb. Port operators have testified before Congress that they believe “it is just a question of time” before terrorists with dirty bombs successfully attack a U.S. port.
Port Security 1AC 40
B. Terrorists are most likely to attack us with a nuclear weapon through our seaports – this is a very real threat would cause hundreds of thousands of instant deaths.
KONKEL, 2005
[Todd, Master’s Degree in Security Studies, Georgetown University, “Container Security: Preventing a Nuclear Catastrophe,” Journal of International Policy Solutions, ]
In the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. government passed a significant number of measures to improve aviation security – an area with a high level of public visibility. This nation faces a potentially greater threat, however, from a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) making its way into the U.S. in one of the thousands of cargo containers that enter this country every day. In June 2004, the House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation issued a memo reflecting this view: “Despite the importance of seaport security, perhaps no other mode of transportation is currently more vulnerable to future attacks than our Nation’s Marine Transportation System.” Although a future attack involving a chemical or biological WMD could have tragic consequences, a nuclear weapon, which could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths in an instant, presents the most concerning threat. In Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, Harvard professor Graham Allison shares a brief but revealing excerpt from a private conversation that took place with former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge in February 2004. When asked what worried him most, Secretary Ridge replied with a single word: “nuclear.” Later in his book, Allison states that a nuclear weapon used by terrorists in an attack on the United States “is far more likely to arrive in a cargo container than on the tip of a missile.” The threat of a nuclear attack involving a seaborne container lies at the nexus of two critically important security issues: the availability of nuclear materials and the vulnerability of cargo containers. Although the U.S. government has taken a number of steps in the past few years to secure nuclear materials and improve the security of the country’s ports, the threat of a nuclear weapon entering the United States undetected in a shipping container remains very real. Much additional work, including international standards for container security and expanded international cooperation to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials, is necessary to prevent a catastrophe that could dwarf the tragedy of 9/11.
C. A nuclear terrorist attack would cause economic devastation and lead to full-scale nuclear world war as the U.S. seeks to retaliate
SPEICE, 2006
[Patrick, attorney, JD and Graduate Research Fellow, College of William and Mary, “Negligence and Nuclear Nonproliferation: Eliminating the Current Liability Barrier to Bilateral US-Russian Nonproliferation Assistance Programs,” William and Mary Law Review, Lexis/Nexis]
The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States or its allies by hostile states, as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.
Port Security 1AC 41
D. Terrorists have multiple ways to sneak a nuclear or biological weapon past our limited cargo screening. A terrorist attack on ports will result in thousands of deaths and global economic disruption.
MEDALIA, National Defense Specialist at Congressional Research Service, 2002
[Jonathan, PhD Stanford and Postdoctoral Fellow at MIT, Congressional Research Service, “Terrorist Nuclear Attacks on Seaports: Threat and Response” 8/23, ]
Ports may be attractive targets for terrorists. With many of the largest ports in or near major cities, a nuclear bomb detonated in a port could kill many thousands of people, interrupt flows of U.S. commerce, and perhaps cause a global economic disruption. Ports are vulnerable. Many are flat, being at the ocean’s edge, so would offer little shielding against weapon effects. Some have great quantities of inflammable material, such as fuel; fires could extend the area of destruction and release toxic gases. While ports may stretch on for miles, a 15kiloton weapon would have enough force to destroy many key facilities of a typical port. Current front-line capability to detect nuclear weapons is exceedingly limited. Congressional Research Service visits to the U.S. Customs Service in Baltimore in July 2002 and to the U.S. Coast Guard in Philadelphia in August 2002 produced the following information. Customs’ Container Security Initiative seeks to improve security at foreign ports for U.S.-bound containers, but Customs inspectors do not inspect cargo there and do not control personnel selection or port operations. The Coast Guard cannot open containers at sea for various reasons. For example, they are tightly packed and the door is part of a container’s structure, so a container under other containers might crumple if the door were opened. Technology is lacking. A Coast Guard officer wrote, “our method of detecting nuclear and biological weapons is ... our eyes, ears, and brains. We currently have no more sophisticated equipment than that.” At Baltimore, Customs inspects about 2 percent of containers. For some, it uses a sophisticated machine that x-rays entire containers; for others, it unloads all items from a container, may x-ray them, and searches some items. Customs agents have pager-size radiation detectors. Problems are obvious. Terrorists could infiltrate foreign ports as inspectors or longshoremen, and pass a container with a weapon into a secured zone. The Coast Guard almost certainly could not detect a bomb in a container or in the structure of a ship. Customs targets containers for inspection based on cargo manifest data, port of last call, shipping line, etc. Terrorists, however, could be expected to go to great lengths to make a bomb-carrying container appear normal. Small radiation detectors might detect highly radioactive isotopes that might be used in dirty bombs, but could not be sure of detecting less-radioactive uranium-235. Once a ship arrives in port, any inspection could be too late.
E. An economic decline would cause the next World War
MEAD, Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College, 2009
[Walter Russell, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations; “Only Makes You Stronger,” The New Republic, 2/04, ]
If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi [major city in Pakistan], Beijing, or New Delhi [capital city of India] to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
Port Security 1AC 42
Thus, we present the following PLAN:
The United States federal government should substantially increase its investment in the Port Security Grant Program.
Port Security 1AC 43
Contention 3 is SOLVENCY:
The plan creates effective port security and solves the risk of terrorism.
The plan funds the Port Security Grant Program, which increases technology, training, and planning and allows us to prevent, detect, and respond to potential terrorist attacks effectively.
GAO, 2011
[Government Accountability Office, “PORT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM Risk Model, Grant Management, and Effectiveness Measures Could Be Strengthened,” November, ]
To strengthen the security of the nation’s ports against risks associated with potential terrorist attacks, the Department of Homeland Security administers the Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) through its component agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Coast Guard provides subject matter expertise to FEMA on the maritime industry to inform grant award decisions. The PSGP is to provide funding to the nation’s highest risk port areas Additionally, ports often are not only gateways for the movement of goods, but also industrial hubs and close to population centers, presenting additional opportunities for terrorists intending to harm U.S. interests. They are also potential conduits for weapons prepared elsewhere and concealed in cargo designed to move quickly to many locations beyond the ports themselves. Further, cruise ships, tankers, and cargo ships present potentially desirable terrorist targets given the potential for loss of life, environmental damage, or disruption of commerce. Balancing security concerns with the need to facilitate the free flow of people and commerce remains an ongoing challenge for the public and private sectors alike. 2 1 Department of Homeland Security, Small Vessel Security Strategy (Washington, D.C.: April 2008). to support increased portwide risk management; to enhance domain awareness; to train and exercise; to expand port recovery and resiliency capabilities; and to further capabilities to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from attacks involving improvised explosive devices and other nonconventional weapons. Since the program’s inception in fiscal year 2002, the federal government has provided almost $2.5 billion in PSGP funding to state, local, and private entities to increase portwide risk management, enhance domain awareness, and improve recovery and resiliency through the development of security plans, the purchase of security equipment, and the provision of security training to employees.
2AC Inherency 44
1. Extend our BOSTON GLOBE evidence. The federal government did not meet its own deadline to increase security at the nation’s ports. This proves there is neither the dedication nor funding available to prevent terrorism.
2. Only five percent of all cargo is inspected each year. Additionally, existing technology isn’t deployed for port security purposes.
KONKEL, 2005
[Todd, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service atGeorgetown University, “Container Security: Preventing a Nuclear Catastrophe” the Journal of International Policy Solutions, ]
Once nuclear materials have been obtained, a terrorist’s next challenge is avoiding detection while bringing that material into the United States. As government officials and independent security experts repeatedly point out, the easiest way for a terrorist to accomplish this is by exploiting the vulnerability of the global cargo transportation system. The efficiency of this system relies on the versatility of intermodal containers – standardized containers (usually 40 x 8 x 8 feet in size) that can travel by ship, train or truck without being repackaged or reconfigured. Every day, 20030,000 trucks, 2006, 200500 rail cars and 140 ships deliver more than 50,000 such containers to destinations within the United States.22 Although some of these containers initially make their way into the U.S. via highway and rail, the vast majority of containers enter through one of the country’s 361 public ports, which handle over 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade.23 As the global economy continues to expand, the total volume of goods imported and exported through U.S. ports is expected to more than double over the next twenty years, dramatically increasing the burden on inspectors tasked with securing the nation’s ports.24 Although shipping containers enter American ports at a rate of roughly twenty thousand per day, fewer than 5 percent are opened for inspection.25 In the findings outlined in the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 2002, the U.S. Congress acknowledged this problem: “Current inspection levels of containerized cargo are insufficient to counter potential security risks. Technology is currently not adequately deployed to allow for the nonintrusive inspection of containerized cargo . . . Security-related and detection-related equipment, such as small boats, cameras, large-scale x-ray machines, and vessel tracking devices, are lacking at many ports.”26 This has created a situation where terrorists seeking to smuggle a nuclear weapon into the U.S. via a cargo container face highly favorable odds of escaping detection. According to one study, in fact, the probability that inspectors will detect a shielded nuclear weapon in a shipping container using the current screening system is only about 10 percent.27 In order to decrease the likelihood of a nuclear weapon entering the U.S. in a container, the odds of detection must be significantly improved. Otherwise, terrorists will eventually attempt to exploit this system, given the relatively low risk that a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb would be detected. Although the U.S. government made significant investments in national security during the first term of the Bush Administration, there is evidence to suggest that the dollars have not been allocated in proportion to the threat. According to Stephen Flynn, a Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, the CIA has concluded that the most likely way that a WMD would enter the U.S. is by sea.28 Despite this assessment, as of September 2004, the U.S. government was spending more every three days to finance the war in Iraq than it had provided over the previous three years to improve security at all 361 U.S. seaports.29
2AC Inherency 45
3. Independent experts conclude the U.S. port security system is understaffed, even accounting for new technology.
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 2006
[Editorial Staff, “Targets for Terrorism: Ports,” Jan, ]
Yes. CFR Senior Fellow Stephen Flynn says “maritime transportation is one of our nation’s most serious vulnerabilities.” At current staffing and funding levels, U.S. Coast Guard personnel and Customs agents can thoroughly inspect only about 5 percent of the 9 million shipping containers that arrive at U.S. ports every year. Though the Customs Service is using increasingly sophisticated risk-assessment technology to choose which shipments to inspect, many outside experts are unsure about the system’s effectiveness.
4. The Obama administration is not complying with legal requirements for port security.
NEW YORK TIMES, 2012
[Jerrold L. Nadler, Edward J. Markey and Bennie G. Thompson are Democratic representatives from New York, Massachusetts and Mississippi, “Cargo, the Terrorists’ Trojan Horse,” 6/26; ]
MILLIONS of cargo containers are unloaded from ships each year at American seaports, providing countless opportunities for terrorists to smuggle and unleash a nuclear bomb or weapon of mass destruction on our shores. To counter this threat, Congress passed a law five years ago mandating that by July 2012, all maritime cargo bound for the United States must be scanned before it is loaded on ships. But the Obama administration will miss this deadline, and it is not clear to us, as the authors of the law, whether it ever plans to comply with the law.
2AC Harms [Terrorism] - A/t: #1 46
1. Extend our Congressional Research Service 2007 and KONKEL evidence. Terrorists are already plotting to attack U.S. ports and it would be extremely simple to smuggle a weapon. Even if most terrorist attacks fail, it only takes one success to cause our impacts.
2. Terrorists can acquire the materials necessary to build a nuclear weapon. Numerous radioactive material goes unaccounted for each year.
KONKEL, 2005
[Todd, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service atGeorgetown University, “Container Security: Preventing a Nuclear Catastrophe” the Journal of International Policy Solutions, ]
Whereas obtaining enough fissile material for a working nuclear bomb could prove logistically challenging, there is no shortage of radioactive material that a terrorist could use to construct a dirty bomb. Sources of radioisotopes can be found in a diverse array of medical and industrial technologies. For example, cesium-137 and cobalt-60 are commonly used in nuclear medicine, and americium-241 can be found in certain oil exploration equipment. According to a 2003 study by the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, between October 1996 and September 2001, an average of three hundred commercial radioactive sources were lost or unaccounted for (or “orphaned”) each year. Of these orphaned sources, 20056 percent were not recovered.19 Figures published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1998 are even more pessimistic, estimating that there were as many as thirty thousand orphaned radioactive sources in the U.S. at that time.20 7 Container Security: Preventing a Nuclear Catastrophe Todd Konkel Given the availability and relative insecurity of nuclear materials, policymakers must address the very real risk that sophisticated terrorists might succeed in obtaining such materials. The story of David Hahn, a nuclear-savvy Michigan teenager, should serve as ample warning. Over the course of three years beginning in 1991, Hahn collected and purified enough radioactive material in his mother’s potting shed to put forty thousand nearby residents at risk due to the dangers posed by the release of radioactive dust and radiation.21 A terrorist organization with sufficient determination and financial resources would no doubt pose a much greater threat.
3. Smuggling through ports is easy, and terrorists have smuggled in the past.
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 2006
[Editorial Staff, “Targets for Terrorism: Ports,” Jan, ]
Some 7, 200500 ships with foreign flags make 51,000 calls on U.S. ports each year. They carry the bulk of the approximately two billion tons of freight, three billion tons of oil transports, and 134 million passengers by ferry each year. The volume of traffic gives terrorists opportunities to smuggle themselves or their weapons into the United States with little risk of detection; in May 2002 there were reports that twenty-five Islamist extremists entered the United States by hiding in shipping containers.
2AC Harms [Terrorism] - A/t: #1 47
4. The risk of a terrorist attack increases daily. Containers aren’t secure and rarely inspected.
Congressional Research Service, 2007
[Paul W. Parfomak, PhD Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon University, and John Frittelli, Master’s degree in Economics, SUNY Albany and former container shipping industry importer; Resources, Science, and Industry Division, Congressional Research Service Report to Congress, “Maritime Security: Potential Terrorist Attacks and Protection Priorities”, 1/09, ]
The potential smuggling and detonation of a nuclear or dirty bomb device in a shipping container at a U.S. port is one of the threats most specifically and frequently mentioned by legislators in the context of maritime security. Shipping containers may be particularly vulnerable to terrorist infiltration compared to other types of cargo for three reasons. First, shipping containers are relatively large. They come in standard sizes from 20 to 53 feet long, although the most common are 40 feet or longer—about the size of a truck semi-trailer. Second, the containers on any given ship are packed at the factories or warehouses of many different companies that can be dispersed far and wide from the loading port, making it impossible for government authorities to ensure that only legitimate cargo has been packed. Third, the containers are typically trucked to the port of loading, during which the integrity of the shipments rests entirely on the trustworthiness or due diligence of the truck drivers. A maritime security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, who is a former Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, outlines a scenario that most concerns him: Let me share with you the terrorist scenario that most keeps me awake at night.... A container of athletic foot wear for a name brand company is loaded at a manufacturing plant in Surabaya, Indonesia. The container doors are shut and a mechanical seal is put into the door pad-eyes. These designer sneakers are destined for retail stores in malls across America. The container and seal numbers are recorded at the factory. A local truck driver, sympathetic to al Qaeda picks up the container. On the way to the port, he turns into an alleyway and backs up the truck at a nondescript warehouse where a small team of operatives pry loose one of the door hinges to open the container so that they can gain access to the shipment. Some of the sneakers are removed and in their place, the operatives load a dirty bomb wrapped in lead shielding, and they then refasten the door. Other analysts assert that, if terrorists were to attempt a nuclear or dirty bomb attack in a U.S. port, they would be unlikely to do so using a shipping container because it would put the device beyond a terrorist group’s control. These analysts question whether the container shipping system offers the routing or scheduling precision required by terrorists to position the bomb in the right place at the right time. Other observers assert that some types of non-containerized cargo could also be used for smuggling a bomb. The manager of port security at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey states that their biggest concern is roll-on/roll-off cargo (ships that carry automobiles, trucks, and other vehicles). Non-containerized cargo is more plentiful. By tonnage, containers carry only 11% of U.S. overseas waterborne trade91 and container ships account for about one in every three U.S. port calls. Other types of cargo also face less security screening. Relatively low value cargo might be targeted if terrorists perceive it receives less attention from U.S. Coast Guard and customs officials. For instance, a federal official familiar with New York harbor, pointing to a scrap metal terminal in Jersey City, stated the following to a reporter, “If I wanted to bring an atomic bomb into the port, I’d do it through that scrap operation.” The Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigated the potential for maritime terrorists to use weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in 2005. In its report, the GAO states that An extensive body of work on this subject by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and academic, think tank, and business organizations concluded that while the likelihood of such use of containers is considered low, the movement of oceangoing containerized cargo is vulnerable to some form of terrorist action. Such action, including attempts to smuggle either fully assembled weapons of mass destruction or their individual components, could lead to widespread death and damage.
2AC Harms [Terrorism] - A/t: #2 48
1. Extend our MEDALIA evidence. A terrorist attack against U.S. ports would collapse the global economy, and the probability is high. Their evidence only says that trade at ports will slow down, but does not say this will be bad enough to spillover to other industries.
2. Enhancing port security has spin-off benefits that help the economy.
FRITELLI, 2005
[John, Specialist in Transportation and Resources, Science, and Industry Division for Congressional Research Service, “Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress,” 5/27; ]
Enhanced security has benefits as well as costs. Many experts see economic benefits to tighter control over maritime commerce. Resources put towards seaport security can also reduce cargo theft, narcotic and migrant smuggling, trade law violations, the accidental introduction of invasive species, and the cost of cargo insurance. Improved planning for responding to a terrorist attack at a seaport could also improve responses to other emergencies, such as natural disasters or transportation accidents. New technologies intended to convert the sea container into a “smart box,” such as electronic seals, sensors, or tracking devices, could also improve shipment integrity, help carriers improve their equipment utilization, and help cargo owners track their shipments. In response to the terrorist threat, the CBP has accelerated development of its new information management system, the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). This system will assist CBP in evaluating cargo manifest information for high risk shipments but will also speed the customs filing process for U.S. importers.
2AC Harms [Terrorism] - A/t: #3 49
1. Terrorists are most likely to attack ports because they are accessible, create collateral damage and would disrupt the economy.
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 2006
[Editorial Staff, “Targets for Terrorism: Ports,” Jan, ]
Yes. Experts warn that U.S. seaports could be tempting targets for terrorists bent on killing large numbers of people, grabbing media attention, and disrupting the U.S. economy. Port, ferry, and cruise-ship terminals are often located in highly congested areas where large numbers of people live and work. Liquefied natural gas terminals and refineries that produce highly volatile petrochemicals and convert crude oil into gasoline and heating oil are also often nearby. Given the importance of foreign trade to the U.S. economy, an attack that shut down a major American port for even a few days could devastate the regional economy served by that port.
2. Ports are more vulnerable than any other potential terrorist method due to the difficulty in monitoring cargo.
NEW YORK TIMES, 2012
[Jerrold L. Nadler, Edward J. Markey and Bennie G. Thompson are Democratic representatives from New York, Massachusetts and Mississippi, “Cargo, the Terrorists’ Trojan Horse,” 6/26; ]
Over the years, terrorists have shown themselves to be frighteningly inventive. They have hidden explosives in printer cartridges transported by air and embedded explosives in the shoes and underwear of airline passengers. The cargo containers arriving on ships from foreign ports offer terrorists a Trojan horse for a devastating attack on the United States. As the Harvard political scientist Graham T. Allison has put it, a nuclear attack is “far more likely to arrive in a cargo container than on the tip of a missile.” But for the past five years, the Department of Homeland Security has done little to counter this threat and instead has wasted precious time arguing that it would be too expensive and too difficult, logistically and diplomatically, to comply with the law. This is unacceptable.
2AC Harms [Terrorism] - A/t: #3 50
3. Ports are easier to hit than airports, and would cause more damage.
FRITELLI, 2005
[John, Specialist in Transportation and Resources, Science, and Industry Division for Congressional Research Service, “Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress,” 5/27; ]
Government leaders and security experts are worried that the maritime transportation system could be used by terrorists to smuggle personnel, weapons of mass destruction, or other dangerous materials into the United States. They are also concerned that ships in U.S. ports, particularly large commercial cargo ships or cruise ships, could be attacked by terrorists. Experts are concerned that a large-scale terrorist attack at a U.S. port could not only cause local death and damage, but also paralyze global maritime commerce. The 9/11 Commission reported that, “While commercial aviation remains a possible target, terrorists may turn their attention to other modes. Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime and surface transportation. Initiatives to secure shipping containers have just begun.”
2AC Harms [Terrorism] - A/t: #4 51
1. An attack on a U.S. port would affect global trade and result in trillions of dollars in damages and lost revenue.
KONKEL, 2005
[Todd, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service atGeorgetown University, “Container Security: Preventing a Nuclear Catastrophe” the Journal of International Policy Solutions, ]
What, then, is the potential impact of an attack on a major U.S. port involving a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb? Without question, the damage would be devastating. Gal Luft and Anne Korin at the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security describe a scenario where terrorists ram a cargo ship loaded with explosives, or possibly a WMD, into a major port or terminal. “Such an attack,” they state, “could bring international trade to a halt, inflicting multi-billion-dollar damage on the world economy.” Robert Bonner, currently the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, painted a similarly bleak picture in August 2002: “There is virtually no security for what is the primary system to transport global trade. The consequences of a terrorist incident using a container would be profound . . . If terrorists used a sea container to conceal a weapon of mass destruction and detonated it on arrival at a port, the impact on global trade and the global economy could be immediate and devastating – all nations would be affected. No container ships would be permitted to unload at U.S. ports after such an event.” Although these assessments give a general idea of the impact of a nuclear attack, a better perspective can be achieved by quantifying the potential effects. Historical disruptions of port operations provide some indication of the potential magnitude of a large-scale shutdown of U.S. ports. In 2002, a strike by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union caused the closing of twenty-nine West Coast ports for ten days. One study estimated that the shutdown cost the U.S. economy $19.4 billion. If a lengthy shutdown of cargo traffic at all U.S. ports occurred in response to a container-based nuclear attack, the total costs would be staggering. In October 2002, consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton conducted a two-day “Port Security War Game” in order to determine the implications for U.S. supply chains of such a terrorist attack. The war game presented participants with a simulated scenario involving the discovery of two dirty bombs in shipping containers in Los Angeles and Minneapolis. In response to the threat, the participants ordered the closing of two ports for three days and, as the crisis continued, all U.S. ports for nine subsequent days. The 4 Container Security: Preventing a Nuclear Catastrophe Todd Konkel total economic impact of the port closings was estimated to be $58 billion, which resulted from a three-month container backlog and ensuing spoilage, sales losses and manufacturing slowdowns. According to another study, prepared by Abt Associates for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, a Hiroshima-sized (10- to 20-kiloton) nuclear detonation at a major seaport would kill fifty thousand to one million people and result in direct costs from property damage and trade disruption of $150 billion to $700 billion. Indirect economic costs are expected to add up to another $1.4 trillion. Thus, the total one-year economic cost to the U.S. of a container-based nuclear attack on a major seaport such as Los Angeles-Long Beach or New York-New Jersey could approach $2 trillion. The report also states that the “global and long-term effects, including the economic impacts of the pervasive national and international response to the nuclear attack . . . are believed to be substantially greater.” In order to place these figures in proper perspective, it is helpful to examine the impact of the September 11, 2001 attacks. One study estimated that the attacks resulted in a total cost to New York City of between $82.8 billion and $94.8 billion. Although certain sectors, such as the airline industry, are still suffering lingering effects, the U.S. economy has managed a reasonably swift recovery. During 2001, the U.S. experienced a meager 0.8 percent growth in real GDP and witnessed two quarters of contraction. In each subsequent year, however, the country’s real GDP has grown at an increasing rate, registering growth rates of 1.9, 2003.0 and 4.4 percent. Furthermore, a report by the Congressional Research Service concluded that “the direct effects of the attacks were too small and too geographically concentrated to make a significant dent in the nation’s economic output.” This would not be the case if terrorists were to detonate a nuclear device or dirty bomb at a major seaport such as Los Angeles or Long Beach, which together accounted for more than 35 percent of all container traffic in the U.S. in 2003.
2AC Harms [Terrorism] - A/t: #4 52
2. U.S. ports are responsible for a huge part of the global economy. Even a small disruption would have global effect.
FRITELLI, 2005
[John, Specialist in Transportation and Resources, Science, and Industry Division for Congressional Research Service, “Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress,” 5/27; ]
Ships are the primary mode of transportation for world trade. Ships carry approximately 80% of world trade by volume. The United States is the world’s leading maritime trading nation, accounting for nearly 20% (measured in tons) of the annual world ocean-borne overseas trade. Ships carry more than 95% of the nation’s non-North American trade by weight and 75% by value. Trade now accounts for 25% of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), up from 11% in 1970. Over the next two decades, the total volume of domestic and international trade is expected to double. Given the importance of maritime trade to the U.S. and world economies, disruptions to that trade can have immediate and significant economic impacts.By one estimate, the cost to the U.S. economy of port closures on the West Coast due to a labor- management dispute was approximately $1 billion per day for the first five days, rising sharply thereafter.
3. Ports are critical to the global economy, and terrorists have explicitly stated their goal is to cause economic collapse.
HAVEMAN AND SHATZ, 2006
[Jon, a research fellow and director of the Economy Program at the Public Policy Institute of California; and Howard, research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of
California, “Introduction and Summary,” Protecting the Nation’s Seaports: Balancing Security and Cost, ed. Haveman and Shatz, ]
The second concern is that ports themselves present attractive targets for terrorists. Ports are a significant potential choke point for an enormous amount of economic activity. The 361 U.S. seaports make an immense contribution to U.S. trade and the U.S. economy. They move about 80 percent of all U.S. international trade by weight, and about 95 percent of all U.S. overseas trade, excluding trade with Mexico and Canada. By value, $807 billion worth of goods flowed through the seaports in 2003, about 41 percent of all U.S. international goods trade. This value is higher than the value of trade moved by all modes in any single leading industrial country except Germany. Temporarily shutting down a major U.S. port could impose significant economic costs throughout not only the United States but also the world. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has labeled the destruction of the U.S. economy as one of his goals: “If their economy is finished, they will become too busy to enslave oppressed people. It is very important to concentrate on hitting the U.S. economy with every available means.”
2AC Solvency: A/t: #1 53
1. Extend our GAO evidence. The Port Security Grant Program focuses on the highest risk ports and increases efficiency of other security measures. Even if cargo scanning is complex, by reducing the risk at the most vulnerable ports we can stop the worst terrorist attacks.
2. The technology to scan every piece of cargo exists and could be implemented quickly and cheaply.
NEW YORK TIMES, 2012
[Jerrold L. Nadler, Edward J. Markey and Bennie G. Thompson are Democratic representatives from New York, Massachusetts and Mississippi, “Cargo, the Terrorists’ Trojan Horse,” 6/26; ]
Recent advances in screening technologies have undermined Homeland Security’s contention that the technology is not available to scan all cargo containers without disrupting commerce. An effective high-volume container screening system was installed in the Port of Hong Kong in 2005. Trials of new, American-made technology have demonstrated that scanning all containers would be feasible at many ports. The world’s largest marine terminal operators have offered to work with the department to put the law into effect. Cost and technology have never been the primary obstacles to meeting this mandate. What is missing is a sense of urgency and determination.
2AC Solvency: A/t: #2 54
1. This assumes the status quo. The plan increases funding, which allows more security personnel to be hired and increases the number of people focusing on port security. Their evidence is old and is not about the plan.
2. Increasing funding for the Port Security Grant Program would make it more efficient, and allow the highest risk areas to be secured.
Government Accountability Office, 2011
[“PORT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM,” Nov, ]
Port areas have unique characteristics—they are centers of commerce, hubs of transportation, and often close to major population centers. These characteristics result in specific vulnerabilities that must be addressed to avoid the human or economic losses that would result from a terrorist attack. The Port Security Grant Program (PSGP)—administered by FEMA and supported with subject matter expertise from the Coast Guard—is one tool DHS uses to protect critical maritime infrastructure from these risks. Risk management has been endorsed by the federal government to help direct finite resources to areas of greatest risk and grant programs have provided substantial resources toward this effort. We found that PSGP allocations were highly correlated to risk for the grant years we examined and DHS has taken steps to strengthen the PSGP risk allocation model by improving the quality and precision of the data inputs. However, additional efforts—such as accounting for how new security measures affect port vulnerability and using the most precise data available in the risk model—could further strengthen the model and build upon the progress made. While the allocation process has been risk-based, FEMA has faced significant challenges administering the grant program. For example, FEMA awarded nearly $1.7 billion in port security grants for fiscal years 2006 through 2010; however, draw down levels for the PSGP are low—with about one-quarter of fiscal year 2006 through 2010 grant monies drawn down as of September 2011. While FEMA may not consider draw down levels to be an accurate measure of progress made in improving port security, this measure has become the de facto yardstick for assessing progress in securing our ports because no other measures exist. Additionally, about a quarter of the awarded funding remains unavailable due to delays in using grant funds, challenges with the cost-match and associated waiver process, and challenges that grantees have had complying with postaward requirements. As a result, about $400 million in awarded grant funding remains unavailable to grantees for port security projects.
Port Security Negative 55
1NC Frontline - Inherency 1
2NC Extension – Inherency: #1 1
1NC Harms [Terrorism] Frontline 1
2NC Harms [Terrorism] - Extension #1 1
2NC Harms [Terrorism] - Extension #2 1
2NC Harms [Terrorism] - Extension #3 1
2NC Harms [Terrorism] - Extension #4 1
1NC Solvency Frontline 1
2NC Solvency – Extension #1 1
2NC Solvency – Extension #2 2
1NC Frontline - Inherency 56
1. Port security is sufficient in the status quo. The federal government had provided increased funding and the coast guard is regularly inspecting cargo.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 2006
[“An Overall Picture of Port Security” 7/12 , ]
Port security has been dramatically strengthened since 9/11. Funding has increased by more than 700 percent since September 11, 2001. Funding for port security was approximately $259 million in FY 2001. DHS spent approximately $1.6 billion on port security in FY 2005. Following 9/11, the federal government has implemented a multi-layered defense strategy to keep our ports safe and secure. New technologies have been deployed with additional technologies being developed and $630 million has been provided in grants to our largest ports including $16.2 million to Baltimore; $32.7 million to Miami; $27.4 million to New Orleans, $43.7 million to New York/New Jersey; and $15.8 million to Philadelphia. Who Secures the Ports: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP): CBP’s mission is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States by eliminating potential threats before they arrive at our borders and ports. CBP uses intelligence and a risk-based strategy to screen information on 100 percent of cargo before it is loaded onto vessels destined for the United States. All cargo that is identified as high risk is inspected, either at the foreign port or upon arrival into the U.S. Coast Guard: The Coast Guard routinely inspects and assesses the security of U.S. ports in accordance with the Maritime Transportation and Security Act and the Ports and Waterways Security Act. Every regulated U.S. port facility is required to establish and implement a comprehensive security plan that outlines procedures for controlling access to the facility, verifying credentials of port workers, inspecting cargo for tampering, designating security responsibilities, training, and reporting of all breaches of security or suspicious activity, among other security measures. Working closely with local port authorities and law enforcement agencies, the Coast Guard regularly reviews, approves, assesses and inspects these plans and facilities to ensure compliance.
2NC Extension – Inherency: #1 57
Extend our U.S. DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION evidence. It is from a government source so it is most qualified to speak to the measures being implemented in the status quo.
Their argument puts them in a double-bind. Either they aren’t inherent because government agencies are already doing everything necessary, or they will never be able to solve because their evidence proves that government agencies do not want to use the technology they have for security. Throwing more money at those same agencies will not make them implement policies they have no interest in.
And, the coast guard is implementing port security measures in the status quo. Maritime Domain Awareness and AIS are multibillion dollar efforts towards cargo inspection.
Congressional Research Service, 2005
[Congressional Research Service, “Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress” 5/27, ]
In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard created the largest port-security operation since World War II. Coast Guard cutters and aircraft were diverted from more distant operating areas to patrol U.S. ports and coastal waters. The Coast Guard began to maintain security zones around waterside facilities, Navy ships, and cruise and cargo ships entering or leaving port. Coast Guard port security teams began to inspect certain high-interest vessels, and Coast Guard sea marshals began escorting certain ships transiting the harbor. To counter the terrorist threat, the Coast Guard and CBP have sought to improve the quality and advance the timing of information submitted to them by shippers and carriers so that they can better evaluate the terrorist risk of ships, cargo, or crew bound for the United States. By increasing their knowledge of the various parties in the marine environment it is hoped that federal authorities will be better able to separate the bad from the good without impeding the flow of legitimate commerce. In support of this goal, the Coast Guard has instituted new reporting requirements for ships entering and leaving U.S. harbors. The former 24-hour advance Notice of Arrival (NOA) has been extended to a 96-hour NOA. The NOA includes detailed information on the crew, passengers, cargo, and the vessel itself. The Coast Guard has also developed the concept of maritime domain awareness (MDA). MDA involves fusing intelligence information with information from public, private, commercial, and international sources to provide a more complete picture of potential maritime security threats. The Coast Guard will use this picture to support a risk-management approach to preventing or mitigating terrorist threats through the use of actionable knowledge. In support of the MDA effort, the Coast Guard is expanding a vessel tracking system (the Automatic Identification System) to monitor ship traffic in harbors and is underway on a multibillion dollar effort (the Deepwater program) to replace and modernize its aging vessels and aircraft. On October 22, 2003 the Coast Guard issued final rules implementing MTSA. These regulations became effective on November 21, 2003.
1NC Harms [Terrorism] Frontline 58
1. A lack of expertise prohibits a successful terrorist attack.
HIRSH, 2007
[Michael, International Affairs writer for Newsweek, “Debunking the Myth of Al Qaeda,” Oct, ]
Some U.S. officials are disputing Suskind's account. But it is true that the more we learn about Al Qaeda, the more we have to conclude that the group contained a lot more Abu Zubaydah types than it did Muhammad Attas. In contrast to the truly terrifying Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, and 9/11 master strategist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—both of whom took terrorism to new levels of competence—most Al Qaeda operatives look more like life's losers, the kind who in a Western culture would join street gangs or become a petty criminals but who in the jihadi world could lose themselves in a "great cause," making some sense of their pinched, useless lives. Like Richard Reid, who tried to set his shoelace on fire. Or Ahmed Ressam, who bolted in a panic from his car at the U.S. border during an alleged mission to bomb the L.A. airport. Or Iyman Faris, who comically believed he could bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch. Or the crazed Zacarias Moussaoui, who was disowned even by bin Laden. Then you've got the hapless Lackawanna Six, and, more recently, the Toronto 17, who were thinking about pulling off an Oklahoma City-style attack with ammonium nitrate—or perhaps just beheading the prime minister—but hadn't quite gotten around to it. Were these people potentially lethal? Yes. One doesn't have to graduate at the top of one's class to set off explosives in a satchel on a subway. Were most of them capable of hatching a minutely timed scheme to obtain and detonate a nuclear bomb in a city, or launch a biowarfare attack? No. "In an open system like a network, the bumbler level is always going to be high because of the ease of entry," says John Arquilla, an intelligence expert at the Naval Postgraduate School. "That's how someone like [American Taliban supporter] John Walker Lindh can walk into the high councils of Al Qaeda and meet bin Laden. And recently the bumbler factor has gone up considerably." Ironically the most competent "Al Qaeda" leader in recent years, at least since the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2003, was Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, who came close to subverting the American project and creating a sectarian war in Iraq. But he did that largely on his own, facilitated by the fortuitous conjoining of Iraq with the war on terror. Before the Iraq war Zarqawi was a nobody, hiding out in northern Iraq, largely unconnected to Saddam's regime even though Colin Powell, in his infamous Feb. 5, 2003, United Nations Security Council speech, claimed that Saddam had given Zarqawi "harbor." And he was not part of bin Laden's group. Would he have attacked U.S. interests at some point, somewhere? Almost certainly. But the Iraq invasion gave Zarqawi a chance to blossom on his own as a jihadi.
1NC Harms [Terrorism] Frontline 59
2. The probability of a terrorist attack does not justify the costs of protection. Port security exists in the status quo and additional security will slow commerce, hurting the economy more than they help.
FRIEDMAN, 2005
[Benjamin, Professor of Political Economy, Department of Economics, Harvard University "Think Again: Homeland Security." Foreign Policy, July/August, ]
“America Is Doing Far too Little to Protect Its Ports” Hardly. More than $600 billion in goods and nearly 50 percent of U.S. imports flow through American ports each year. U.S. ports are vulnerable to both weapons smuggled into the United States in containers and U.S.S. Cole–style attacks on ships. But there is little indication such attacks are likely. Since September 11, the United States has made significant investments in port security. Federal port security grant programs have distributed about $600 million in funding to hundreds of U.S. ports. The Coast Guard’s budget has grown to $6.3 billion in the four years since Sept. 11, 2001. These efforts are enough. The news media love to mention that U.S. Customs agents inspect only 2 to 5 percent of containers entering the United States. But the measure of success is which containers are searched, not how many. The key to protecting ports without unduly burdening commerce is using intelligence to identify risky cargo. The Container Security Initiative, instituted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in 2002, aims to identify and inspect suspicious cargo before it sails to the United States by stationing agents in foreign ports, requiring a manifest prior to a ship’s arrival, determining the origin of containers, and developing electronic, tamper–proof container seals. This system is far from perfect. But it is superior to spending vast sums of taxpayer money to inspect every shipment. And, when one considers the cost to the U.S. economy of slowing commerce to a snail’s pace, this is one solution that is worse than the present danger. Any additional port security spending should respond to known threats, not mere vulnerability. “Corporations Should Spend More on Security” False. The odds of any one business in the United States being attacked by terrorists are vanishingly small. Still, leading terrorism experts such as Stephen Flynn often tout the fact that 92 percent of America’s CEOs believe terrorists will not attack their company. This, Flynn and others argue, is proof that businesses are underinvesting in security and that government regulation should force them to do more. In fact, these numbers show that businesses already spend too much.
1NC Harms [Terrorism] Frontline 60
3. Terrorists will move to new methods once ports are secure. The plan only changes how the attack takes place.
HAVEMAN AND SHATZ, 2006
[Jon, a research fellow and director of the Economy Program at the Public Policy Institute of California; and Howard, research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of
California, “Introduction and Summary,” Protecting the Nation’s Seaports: Balancing Security and Cost, ed. Haveman and Shatz, ]
Second, there has been recognition throughout the process that strengthening one target necessarily means making other potential targets more vulnerable. Increasing the difficulty of slipping a bomb into a container increases the likelihood that someone might try to bring it into the United States in a yacht, or ship it to Mexico and bring it into the country by truck. Or, with strong enough port security measures, terrorists might change their target focus from ports to the rail system or to shopping malls.
4. An attack on a port would not cause destruction – businesses have implemented security measures.
LEAMER AND THORNBERG, 2006
[Edward, Chauncey J. Medberry Professor of Management, professor of economics, and professor of statistics at UCLA; and and Christopher, senior economist with the UCLA
Anderson Forecast, “Ports, Trade, and Terrorism: Balancing the Catastrophic and the Chronic,” Protecting the Nation’s Seaports: Balancing Security and Cost, ed. Haveman and Shatz, ]
Of course, a labor action is not the same as a terrorist attack; labor actions can be anticipated to some extent, whereas lack of anticipation is intrinsic to terrorist attacks. However, similarities remain. The labor actions of the sixties and seventies were often marked by wildcat strikes and work slowdowns, deliberately created to reduce or prevent mitigating actions on the part of the companies involved. Furthermore, there cannot now be an unexpected, surprise terrorist strike at U.S. ports. Because of the terrorist threat, many businesses have put in place redundancies and contingencies that will help mitigate the disruption caused by a port attack, just as they undoubtedly did in anticipation of the port strikes that loomed in the 1960s. Furthermore, it is our understanding from interviews with experts, that it is highly unlikely that the physical damage from an attack would be enough to close the combined ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach completely. The size of the port complex and the large amount of excess physical capacity would make it nearly impossible for a conventional attack to stop or even reduce substantially the amount of cargo that currently moves through the ports—as long as authorities intervened to allow displaced shippers to use other parts of the complex. The port might nonetheless be shut down if the dockworkers refused to work or were prevented from working by the government. Such a directive might affect all the ports on one or both coasts.
2NC Harms [Terrorism] - Extension #1 61
Extend our HIRSH evidence – the vast majority of terrorist attacks fail, and terrorists do not have the expertise to plan out massive strikes.
And, terrorists can’t get the material to make weapons. Smuggling fails, and status quo security methods are working.
GOODBY, COFFEY AND LOEB, 2007
[James, chief negotiator for Nunn-Lugar agreements with Russia; Timothy, Edison Chair for Technology in the Center for Technology
and National Security Policy ; Cheryl, Research Associate at the Center for Technology and National Security Policy at the National Defense University, “Deploying Nuclear Detection Systems,” July, ]
Most seizures along these identified routes involve amateur smugglers with relatively small amounts of material. In some cases, small quantities of high-grade material have been seized, which usually indicates a major trafficker providing a small sample of a much larger supply to a potential customer for testing. There are very few cases involving large shipments of material, as these incidents involve international criminal organizations or nation-states, both with the resources to conduct counterintelligence and counter-surveillance operations. Airports, borders, and ports in countries identified as having nuclear materials where theft has occurred or where facilities are least secure. Such locations include Russia and former Soviet States, such as Georgia and Uzbekistan. Intelligence organizations around the world will have to cooperate to achieve the quickest possible sharing of information and resources if we are to interdict nuclear materials before they reach their intended destination. Agencies involved in counter-terrorism intelligence, as well as those specializing in smuggling and interdiction operations will need to freely share information. An international coordinating body, operating under UNSCR 1540, would provide the platform for closer collaboration among law enforcement and intelligence organizations and the management of international nuclear detection activities. Fortunately, many police and law enforcement agencies, as well as international organizations like Interpol and the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, already provide a platform for information sharing. One good example of effective multilateral cooperation is the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Countries participating in PSI agreements and exercises help build relationships and operational cooperation and provide information aimed at improving targeted interdiction, cooperation, and intelligence sharing. Law enforcement agencies around the world generally have longstanding working relationships in the area of combating organized criminal activity and are able to cooperate closely and quickly on the interdiction and apprehension of smugglers and traffickers. “Indeed, [prior to September 11] transatlantic law enforcement collaboration already had ironed out any barriers to concluding agreements on evidence sharing, cooperation in law enforcement, intelligence gathering, rendition of fugitives, joint training, harmonized standards, port security, and financial regulation.”
2NC Harms [Terrorism] - Extension #2 62
Extend our FRIEDMAN evidence. The risk of terrorism is low, but requiring businesses to wait for the government to scan every piece of cargo will slow down global trade enough to hurt the economy, causing the impacts in their MEAD evidence.
And, prefer our turn: every delay caused by needing to inspect our cargo will hurt the global economy.
FRITELLI, 2005
[John, Specialist in Transportation and Resources, Science, and Industry Division for Congressional Research Service, “Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress,” 5/27; ]
Given the dependence of the United States and the global economy on a highly efficient maritime transportation system, many experts acknowledge that slowing the flow of trade to inspect all inbound containers, or at least a statistically significant random selection would be “economically intolerable.” Supply chain analysts are concerned that increased security-related delay at seaports could threaten the efficiency gains achieved in inventory management over the past two decades by forcing companies to hold larger inventories.
2NC Harms [Terrorism] - Extension #3 63
Extend our HAVEMAN AND SHATZ evidence. Terrorists can easily shift their strategies to attack other important targets like airports or shopping malls. Even if the plan can secure ports, it can’t secure every other location in the country.
And, airports prove there are other vulnerable targets.
HUFFINGTON POST, 2012
[Andrea Stone, “Airport Police May Prove Unprepared For Terrorism In The Terminal,” 06/06, ]
Terrorists haven't ignored U.S. airports, either. On July 4, 2002, a gunman killed two people at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. More recently, in 2007, federal authorities broke up a plot to blow up fuel tanks at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. Terrorists can strike anywhere -- from Times Square to a civil rights march in Spokane, Wash. But despite spending billions of dollars to make air travel safer since Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, law enforcement agencies are unprepared for a major attack inside an airport, some security experts warn. Complacency, other priorities and lack of funding, they say, have combined to create vulnerability in a place the public assumes is one of the most secure of all. The main mission of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is to keep weapons and explosives off of airplanes -- a mandate that has led to the rise of full-body scanners, banned liquids, intrusive pat-downs and complaints over profiling. The job of guarding the terminal, patrolling the airport parking lot and watching the fence around the runways, however, belongs to state and local authorities. "The federal government doesn't tell you how to do security," says Thomas Kinton, a consultant who was aviation director at Boston's Logan International Airport on 9/11 and is a former head of the Massachusetts Port Authority.
2NC Harms [Terrorism] - Extension #4 64
Extend our LEAMER AND THORNBERG evidence. Even if a terrorist successfully attacked a port, there would be no lasting economic impact because businesses have put safeguards in place.
And, trade would only be slowed from an attack, and would recover quickly.
LEAMER AND THORNBERG, 2006
[Edward, Chauncey J. Medberry Professor of Management, professor of economics, and professor of statistics at UCLA; and and Christopher, senior economist with the UCLA
Anderson Forecast, “Ports, Trade, and Terrorism: Balancing the Catastrophic and the Chronic,” Protecting the Nation’s Seaports: Balancing Security and Cost, ed. Haveman and Shatz, ]
Although the United States is considerably more trade-dependent today than in earlier periods, this potential vulnerability is offset by a number of factors. One is the shift from ship to aircraft for delivery of many high-value, time-sensitive goods, particularly on the export side. Second, countermeasures to a terrorist strike, such as increased inspections of containers, may be more onerous for imports coming from uncertain ports than for exports packaged in the United States. And although a widespread labor action would stop most maritime trade completely, a terrorist strike would only slow trade rather than stop it.
And, any short-term economic loss would be made up for in other industries as companies shifted.
LEAMER AND THORNBERG, 2006
[Edward, Chauncey J. Medberry Professor of Management, professor of economics, and professor of statistics at UCLA; and and Christopher, senior economist with the UCLA
Anderson Forecast, “Ports, Trade, and Terrorism: Balancing the Catastrophic and the Chronic,” Protecting the Nation’s Seaports: Balancing Security and Cost, ed. Haveman and Shatz, ]
This is testimony partly to the great resilience of a modern economy. Short interruptions to supply chains can be mitigated fully by drawing down inventories, especially if they were built up in anticipation of the event. When inventories are depleted and delivery essential, cargo can be shifted to air or land through a neighboring economy. Somewhat longer interruptions can be compensated for through a temporary shift to domestic suppliers—an especially easy alternative if supply chains have built-in redundancies that allow the needed flexibility. Some consumers at the end of the supply chain may have to wait a while or pay higher prices. The sale—and profits—may be postponed, but they are not prevented. Our results do not say that no business was hurt by port labor actions or that profits were not adversely affected by the increase in transaction costs. Some industries, some firms, and some regions were surely adversely affected. Nor do we claim that a terrorist attack on the ports and the resultant disruption to the supply chain would not harm any region or company—certainly some firms and regions would be affected. However, as is often the case in a modern complex economy, when one industry or area suffers as a result of some economic disturbance, another prospers as a result of an offsetting shift in demand: There are winners and losers. Our main point here is that these past disruptions were insufficient to cause any noticeable change in the aggregate flow of the economy: Either the losses were small compared with the overall economy or they were largely offset by gains elsewhere. We believe that the same would be likely after a terrorist attack on a port: Its effects are not likely to show up other than in imports and exports.
1NC Solvency Frontline 65
1. Cargo security is too complex and has too many elements for any system to track every aspect, and terrorists could just smuggle into Canada and drive the weapons across the border.
FRITELLI, 2005
[John, Specialist in Transportation and Resources, Science, and Industry Division for Congressional Research Service, “Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress,” 5/27; ]
The complexity of the process for completing containerized shipments makes it more difficult to ensure the integrity of this type of cargo. Unlike other cargo ships whose loading process occurs at the port and whose cargo is often owned by a single company, container ships carry cargo from hundreds of companies and the containers are loaded away from the port at individual company warehouses. A typical single container shipment may involve a multitude of parties and generate 30 to 40 documents. A single container could also carry cargo for several customers, thus multiplying the number of parties and documents involved. The parties involved in a shipment usually include the exporter, the importer, a freight forwarder, a customs broker, a customs inspector, inland transportation provider(s) (which may include more than one trucker or railroad), the port operators, possibly a feeder ship, and the ocean carrier. Each transfer of the container from one party to the next is a point of vulnerability in the supply chain. The security of each transfer facility and the trustworthiness of each company is therefore critical in the overall security of the shipment. It is also important to keep in mind that not all U.S.bound containers arrive at U.S. ports. Half of the containers discharged at the Port of Montreal, for instance, move by truck or rail for cities in the northeastern or midwestern United States. Also, many containers that enter U.S. waters are bound for other nations.
2. Even if new security measures are in place, the federal government does not have the staff or time to implement them correctly.
HAVEMAN AND SHATZ, 2006
[Jon, a research fellow and director of the Economy Program at the Public Policy Institute of California; and Howard, research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of
California, “Introduction and Summary,” Protecting the Nation’s Seaports: Balancing Security and Cost, ed. Haveman and Shatz, ]
The first wave of security programs created important barriers to terrorism, caused all participants in the maritime logistics community to think more carefully about security, and started the learning process for government agencies charged with securing the nation’s ports. Two facts about security provision were apparent throughout these efforts, but these increased in prominence as people strove to implement security mandates. First, it has been impossible to do everything at once. The effort to protect the nation quickly produced a kind of security policy congestion, with limited staff, money, and time resulting in slippage in schedules and implementation. For example, lack of time available to top management at the Department of Homeland Security is one cause for delays in implementation of an identification card for transportation workers.
2NC/1NR Solvency – Extension #1 66
Extend the FRITELLI evidence. Cargo shipments are incredible complex and have too many changing parts to monitor consistently. If the plan secures one aspect, terrorists will find a new way around.
And, bribery and a lack of evidence patterns make stopping terrorist smuggling impossible.
FRITELLI, 2005
[John, Specialist in Transportation and Resources, Science, and Industry Division for Congressional Research Service, “Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress,” 5/27; ]
Security experts warn that terrorists attempting to use a container to smuggle a weapon of mass destruction or components thereof into the United States could purchase a known exporter with a long and trustworthy shipping record. Drug smugglers have been known to employ this strategy to disguise their contraband in otherwise legitimate cargo. While both the Coast Guard and CBP are experienced in the marine environment with the “war on drugs,” they recognize that terrorism is a different kind of threat. Among other things, drug smugglers are often interested in finding a smuggling method that can be used over and over to make multiple shipments. This permits the Coast Guard and CBP to look for certain patterns of operation among drug smugglers. Terrorists, on the other hand, are more likely to be interested in using a particular method of attack only once, to carry out a particular terrorist operation. This makes the tactic of looking for patterns of operation potentially much less useful. Another difference concerns the potential consequences of failure to detect and intercept. Given the tremendous amount of cargo arriving at seaports, the mission of interdicting illegal drugs or a weapon of mass destruction is often described as searching for the needle in the haystack. In the case of the weapon of mass destruction, however, the potential consequence of not finding the so-called needle is much greater.
2NC Solvency – Extension #2 67
Extend our HAVEMAN AND SHATZ evidence. The federal government does not have enough security employees to keep up with every piece of cargo that comes through the nation’s ports.
And the number of stakeholders and complexity of cargo tracking make securing ports difficult.
HAVEMAN AND SHATZ, 2006
[Jon, a research fellow and director of the Economy Program at the Public Policy Institute of California; and Howard, research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of
California, “Introduction and Summary,” Protecting the Nation’s Seaports: Balancing Security and Cost, ed. Haveman and Shatz, ]
Port security is a challenge for many reasons. In the fall of 2000, security at America’s ports was labeled as generally poor to fair. Immediately after the September 11 attacks, the greatest impediment to improving port security was, therefore, the extent to which it had previously been neglected. Although officials are no longer neglecting security, numerous factors make port security planning and implementation a continuing challenge. An extremely large amount of goods flows through the maritime supply chain. In 2004, America’s ports handled almost 20 million ocean containers. • Intermodality. Goods arrive at and depart from the port not only by ship but by rail and truck. • Jurisdictional conflicts. Federal, state, and local governments all may have oversight over some portion of port activities. In addition, some ports are managed by local or regional port authorities, whereas others are managed by local or state governments or by private entities. • Quantity of stakeholders. Carriers, shippers, logistics firms, producers, labor unions, and others all work at or use the ports and all must be involved in security efforts for these to be effective. • Global nature of industry. Any serious security effort requires international cooperation from foreign governments, foreign port operators, and foreign ship owners. • Time sensitivity. Production has moved to just-in-time processes, with manufacturers relying on steady shipments of inputs. • Public and private involvement. Both sectors are likely to be interested in having the other carry the burden of financing or even planning security efforts.
Public Service Employment Affirmative 68
Background Information: Public Service Employment 1
Public Service Employment 1AC 1
2AC Inherency - Extensions 1
2AC Harms [Racism] – A/t: #1 1
2AC Harms [Racism] – A/t: #2 1
2AC Harms [Racism] – A/t: #3 1
2AC Harms [Racism] – A/t: #4 1
2AC Harms [Economy] – A/t: #1 1
2AC Harms [Economy] – A/t: #2 1
2AC Harms [Economy] – A/t: #3 1
2AC Solvency – A/t: #1 1
2AC Solvency – A/t: #2 1
Background Information: Public Service Employment 69
ELR (Employer of Last Resort): another way of saying Public Service Employment, with the US federal government being the Employer of Last Resort:
“I will describe what has been called the ‘employer of last resort’ (ELR) proposal in the United States. Because of the negative connotations of ‘last resort’, it is probably best to call such programs ‘public service employment’ when discussed outside purely academic debates. However, I will continue to use the designation ELR here because it implies that the purpose of the program is to supplement but not to replace alternative employment, such as that provided by private firms or other government programs. By design, ELR offers employment to those who are ‘ready, willing, and able’ to work, but who have not been able to find jobs.”
Public Service Employment 1AC 70
Contention 1 is Inherency:
The federal government is not currently employing enough people to update our transportation infrastructure.
A. Unemployment is high and not enough industrial and construction jobs are being created to boost the economy
ASSOCIATED PRESS, 2012
[Paul Wiseman and Christopher S. Rugaber, “Unemployment stuck at 8.2 percent as job growth sluggish”, 2007/06, ]
The American job machine has jammed. Again. The economy added only 80,000 jobs in June, the government said Friday, erasing any doubt that the United States is in a summer slump for the third year in a row. "Let's just agree: This number stinks," said Dan Greenhaus, chief global strategist at the investment firm BTIG. It was the third consecutive month of weak job growth. From April through June, the economy produced an average of just 75,000 jobs a month, the weakest three months since August through October 2010. The unemployment rate stayed at 8.2 percent — a recession-level figure, even though the Great Recession has technically been over for three years. The numbers could hurt President Barack Obama's odds for re-election. Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican nominee, said they showed that Obama, in three and a half years on the job, had not "gotten America working again." "And the president is going to have to stand up and take responsibility for it," Romney said in Wolfeboro, N.H. "This kick in the gut has got to end." Obama, on a two-day bus tour through the contested states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, focused on private companies, which added 84,000 jobs in June, and took a longer view of the economic recovery. "Businesses have created 4.4 million new jobs over the past 28 months, including 500,000 new manufacturing jobs," the president said. "That's a step in the right direction." The Labor Department's report on job creation and unemployment is the most closely watched monthly indicator of the U.S. economy. There are four reports remaining before Election Day, including one on Friday, Nov. 2, four days before Americans vote. No president since World War II has faced re-election with unemployment over 8 percent. It was 7.8 percent when Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Ronald Reagan faced 7.2 percent unemployment in 1984 and trounced Walter Mondale. Patrick Sims, director of research at the consulting firm Hamilton Place Strategies, said that "time has run out" for unemployment to fall below 8 percent by Election Day. That would require an average of about 220,000 jobs a month from July through October — more like the economy's performance from January through March, when it averaged 226,000 per month. Few economic analysts expect anything close to that. "The labor market is treading water," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. She called it an "ongoing, severe crisis for the American work force." The Labor Department report put investors in a sour mood. The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 124 points. Industrial and materials companies, which depend on economic growth, were among the stocks that fell the most. The price of oil fell $2.77 per barrel to $84.45. Money flowed instead into U.S. Treasurys, which investors perceive as safer than stocks when the economy is weakening. The yield on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note fell to 1.54 percent, from 1.59 percent on Thursday. Investors were already worried about a debt crisis that has gripped Europe for almost three years and recent signals that the powerhouse economy of China is slowing. Earlier this week, the European Central Bank and the central bank of China cut interest rates in hopes of encouraging people and businesses to borrow and spend money. For American investors, however, the jobs report fell into an uncomfortable middle ground. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke promised last month that the Federal Reserve would take additional steps to help the economy "if we're not seeing a sustained improvement in the labor market." But some financial analysts said that
[Evidence continues on next page, no text deleted]
Public Service Employment 1AC 71
[ASSOCIATED PRESS evidence continues, no text deleted]
the Labor Department report, while disappointing, was not weak enough to lock in further action by the Fed at its next meeting July 31 and Aug. 1. The slowdown in job growth has been stark. From December through February, the economy produced an average of 252,000 jobs a month, twice what is needed to keep up with population growth. But the jobs generator started sputtering in March, when job growth slowed to 143,000. At first, economists blamed the weather for warping the numbers. An unusually warm winter allowed construction companies and other employers to hire earlier in the year than usual, effectively stealing jobs from the spring, they said. But weird weather could only explain so much, and the bad news kept coming: The economy added just 68,000 jobs in April and 77,000 in May. Those figures reflect revisions from earlier estimates of 77,000 for April and 69,000 for May. June's dud of a number made it clear that the economy has fallen into the same pattern it followed in 2010 and 2011: It gets off to a relatively fast start, then fades at midyear. Offering some hope, the slowdowns the two previous years lasted just four months each. From June through September 2010, the economy lost an average of 75,000 jobs per month. From May through August 2011, the economy added an average of 80,000 per month. Both years, hiring picked up significantly when the weak stretches ended. To be sure, the United States is still suffering the hangover of a financial crisis and the worst recession since the 1930s. The economy lost 8.8 million jobs during and after the recession. It has regained 3.8 million. The economy isn't growing fast enough to create jobs at a healthy clip. That is primarily because three traditional pistons of the economic engine aren't firing the way they normally do: » Consumer spending since the recession has been weaker than in any other post-World War II recovery, partly because wage increases have been small. In such a weak job market, employers don't need to give big raises. And households are trying to pay off the debt they ran up in the mid-2000s.
B. America’s transportation infrastructure is in serious decay because of a lack of federal funding.
THE ECONOMIST, 2011
[No author credited, “Life in the slow lane; Americans are gloomy about their economy’s ability to produce. Are they right to be? We look at two areas of concern, transport infrastructure and innovation,” 4/28, ]
America, despite its wealth and strength, often seems to be falling apart. American cities have suffered a rash of recent infrastructure calamities, from the failure of the New Orleans levees to the collapse of a highway bridge in Minneapolis, to a fatal crash on Washington, DC’s (generally impressive) metro system. But just as striking are the common shortcomings. America’s civil engineers routinely give its transport structures poor marks, rating roads, rails and bridges as deficient or functionally obsolete. And according to a World Economic Forum study America’s infrastructure has got worse, by comparison with other countries, over the past decade. In the WEF 2010 league table America now ranks 23rd for overall infrastructure quality, between Spain and Chile. Its roads, railways, ports and air-transport infrastructure are all judged mediocre against networks in northern Europe. America is known for its huge highways, but with few exceptions (London among them) American traffic congestion is worse than western Europe’s. Average delays in America’s largest cities exceed those in cities like Berlin and Copenhagen. Americans spend considerably more time commuting than most Europeans; only Hungarians and Romanians take longer to get to work (see chart 1). More time on lower quality roads also makes for a deadlier transport network. With some 15 deaths a year for every 100,000 people, the road fatality rate in America is 60% above the OECD average; 33,000 Americans were killed on roads in 2010. There is little relief for the weary traveller on America’s rail system. The absence of true high-speed rail is a continuing embarrassment to the nation’s rail enthusiasts. America’s fastest and most reliable line, the north-eastern corridor’s Acela, averages a sluggish 70 miles per hour between Washington and Boston. The French TGV from Paris to Lyon, by contrast, runs at an average speed of 140mph. America’s trains aren’t just slow; they are late. Where European passenger service is punctual around 90% of the time, American short-
[Evidence continues on next page, no text deleted]
Public Service Employment 1AC 72
[THE ECONOMIST evidence continues, no text deleted]
haul service achieves just a 77% punctuality rating. Long-distance trains are even less reliable. The Amtrak alternative Air travel is no relief. Airport delays at hubs like Chicago and Atlanta are as bad as any in Europe. Air travel still relies on a ground-based tracking system from the 1950s, which forces planes to use inefficient routes in order to stay in contact with controllers. The system’s imprecision obliges controllers to keep more distance between air traffic, reducing the number of planes that can fly in the available space. And this is not the system’s only bottleneck. Overbooked airports frequently lead to runway congestion, forcing travellers to spend long hours stranded on the tarmac while they wait to take off or disembark. Meanwhile, security and immigration procedures in American airports drive travellers to the brink of rebellion. And worse looms. The country’s already stressed infrastructure must handle a growing load in decades to come, thanks to America’s distinctly non-European demographics. The Census Bureau expects the population to grow by 40% over the next four decades, equivalent to the entire population of Japan. All this is puzzling. America’s economy remains the world’s largest; its citizens are among the world’s richest. The government is not constitutionally opposed to grand public works. The country stitched its continental expanse together through two centuries of ambitious earthmoving. Almost from the beginning of the republic the federal government encouraged the building of critical canals and roadways. In the 19th century Congress provided funding for a transcontinental railway linking the east and west coasts. And between 1956 and 1992 America constructed the interstate system, among the largest public-works projects in history, which criss-crossed the continent with nearly 50,000 miles of motorways. But modern America is stingier. Total public spending on transport and water infrastructure has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4% of GDP [Gross Domestic Product]. Europe, by contrast, invests 5% of GDP in its infrastructure, while China is racing into the future at 9%. America’s spending as a share of GDP has not come close to European levels for over 50 years. Over that time funds for both capital investments and operations and maintenance have steadily dropped (see chart 2). Although America still builds roads with enthusiasm, according to the OECD’s International Transport Forum, it spends considerably less than Europe on maintaining them. In 2006 America spent more than twice as much per person as Britain on new construction; but Britain spent 23% more per person maintaining its roads. America’s dependence on its cars is reinforced by a shortage of alternative forms of transport. Europe’s large economies and Japan routinely spend more than America on rail investments, in absolute not just relative terms, despite much smaller populations and land areas. America spends more building airports than Europe but its underdeveloped rail network shunts more short-haul traffic onto planes, leaving many of its airports perpetually overburdened. Plans to upgrade air-traffic-control technology to a modern satellite-guided system have faced repeated delays. The current plan is now threatened by proposed cuts to the budget of the Federal Aviation Administration. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that America needs to spend $20 billion more a year just to maintain its infrastructure at the present, inadequate, levels. Up to $80 billion a year in additional spending could be spent on projects which would show positive economic returns. Other reports go further. In 2005 Congress established the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. In 2008 the commission reckoned that America needed at least $255 billion per year in transport spending over the next half-century to keep the system in good repair and make the needed upgrades. Current spending falls 60% short of that amount. If they had a little money… If Washington is spending less than it should, falling tax revenues are partly to blame. Revenue from taxes on petrol and diesel flow into trust funds that are the primary source of federal money for roads and mass transit. That flow has diminished to a drip. America’s petrol tax is low by international standards, and has not gone up since 1993 (see chart 3). While the real value of the tax has eroded, the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure has gone up. As a result, the highway trust fund no longer supports even current spending. Congress has repeatedly been forced to top up the trust fund, with $30 billion since 2008. Other rich nations avoid these problems. The cost of car ownership in Germany is 50% higher than it is in America, thanks to higher taxes on cars and petrol and higher fees on drivers’ licences. The result is a more sustainably funded transport system. In 2006 German road fees brought in 2.6 times the money spent building and maintaining roads. American road taxes collected at the federal, state and local level covered just 72% of the money spent on highways that year, according to the Brookings Institution, a think-tank. The federal government is responsible for only a quarter of total transport spending, but the way it allocates funding shapes the way things are done at the state and local levels. Unfortunately, it tends not to reward the prudent, thanks to formulas that govern over 70% of federal investment. Petrol-tax revenues, for instance, are returned to the states according to the miles of highway they contain, the distances their residents drive, and the fuel they burn. The system is awash with perverse incentives. A state using road-pricing to limit travel and congestion would be punished for its efforts with reduced funding, whereas one that built highways it could not afford to maintain would receive a larger allocation.
Public Service Employment 1AC 73
Thus, we present the following PLAN:
The United States federal government should create a public service employment program directed at improving transportation infrastructure in the United States.
Public Service Employment 1AC 74
Contention 2 is the Harms.
Scenario 1 is Racism:
Current approaches to employment create racial notions of poverty that blame unemployed black people for their poverty.
A. Current political conversations have characterized black people in poverty as lazy, immoral and deviant. A rejection of these stereotypes by affirming a right to full employment is critical to overcome genocidal views
FORSTATER, Professor of Economics and Black Studies at UMKC, 2000
[Mathew, Director, Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, PhD Economics, New School for Social Research; “The Full Employment Approach to Reducing Black Poverty and Unemployment in the United States,” Working Paper No. 7, March, ]
The racially coded terminology of the behavioralist paradigm centering on the notion of the (Black) "underclass" has achieved hegemony in the last two decades of the twentieth century, constituting the ultimate failure of the United States to face up to the challenge posed by W. E. B. Du Bois (1903) one hundred years ago. As John Hope Franklin (1994) recently observed, since by no measure could America be said to have effectively addressed the problem, it remains the problem of the twenty-first century. Residential segregation has been documented to constitute what Massey and Denton (1993) have dubbed "American Apartheid"; Kozol (1991) has described with equal accuracy the "savage inequalities" of educational opportunities; racial discrimination persists in housing and credit markets (Dymski); the Black unemployment rate remains stuck at twice that of whites; African Americans are crowded into the low-wage, no or little benefits, no or little job security sectors (Boston, 1988; Darity and Myers, 1998); Black men, especially young black men, are crowded in the prison system; welfare roles are reduced without accounting for all those who leave; lack of adequate, affordable day care remains a problem. Drugs, homicide, violence, family disruption and dislocation pervade the neighborhoods where Black children grow up. Income inequality is severe, but an even more desperate picture emerges from Oliver and Shapiro’s recent (1997) documentation of wealth inequality by race. The so-called Clinton expansion has left some behind, indeed, including a segment of the population described by Darity, et al. (1994) as the "unwanted" and termed by the behavioralist paradigm the black "underclass" -- inner city blacks detached from the labor force and the world of legal work, with little training and poor education, living in neighborhoods rife with crime, drugs, and violence. Critically examining the plight and blight of black poverty and unemployment and their consequences in the United States at the turn of the century can be a demoralizing exercise that can easily lead to nihilism unless we are armed with an alternative, stubborn and committed Vision immunizing ourselves from such defeatism, replacing it with both careful, principled analysis and imaginative positive policy rooted in collective community praxis [practice]. Following Darity, et al. (1994) and others, I want to call this analytical alternative to behavioralism, structuralism, and following Marable (1997) and others I want to call the alternative Vision, Multicultural Democracy. On the analytical front, the task is that of making the necessary distinctions -- of discernment -- between for example, draconian workfare and dignified public service employment. With regards to Vision, the challenge is to craft and put forward a powerful Vision around which coalitions can be formed and popular support garnered that can stand up to the media and think tank supported ideological banner justifying institutionalization and genocide. For as Hadjor (1995) has rightly observed, American liberalism has "suffered something of an inner moral collapse," conceding ground to their conservative opposition and even adopting much of their views on these issues. Thus there has been no effective alternative to blaming the victims, the behavioralist paradigm, the dismantling of the welfare state, and the solidification of the desperate situation of the poor Black community. The very first order of business must be a resounding rejection of the behavioralist paradigm. The behavioralist model roots Black poverty
[Evidence continues next page, no text deleted]
Public Service Employment 1AC 75
[FORSTATER evidence continues, no text deleted]
and unemployment -- the origins of the so-called Black "underclass" -- in "pathological" attitudes and behaviors and "dysfunctional" values and norms. The behavioralist approach is part of what Schram (1995) calls the economistic-therapeutic-managerial (ETM) discourse that "imputes to the poor the identity of self-interested, utility maximizing individuals who need to be given the right incentives," or what Boston (1988) calls simply the "conservative gospel," and which is nothing more than the old "culture-of-poverty" thesis, and going back further, the ideological basis of the poor laws and approach to unemployment and public relief documented so well by Piven and Cloward (1971) in their classic work, Regulating the Poor, which rests on the distinction between the "deserving" and the "undeserving" poor. According to the behavioralist paradigm, the causes of Black poverty and unemployment, and associated characteristics of the so-called Black "underclass" -- crime, violence, drugs, detachment from the labor force and the world of legal work, disintegration of the family (in social and welfare policy analysis, such disintegration of the Black family means female-headed households) -- these are caused by "deficient" values and attitudes that translate into dysfunctional behaviors reinforced and reproduced by perverse incentives of the welfare state -- primarily income support leading to "dependency" and destroying incentives to take what are euphemistically called "entry-level" positions. The policy approach that follows is reduction and elimination of income support programs for the "undeserving" poor -- those who "reveal" their "preferences" for poverty and marginal attachment to or detachment from the labor force, crime, violence, and anti-social norms at odds with the American "ethic" -- laziness, sexual promiscuity, inability to defer gratification, and so on.
B. The disturbing truth is that racism has made the mass extermination of the “underclass” all too possible. A focus on jobs for the inner city poor is necessary to empower those blamed for being victims of poverty.
FORSTATER, Professor of Economics and Black Studies at UMKC, 2000
[Mathew, Director, Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, PhD Economics, New School for Social Research; “The Full Employment Approach to Reducing Black Poverty and Unemployment in the United States,” Working Paper No. 7, March, ]
It is here where a most disturbing set of issues arise. Darity, et al. (1994) argue that with the transformation from industrial capitalism to what they call managerial capitalism or managerial society, the Black "underclass" is no longer functioning as a reserve army of labor. This is leading to increasing "social unwantedness of young black males. And this social unwantedness explains how policies evolve that act to selectively incapacitate or exterminate the superfluous elements of the labor pool" (Darity, et al., 1994, pp. 59-60). As Myers put it elsewhere: There is no doubt that declining labor force participation and growing unemployment are signals of increased marginalization of at least one significant segment within the black community, the black "underclass." This "underclass" has become the epitome of superfluous labor in the sense that its members are neither wanted nor needed for the efficient operation of contemporary job markets. Increasingly, these people -- who disproportionately populate the prisons, drug-abuse clinics, mental hospitals, and other repositories for the unwanted and disenfranchised of the world -- have become the literal hemorrhoids of domestic policy making. Uncomfortably burdensome in their initial stages, these hidden inconveniences eventually erupt into painful reminders of failed policies and social neglect. Myers, 1989, p. 82) For Gans, as well as for Piven and Cloward, there are "positive" functions of the "underclass" even when they no longer function as a reserve army of labor. Gans lists numerous functions. The "underclass" provide clients for charities, create jobs for professions that serve the poor, the poor can be punished or upheld as deviants in order to uphold the legitimacy of dominant norms, serve as symbolic consituencies (the "left") and opponents (the "right") for political groups, and so on. Piven and Cloward emphasize that even when no longer functioning as a reserve army of labor, the "underclass" functions as a living threat to the working poor -- ‘this could be you’ -- thus, continuing to discipline workers much as Marx described. Darity, et al. do recognize some of these functions. In particular, they emphasize that "the managerial elite has grown ... to have a vested interest in the newly
[Evidence continues next page, no text deleted]
Public Service Employment 1AC 76
[FORSTATER evidence continues, no text deleted]
emergent institutions designed to control, contain or eradicate the underclass" (1994, p. 57). Mincy, along with Darity et al., identifies "middle class blacks" as one of the segments operating as "service providers and custodians of the black underclass. These positions include prison guards, welfare caseworkers, probation officers, teachers in ghetto schools" and so on (Mincy, p. 116). We need to be clear about what is at stake here. First, a portion of the Black population (the "underclass") is increasingly detached from the labor force, decreasing significantly the ‘positive’ functions they serve in American society. Second, while we can identify ‘positive’ functions that the underclass continue to play, these functions assign these individuals to the most degraded and destitute status imaginable, to a large degree institutionalized, but with elimination -- through violence, selective population control, and so on -- an integral part of the system, and a system in which other segments of the population, including portions of the Black middle class, have some kind of stake. A question that follows is whether the pressures for extermination and elimination, which are part of the system, are greater than the pressures for social reproduction. We also have to ask ourselves whether the system can lock into an "irrational" path, leading to genocide even if that would be ‘dysfunctional’ for other segments of the population. Wallerstein and others have argued that genocide is "irrational" under capitalism, because exploitation requires social reproduction of labor power. But in the face of historical precedents of genocide, we must ask ourselves if selective genocide might not also play a role under capitalism. If a segment of the population totally destitute and degraded can play a disciplining role by serving as a threat to other segments of the working poor, why couldn't genocide do the same -- ‘this could be you’ -- quite a wake-up call to maintain your social ‘usefulness.’ Finally, are we actually suggesting that we need to affirm or reinforce the social ‘usefulness’ of a destitute underclass so we can prevent their elimination? I hope that I am successfully conveying the disturbing nature of these questions, and why I feel that there is an urgency to rally around some kind of powerful alternative vision that can immunize us from defeatism and nihilism and counter the hegemonic behavioralist ideology and offer some truly positive alternative path from the one we may now be on. What are the alternatives? In the short run, at least, the main structural features of American society are given. And Keynes’s "in the long run we are all dead" not only takes on a new meaning, but for some segments of the population we are not talking about the long run -- for some the promise of death or at least incarceration or institutionalization is in the short run, is in the very short run. Darity, et al. offer no real policy solution, and though they do not say so, one gets the sense that they felt that to hold out any hope would have minimized the impact of their analysis. Of the others who also recognize the severity of the problem there is one common theme that runs through the literature: Universal Public Service Employment to on the one hand provide individuals with income earning jobs, and on the other hand to increase the social services and community support systems available. There is a shortage of jobs and a shortage of community services that can amplify support systems in inner city neighborhoods that are rife with poverty, unemployment, and the associated crime, violence, drugs, etc. Mincy emphasizes that the two priorities are an employment policy that can "overcome barriers to labor force nonparticipation" and public safety (1994, p. 122, p. 133). He specifically cites Public Service Employment as playing potentially a role in preventing the outcome "that Darity and Myers foresee" (1991, p. 141). Mincy also cites Public Service Employment as "allowing fathers to meet their child support obligations. Fathers would therefore be more willing to establish paternity, take on long-term child support obligations" (1994, p. 141). Hadjor points out that: "Through all the studies and investigations of recent years, nobody has ever been able to demonstrate that people on welfare in America’s inner cities have a "pathological" unwillingness to work for a decent wage. Every survey or interview conducted among ghetto youth reflects their desire for good jobs to provide an escape from the criminal sub-economy" (1995, 135). Adolph Reed, Jr. argues that "we should fight for policy changes that will open opportunity structures: support for improving access to jobs, housing, schooling, and real drug rehabilitation of the sorts available to the relatively well-off" (p. 195), adding that "I do not want to hear another word about drug or crime without hearing about decent jobs, housing, and egalitarian education in the same breath" (Reed, 1999, p. 196). In the 1996 The State of Black America, The National Urban League calls for a policy that "has a laser-like focus on jobs for the inner city poor": Make no mistake, inner city folk want to work. We've got to spread the job action around if inner city folk are to work -- and if cities are to work. There is no macroeconomic policy, no economic growth scenario, no model cities approach, no black capitalism strategy and no enterprise zone experiment imaginable that can match the Depression-era Works Progress Administration in jumpstarting hope by driving unemployment down in a hurry.
Public Service Employment 1AC 77
C. Racism diminishes our common humanity and must not be allowed – we must continue to struggle against racism
MEMMI, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at University of Paris, 1997
[Albert, RACISM, 1997, p. 163]
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved. Yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without cease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism; one must not even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment [increase] the bestial [brutal, beastly] part in us and in other people, which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which man is not himself an outsider relative to someone else?). Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated; that is, it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues [introductions] to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge.
Public Service Employment 1AC 78
Scenario Two is Economic Growth. Only guaranteeing employment to all willing to work can solve the structural problems with the United States economy, preventing war.
A. Massive investments in a public infrastructure jobs program is the only way to boost growth and outgrow federal deficits
SCHWARTZ, Professor of Political Science at Temple University 2011
[Joseph, PhD Harvard, “Obama’s Politics of Austerity”, Dissent, ]
We have recent experience with the ability of the U.S. economy to grow its way out of deficits. In 1996, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the United States would have a fiscal deficit of 2.75 percent of GDP in 2000. Instead, we ended up with almost a 2.7 percent surplus. Why? The rate of economic growth increased in the latter 1990s, in part due to the internet bubble, but also because Clinton administration policies encouraged investment and exports. The more than 5 percent swing between the projected deficit and the actual surplus is equal to more than half of the projected deficit for 2011. But we won’t achieve such deficit-reducing growth unless the federal government ends foreclosures and implements a massive public jobs program in order to shore up flagging consumer demand. In addition, wise deficit spending should fund investments in education, infrastructure, job training, and research and development. Just as corporations use debt to invest in growth—healthy corporations often have a debt to annual income ratio of four to one—governments also should issue some debt. That is why most advanced democracies run average deficits, over the long run, of 3 percent of GDP per year (the average annual rate of growth in the twentieth century). If the economy grows faster over time than the rate of deficit spending, the total debt-GDP ratio stays the same or declines. In fact, the average ratio of total debt to GDP during strong growth periods in OECD countries ranges from 40 to 50 percent and normally rises to 60 to 80 percent during sharp recessions. When domestic investors hold much of their government’s debt, a country is simply borrowing from itself; its citizens are investing in the future of their country. In the case of the United States, over one-third of our outstanding federal debt is held by other agencies of the federal government. Foreign institutions and individuals own less than one-third of the total.
Public Service Employment 1AC 79
B. Infrastructure investment is key to economic growth and competitiveness in multiple sectors
CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS, 2008
[Transportation consulting firm founded by MIT professors, “Cambridge Systematics Supports Major U.S. Chamber Study on Transportation and the Nation’s Economy,” April, ]
Transportation Investment will be Critically Important to the Health of our Nation’s Economy, Competitiveness, and Quality of Life The study concluded that steady economic growth and increasing and shifting population make a high-performing transportation system more important than ever. Serving the mobility needs of growing cities and their emerging mega-regions will be a major factor in ensuring future economic health. The United States is the undisputed leader in the global economy, but other countries— particularly the developing countries of Asia—are growing quickly, and industries in these countries are offering formidable competition to U.S. businesses. Continued underinvestment and business-as-usual transportation policies and programs will have a detrimental impact on the ability of the United States to compete in the world economy and will negatively impact our quality of life. Industry and household spending on transportation accounted for nearly 10 percent of U.S. [gdp] gross domestic product in 2006, or about $1.3 trillion, much of it spent to purchase transportation services— moving people and goods via trucks, railroads, public transportation, aviation, and ships and barges. The productivity and success of the transportation services sector is tied directly to the capacity and performance of the nation’s transportation infrastructure. When the transportation service sector productivity drops and costs go up, effects are felt immediately by the major economic sectors of our economy; manufacturing, retail, services, and agriculture and natural resources. U.S. transportation infrastructure capacity has not kept pace with the growth in the transportation demands of these sectors, and the nation’s piecemeal approach to rebuilding and improving our transportation system is not going to remedy this situation. If the U.S. fails to meet growing needs, the system will increasingly become a competitive disadvantage for the nation’s businesses and prevent economic growth.
Public Service Employment 1AC 80
C. Transportation infrastructure is key to economy for multiple reasons where we’re now declining - trade, efficiency, and global competitiveness
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Infrastructure Index Project, 2010
[Michael Gallis – former Associate Professor of Architecture and Planning at UNC Charlotte, M.A. Univ. of Pennsylvania; Sue McNeil, Professor of Civil Engineering at Univ. of Delaware, PhD Carnegie-Mellon Univ.; et al., “TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE INDEX: COMPLETE TECHNICAL REPORT Measuring and Benchmarking Infrastructure Performance”, ]
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Introduction and Background Transportation plays a key role in economic development even in advanced economies. The progression of economies from agrarian to industrial – to use a simplified example – requires that each nation specializes in the goods and services that it can produce most efficiently. As a nation’s economy moves away from a focus on agriculture it does not stop using agricultural products. Instead, it needs to be able to trade the industrial goods it produces for the other products it needs. International trade makes this possible. And transportation infrastructure makes international trade possible. When production is done by the nation with a labor force that excels in the skill set best suited to that product, specialization of labor occurs. What worked to move economies from agrarian to industrial applies to the more complicated choices and location decisions that businesses and nations make in today’s increasingly globalized marketplace. This economic study differs from existing research on the topic of infrastructure and the economy because it examines the overall contribution from well‐performing infrastructure rather than the impact on growth that results from spending (and the creation of jobs during construction) due to the initial investment. The problem of causation – does investment in infrastructure cause the growth or does growth cause the investment in infrastructure – is well identified in the literature on this topic. When attempting to analyze the role of infrastructure in the economy, prior research identified the additional problem of matching units of measure (MSA versus state versus country, etc.) for both infrastructure and economic activity. Study after study points to the need for a tool for measuring the importance of infrastructure to a national economy. Drawing on this rich body of work, the analysis provides a straightforward time‐series model following estimation methods that have been widely tested in the economic growth literature. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Transportation Infrastructure Index measures performance using over 10,000 statistics, on all modes (rail, road, transit, aviation, and marine) of the vital systems that bring labor and materials to the places where American businesses create goods and services. That system is also used to deliver goods and services to customers and users throughout the U.S. and around the world. We view using the Transportation Infrastructure Index as a unique opportunity to measure the economic importance of the performance of transportation infrastructure. The economy runs on infrastructure. Transportation infrastructure performance in the United States is declining –resulting in a drag on the economy. The econometric results using the Index demonstrate that as the performance of transportation infrastructure falls, so does the economy. Firms choose to locate where infrastructure is better. They leave areas where infrastructure is missing or deteriorated. U.S. firms look for good infrastructure when they consider placing offices overseas – foreign firms do the same when they consider locating here (Mataloni, 2008).
Transportation maintains the productivity benefits of specialization (Taylor, 2007). Producers must be able to bring inputs from strategic partners in their own low cost locations and to send goods/services to distant customers to have the full economic advantage of trade. Good transportation infrastructure can enable the economic specialization that leads to lower costs – making U.S. businesses more efficient, making the U.S. a desirable location for foreign businesses, and making U.S. produced goods and services more competitive in the global economy. If a highway can give one U.S. county a competitive advantage over another (Chandra and Thompson, 2000), why couldn’t high‐performing transportation infrastructure give the United States a competitive advantage over another country? Some studies of the distant customers to have the full economic advantage of trade. Good transportation infrastructure can enable the economic specialization that leads to lower costs – making U.S. businesses more efficient, making the U.S. a desirable location for foreign businesses, and making U.S. produced goods and services more competitive in the global economy. If a highway can give one U.S. county a competitive advantage over another (Chandra and Thompson, 2000), why couldn’t high‐performing transportation infrastructure give the United States a competitive advantage over another country? Some studies of the
[Evidence continues next page, no text deleted]
Public Service Employment 1AC 81
[U.S. Chamber of Commerce evidence continues, no text deleted]
economic impact of a highway in one county (of a state versus nearby counties) find that the effect of a new highway is in the spatial re‐ distribution of economic activity and not in the overall contribution to the size of the state economy. Here, we are studying the transportation infrastructure of the entire nation. The methodology for generating the Index values (described elsewhere) relies on sampling geographic areas which make performance data available, then expanding the results in such a way (based on geography, population, and contribution to national economy) so that they are representative of the total United States. We seek to explore the idea that the U.S. is one option competing with about 200 other countries for the location of businesses – including American businesses.1 The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to demonstrate the usefulness of the Index for exploring the contribution of infrastructure to keeping American businesses competitive in an increasingly global economy. Other countries are constantly competing with us, constantly building and rebuilding their infrastructure, constantly developing their economies. While the United States has maintained its position at the top of the overall World Competitiveness Yearbook ranking, the sub‐ranking for Basic Infrastructure has not (Table 24). While the ranking varies considerably with a poor ranking of 15 in 2000 and the top ranking for several years, the rank has degraded since 2005. The World Economic Forum also performs an annual infrastructure ranking in the Global Competitiveness Report. In their Executive Opinion Survey, when asked the question, “How would you assess general infrastructure in your country?” the U.S. scored 5.9 out of 7, above the median score of 4.1, but ranking only 14th in 2009(see Appendix F).2 Details on the 2009 scores for the quality of Roads, Railroads, Ports and Air Transport are available in the Appendix for the U.S. and the Top 20 ranked countries, along with global rankings for GDP and GDP per capita. Table 24. World Competitiveness Annual Ranking for U.S. Basic Infrastructure Year U.S. Basic Infrastructure Rank 1997 1 1998 1 1999 2 2000 15 2001 1 2002 2 2003 2 2004 1 2005 1 2006 2 2007 2 2008 2 2009 4 2010 11 Source: IMD (2010) World Competitiveness Yearbook 1995‐2010 The economic importance of transportation infrastructure is summarized in Table 25. Deteriorating infrastructure in the United States may actually be contributing to increased costs and decreased efficiency for U.S. businesses (Cambridge Systematics, 2008). Many of our “less‐developed” and “emerging market” competitors are already preparing their infrastructure now to move away from producing low‐wage goods to producing the types of products that require the specialization of labor that transportation infrastructure makes possible (Praxis Strategy Group and Kotkin, 2010).
Public Service Employment 1AC 82
D. We’re at the brink of double dip recession – transportation investment creates jobs and prevents the inevitable cost of failing infrastructure
MARSHALL AND THOMASSON, 2011
[Will, president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute, former policy director of Democratic Leadership Council and Congressional policy analyst; Scott, director of economic and domestic policy for the Progressive Policy Institute and former staffer at Senate Appropriations Committee, “Sperling on “Deferred Maintenance””, 2010/07, ]
Today’s GOP is gripped by a raging anti-government fever which fails to draw elementary distinctions between consumption and investment, viewing all public spending as equally wasteful. But as the White House’s Gene Sperling said yesterday, Republicans can’t claim credit for fiscal discipline by blocking long overdue repairs of in the nation’s transport, energy and water systems. There’s nothing fiscally responsible about “deferring maintenance” on the U.S. economy. Sperling, chairman of the president’s National Economic Council, spoke at a PPI forum on Capitol Hill on “Infrastructure and Jobs: A Productive Foundation for Economic Growth.” Other featured speakers included Sen. Mark Warner, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Dan DiMicco, CEO of Nucor Corporation, Daryl Dulaney, CEO of Siemens Industry and Ed Smith, CEO of Ullico Inc., a consortium of union pension funds. Fiscal prudence means foregoing consumption of things you’d like but could do without if you can’t afford them – a cable TV package, in Sperling’s example. But if a water pipe breaks in your home, deferring maintenance can only lead to greater damage and higher repair costs down the road. As speaker after speaker emphasized during yesterday’s forum, that’s precisely what’s happening to the U.S. economy. Thanks to a generation of underinvestment in roads, bridges, waterways, power grids, ports and railways, the United States faces a $2 trillion repair bill. Our inadequate, worn-out infrastructure costs us time and money, lowering the productivity of workers and firms, and discouraging capital investment in the U.S. economy. Deficient infrastructure, Dulaney noted, has forced Siemens to build its own rail spurs to get goods to market. That’s something smaller companies can’t afford to do. They will go to countries – like China, India and Brazil – that are investing heavily in building world-class infrastructure. As Nucor’s DiMicco noted, a large-scale U.S. infrastructure initiative would create lots of jobs while also abetting the revival of manufacturing in America. He urged the Obama administration to think bigger, noting that a $500 billion annual investment in infrastructure (much of the new money would come from private sources rather than government) could generate 15 million jobs. The enormous opportunities to deploy more private capital were echoed from financial leaders in New York, including Jane Garvey, the North American chairman of Meridiam Infrastructure, a private equity fund specializing in infrastructure investment. Garvey warned that what investors need from government programs is more transparent and consistent decision making, based on clear, merit-based criteria, and noted that an independent national infrastructure bank would be the best way to achieve this. Bryan Grote, former head of the Department of Transportation’s TIFIA financing program, which many describe as a forerunner of the bank approach, added that having a dedicated staff of experts in an independent bank is the key to achieving the more rational, predictable project selection that investors need to see to view any government program as a credible partner. Tom Osborne, the head of Americas Infrastructure at UBS Investment Bank, agreed that an independent infrastructure bank like the version proposed by Senators Kerry, Hutchison and Warner, would empower private investors to fund more projects. And contrary to arguments that a national bank would centralize more funding decisions in Washington, Osborne explained that states and local governments would also be more empowered by the bank to pursue new projects with flexible financing options, knowing that the bank will evaluate projects based on its economics, not on the politics of the next election cycle. Adding urgency to the infrastructure push was Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s warning this week that the recovery is “close to faltering.” Unlike short-term stimulus spending, money invested in modernizing infrastructure would create lasting jobs by expanding our economy’s productive base. Warning that America stands on the precipice of a “double dip” recession, Sperling said it would be “inexcusable” for Congress to fail to act on the president’s job plan. He cited estimates by independent economic experts that the plan would boost GDP growth in 2012 from 2.4 to 4.2 percent, and generate over three million more jobs.
Public Service Employment 1AC 83
E. A double-dip recession would destroy the economy.
RAMPELL, 2011
[Catherine, economics reporter for The New York Times; wrote for the Washington Post editorial pages and financial section, “Second Recession in U.S. Could Be Worse Than First”. 8/07, ]
If the economy falls back into recession, as many economists are now warning, the bloodletting could be a lot more painful than the last time around. Given the tumult of the Great Recession, this may be hard to believe. But the economy is much weaker than it was at the outset of the last recession in December 2007, with most major measures of economic health — including jobs, incomes, output and industrial production — worse today than they were back then. And growth has been so weak that almost no ground has been recouped, even though a recovery technically started in June 2009. “It would be disastrous if we entered into a recession at this stage, given that we haven’t yet made up for the last recession,” said Conrad DeQuadros, senior economist at RDQ Economics. When the last downturn hit, the credit bubble left Americans with lots of fat to cut, but a new one would force families to cut from the bone. Making things worse, policy makers used most of the economic tools at their disposal to combat the last recession, and have few options available. Anxiety and uncertainty have increased in the last few days after the decision by Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the country’s credit rating and as Europe continues its desperate attempt to stem its debt crisis. President Obama acknowledged the challenge in his Saturday radio and Internet address, saying the country’s “urgent mission” now was to expand the economy and create jobs. And Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said in an interview on CNBC on Sunday that the United States had “a lot of work to do” because of its “long-term and unsustainable fiscal position.” But he added, “I have enormous confidence in the basic regenerative capacity of the American economy and the American people.” Still, the numbers are daunting. In the four years since the recession began, the civilian working-age population has grown by about 3 percent. If the economy were healthy, the number of jobs would have grown at least the same amount. Instead, the number of jobs has shrunk. Today the economy has 5 percent fewer jobs — or 6.8 million — than it had before the last recession began. The unemployment rate was 5 percent then, compared with 9.1 percent today. Even those Americans who are working are generally working less; the typical private sector worker has a shorter workweek today than four years ago. Employers shed all the extra work shifts and weak or extraneous employees that they could during the last recession. As shown by unusually strong productivity gains, companies are now squeezing as much work as they can from their newly “lean and mean” work forces. Should a recession return, it is not clear how many additional workers businesses could lay off and still manage to function. With fewer jobs and fewer hours logged, there is less income for households to spend, creating a huge obstacle for a consumer-driven economy. Adjusted for inflation, personal income is down 4 percent, not counting payments from the government for things like unemployment benefits. Income levels are low, and moving in the wrong direction: private wage and salary income actually fell in June, the last month for which data was available. Consumer spending, along with housing, usually drives a recovery. But with incomes so weak, spending is only barely where it was when the recession began. If the economy were healthy, total consumer spending would be higher because of population growth. And with construction nearly nonexistent and home prices down 24 percent since December 2007, the country does not have a buffer in housing to fall back on. Of all the major economic indicators, industrial production — as tracked by the Federal Reserve — is by far the worst off. The Fed’s index of this activity is nearly 8 percent below its level in December 2007. Likewise, and perhaps most worrisome, is the track record for the country’s overall output. According to newly revised data from the Commerce Department, the economy is smaller today than it was when the recession began, despite (or rather, because of) the feeble growth in the last couple of years. If the economy were healthy, it would be much bigger than it was four years ago. Economists refer to the difference between where the economy is and where it could be if it met its full potential as the “output gap.” Menzie Chinn, an economics professor at the University of Wisconsin, has estimated that the economy was about 7 percent smaller than its potential at the beginning of this year. Unlike during the first downturn, there would be few policy remedies available if the economy were to revert back into recession. Interest rates cannot be pushed down further — they are already at zero. The Fed has already flooded the financial markets with money by buying billions in mortgage securities and Treasury bonds,
[Evidence continues next page, no text deleted]
Public Service Employment 1AC 84
[RAMPELL evidence continues, no text deleted]
and economists do not even agree on whether those purchases substantially helped the economy. So the Fed may not see much upside to going through another politically controversial round of buying. “There are only so many times the Fed can pull this same rabbit out of its hat,” said Torsten Slok, the chief international economist at Deutsche Bank. Congress had some room — financially and politically — to engage in fiscal stimulus during the last recession. But at the end of 2007, the federal debt was 64.4 percent of the economy. Today, it is estimated at around 100 percent of gross domestic product, a share not seen since the aftermath of World War II, and there is little chance of lawmakers reaching consensus on additional stimulus that would increase the debt. “There is no approachable precedent, at least in the postwar era, for what happens when an economy with 9 percent unemployment falls back into recession,” said Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at IHS Global Insight. “The one precedent you might consider is 1937, when there was also a premature withdrawal of fiscal stimulus, and the economy fell into another recession more painful than the first.”
6. A double-dip recession risks nuclear war.
FINANCIAL TIMES, 2010
[Tina Fordham, “Investors can’t ignore the rise of geopolitical risk”, Financial Times, 2007-17-2010, ]
Geopolitical risk is on the rise after years of relative quiet – potentially creating further headwinds to the global recovery just as fears of a double-dip recession are growing, says Tina Fordham, senior political analyst at Citi Private Bank. “Recently, markets have been focused on problems within the eurozone and not much moved by developments in North Korea, new Iran sanctions, tensions between Turkey and Israel or the unrest in strategically significant Kyrgyzstan,” she says. “But taken together, we don’t think investors can afford to ignore the return of geopolitical concerns to the fragile post-financial crisis environment.” Ms Fordham argues the end of post-Cold War US pre-eminence is one of the most important by-products of the financial crisis. “The post-crisis world order is shifting. More players than ever are at the table, and their interests often diverge. Emerging market countries have greater weight in the system, yet many lack experience on the global stage. Addressing the world’s challenges in this more crowded environment will be slower and more complex. This increases the potential for proliferating risks: most notably the prospect of politically and/or economically weakened regimes obtaining nuclear weapons; and military action to keep them from doing so. “Left unresolved, these challenges could disrupt global stability and trade. This would be a very unwelcome time to see the return of geopolitical risk.”
Public Service Employment 1AC 85
Contention Three is Solvency: A Public Service Employment program is the only way to create jobs and growth in the short-term.
1. Plan immediately boosts employment and growth, which prevents economic decline.
ZAKARIA, 2011
[Fareed, PhD in Political Science at Harvard “Zakaria: U.S. needs an infrastructure bank,” 6/13, ]
President Obama has proposed a number of specific policies to tackle the jobs crisis, but they have gone nowhere because Republicans say that their top concern is the deficit and debt. Those of us worried about the debt - and I would strongly include myself - need to remember that if unemployment doesn't go down fast, the deficit is going to get much worse. If you're serious about deficit reduction, the single most important factor that will shrink it is to have more people working and paying taxes. I want to focus on one of Obama's proposals because it actually would add very little to the deficit, it has some Republican supporters and it would have an immediate effect on boosting employment and growth. Plus, it's good for the country anyway. We need a national infrastructure bank to repair and rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure. The House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, has played down this proposal as just more stimulus, but if Republicans set aside ideology, they would actually see that this is an opportunity to push for two of their favorite ideas - privatization and the elimination of earmarks. That's why Republicans like Kay Bailey Hutchison and Chuck Hagel are strongly in favor of such a bank. The United States builds its infrastructure in a remarkably socialist manner. The government funds bills and operates almost all American infrastructure. Now, in many countries in Europe and Asia the private sector plays a much larger role in financing and operating roads, highways, railroads, airports and other public resources. An infrastructure bank would create a mechanism by which you could have private sector participation. Yes, there would be some public money involved, though mostly through issuing bonds. And with interest rates at historic lows, this is the time to use those low interest rates to borrow money and rebuild America's infrastructure. Such projects have huge long-term payoffs and can genuinely be thought of as investments, not expenditures. A national infrastructure bank would also address a legitimate complaint of the Tea Party - earmark spending. One of the reasons federal spending has been inefficient is that Congress wants to spread the money around in ways that might make political sense but are economic nonsense. An infrastructure bank would make those decisions using cost-benefit analysis in a meritocratic system rather than spreading the wealth around and basing these decisions on patronage, politics and whimsy. Let's face it, America's infrastructure is in a shambles. Just a decade ago, we ranked sixth in infrastructure in the world according to the World Economic Forum. Today we rank 23rd and dropping. We will not be able to compete with the nations of the world if we cannot fix this problem. Is it too much to ask that Republicans and Democrats find a way to come together on this? That moment of bipartisanship might actually be the biggest payoff of all.
Public Service Employment 1AC 86
2. Repairing transportation infrastructure through an investment in public jobs can solve mounting unemployment.
HERBERT, 2011
[Bob, fellow at Demos, B.A. State University of New York, “Put America Back To Work”, Bob, PolicyShop, 2008/30, ]
The biggest domestic policy failure has been the refusal of top officials in the White House and in Congress to recognize the severity of the employment crisis that has settled like a plague over American workers. There is no longer any excuse for believing that the Great Recession and its aftermath was a more or less typical economic downturn to be followed by a robust recovery. That’s a pipedream. What we are experiencing is an economic disaster, the worst reversal to hit the U.S. since the 1930s. The human suffering is profound. Some 14 million Americans are officially counted as unemployed. Nearly half have been out of work for six months or more, and many have been jobless for a year or two or longer. Poverty is once again on the march, moving like Patton’s Third Army through communities that had never had more than a tenuous hold on the American dream. The few jobs now being created too often pay a pittance, the minimum wage or just above, not nearly enough to pry open the doors to a middle class standard of living. Starved of tax revenues, the federal budget is submerged in a vast ocean of red ink. One of the tragic results is that social services are under furious attack at the same time that the need for such services has grown enormously. If dramatic steps are not soon taken to put millions of jobless Americans back to work, the quality of life for much, if not most, of the population will be irreparably damaged. The American dream itself is at risk. Politicians have given little more than lip service to this terrible turn of events. If there was but one message that I would try to get through to the nation’s leadership, it is that we cannot begin to get the United States back on track until we begin to put our people back to work. And there is so much work to be done. Start with the crying need to rebuild the nation’s aging, deteriorating infrastructure – its bridges and highways, airports and air traffic control systems, its sewer and wastewater treatment facilities, the electrical grid, inland waterways, public transportation systems, levees and floodwalls and ports and dams, and on and on. Lawrence Summers, until recently President Obama’s top economic adviser, has pointed out that 75 percent of America’s public schools have structural deficiencies. Twelve percent of the nation’s bridges have been rated structurally deficient and another 15 percent are functionally obsolete. Three to four trillion dollars worth of improvements will be needed over the next decade just to bring the infrastructure into a reasonable state of repair. Meanwhile, we’ve got legions of unemployed construction workers, manufacturing workers, engineers and others who are ready and eager to step into the breach, to take on jobs ranging from infrastructure maintenance and repair to infrastructure design and new construction. It shouldn’t require a genius to put together those two gigantic pieces of America’s economic puzzle – infrastructure and unemployment. Yes, it would be expensive. But the money spent would be an investment designed to bring about a stronger, more stable economic environment. Putting people to work bolsters the economy and the newly-employed workers begin paying taxes again. Improving the infrastructure would make American industry much more competitive overall, and would spawn new industries. Creation of a national infrastructure bank that would use government funds to leverage additional investments from the private sector to finance projects of national importance would lead to extraordinary longterm benefits. But even rebuilding the infrastructure is not enough. The employment crisis facing the U.S. is enormous and is taking a particularly harsh toll on the less well-educated members of the society. We need to take our cue from Franklin Roosevelt who understood during the Depression that nothing short of a federal jobs program was essential. The two-pronged goal was to alleviate the suffering of the unemployed and, as the workers began spending their wages, improve the economy. Roosevelt put millions of Americans to work, including artists, writers, photographers and musicians. It was an unprecedented undertaking, and it worked.
Public Service Employment 1AC 87
3. A Federal public service employment program will create economic recovery. Only guaranteeing EVERY person in poverty a job creates the employment necessary for aggregate income increases.
WRAY, 2000
[L. Randall, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, as well as a visiting Senior Scholar at the Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College; “The Perfect Fiscal Storm,” Policy Note No. 02/05, ]
What about policy recommendations? States really cannot deal with the budget problems on their own. Real needs will rise—for unemployment compensation, for medical care, and for welfare. Trying to cut other spending—like college funding—or trying to raise taxes simply hurts the economy and lowers tax revenue. The old Laffer Curve will come back to haunt the states. What they really need is a federal government bailout. There are two reasons why we want to shift more of the funding responsibility back to the federal government. First, state taxes tend to be regressive; for many they are highly regressive. Second, and more important, states cannot deficit spend. States really do have to use tax revenues to finance spending. The federal government does not, and in fact cannot use tax revenue to finance its spending. Any sovereign nation spends by crediting bank accounts and taxes by debiting them. Only nations that surrender sovereignty (to the Euro, as in the case of Euroland, or to the dollar, as in the case of the Argentinas around the world) have to tax before they can spend. This is the fundamental difference between state finances and federal government finances. While the problems of the international economy are too complex to be dealt with here, a first step is for individual nations to reassert fiscal sovereignty by abandoning foreign currencies. Exactly how the international financial architecture might be restructured, or how policy of multinational financial institutions might be changed is beyond the scope of this article. However, pegged exchange rates or currency boards or monetary unions (without fiscal unions) stand in the way of progress on that front. There is little doubt that increased integration of economies requires an international approach to reduce the bias toward fiscal austerity. But meantime, individual nations can remove self-imposed constraints that result from pegged currencies. Turning more specifically to the current situation in the US, few observers recognize the nature of the challenges ahead. It is useful to identify three challenges--only the first has entered public debate. Most immediately, government must cushion the economic downturn. If the private sector tries to adjust its spending sufficiently to return to a much more normal surplus of 3-5 percent (which is what it usually does in a recession), and if the trade deficit remains at about 4% of GDP, then the cyclical budget deficit needs to be somewhere above 7% of GDP. Note two things. First, that is about the size of Japan’s budget deficit. Second, we are talking about a short term fiscal adjustment of almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Yes, even for the USA that is a big number. Also note that the general government budget balance has already adjusted by some 4.5% of GDP—partly due to falling growth of tax revenues and rising social spending as the economy slows, and partly due to the defense build-up post-9-11. The second challenge, only dimly recognized, lies in the very real needs neglected by the federal government since the days of President Nixon: public infrastructure investment, public health services, pre-collegiate education, training and apprenticeships programs for those who will not attend college, jobs programs for those not needed in the private sector, and fiscal relief for state and local governments. Jamie Galbraith has advocated increasing temporary federal grants to states to allow them to cut regressive taxes. I’d supplement that with a longer-term federal government program to fund more needed infrastructure spending at the local level—in the range of $300 billion annually, with half of that as a short-run (two or three year) stimulus and another $150 billion annually
[Evidence continues next page, no text deleted]
Public Service Employment 1AC 88
[WRAY evidence continues, no text deleted]
for the foreseeable future. Finally, the third challenge lies in the long-term prospects for renewing robust economic growth. The federal budget has become structurally imbalanced, perhaps to a degree last seen in the 1920s (by no coincidence, the last time the federal government ran significant surpluses on a sustained basis). In other words, what is needed is not a short-term fiscal stimulus, but rather a "permanent" relaxation of the fiscal stance. Ideally, we would want to build-in automatic stabilizers, too, so that the budget will swing around the long run stance that is appropriate for full employment growth. An appropriate "permanent" fiscal adjustment would move the structural or full employment budget by 6% of GDP to a sustained deficit of 3% of GDP. A larger deficit than this will be needed over the short run to stem the slide into recession. To achieve the necessary long-term fiscal adjustment requires a combination of tax cuts and spending increases to total at least $600 billion annually, in today’s dollars. The White House tax cut and stimulus package plus the war against evil-doers might total only a third of that over the next few years, and perhaps only a quarter of that for the long term. We need to look for an additional long-term adjustment equal to as much as $450 billion annually. Very roughly, we could accomplish a third of that through reduction of the payroll tax by $150 billion per year. This would increase take-home pay, reduce labor costs, and increase competitiveness of American labor—all of which would help to reduce the incentive to lay-off workers. (It would also eliminate Social Security’s annual budget surplus—which I see as a good thing because the surplus fuels all the privatization scams, but we can leave that debate for another day.) Another $150 billion could be provided to state and local governments as tax relief and support of infrastructure and social spending, as discussed above. That is about a 65% increase of federal grant money flowing to them. The final $150 billion could be used in active labor market programs. We could double the EITC to increase the reward to work. We could strengthen training and education programs. And we could fund a Public Service Employment program as a form of employer of last resort or job guarantee program. That not only would help move the long term budget toward the proper stance, but would add up to about $100 billion of short term countercyclical budget swings to fight recession (based on an estimate of $25,000 annual spending per worker in the program and cyclical swings of employment in the program of approximately 4 million workers between trough and peak). The labor market programs can be devolved to the state and local government levels, with the federal government provide the funding, but state and local governments as well as qualifying nonprofits doing all the hiring, training, and supervision. They know where the jobs are needed and what work needs to be performed but cannot spend in a countercyclical manner. Without a significant restructuring of the federal budget plus a real federal government stimulus package and a bail-out of state governments, I’m afraid we aren’t going to weather this perfect fiscal storm very well. Hopefully we won’t sink like the Andrea Gail.
2AC Inherency - Extensions 89
Unemployment is rising and creating a class of structurally unemployable people.
HUMAN EVENTS, 2012
[John Hayward, “OBAMA MALAISE CONTINUES, UNEMPLOYMENT “HOLDS” AT 8.2 PERCENT,” 7/6, ]
With yet another month of weak employment growth,” CNBC reports, “the second quarter marks the weakest three-month period in two years.” Economists were said to expect a weak 100,000 jobs created, but the actual Bureau of Labor Statistics report “unexpectedly” “disappointed” them, to borrow the media’s two favorite post-2009 catch phrases, and only created 84,000 private-sector jobs. Meanwhile, the government lost 4,000 jobs – but don’t worry, they’ll probably all get hired back to serve as IRS enforcers for ObamaCare. It takes at least 120,000 new jobs per month to keep pace with population growth. Some analysts think the current number is more like 150,000. And yet, the official unemployment rate “held steady” at 8.2 percent! This means either some bold “adjustments” have been made at BLS, or the American workforce contracted sharply again, or perhaps both. The official BLS report says “both the civilian labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio were unchanged in June at 63.8 and 58.6 percent, respectively,” but at least 40,000 jobs are missing, between the awful June job creation and population growth. Where did they go? The more accurate U-6 unemployment rate, which counts long-term “discouraged” workers who have not yet exited the workforce entirely, “officially” ticked up from 14.8 to 14.9 percent, but economics website ZeroHedge says that if those wondrous “seasonal adjustments” are cleared out, the U-6 rate actually soared from 14.3 percent to 15.1 percent last month. This would imply a sizable body of workers are on their way out of the workforce, slipping from U-3 to U-6 and then vanishing from official government statistics entirely. An awful lot of bad news seems to be hiding behind those “seasonal adjustments.” Here’s a little demographic data point: black unemployment rose to 14.4 percent from 13.6 percent in May, while it remained stagnant for most other groups. For young black people, unemployment rose from 36.5 percent to 39.3 percent. That’s what happens when government polices destroy the entry-level labor market, increasing the cost of labor through mandates, while presenting employers with a huge pool of experienced, unemployed job-seekers. Obama’s long years of grinding unemployment are not just a long-running bummer; they are re-shaping the American workforce, creating a growing population of long-term “unemployables” who have great difficulty getting back into the game. And get this: according to the Associated Press, “about one-third of the jobs gained in June were in temporary services.” The Obama transition to a shriveled, part-time work force continues.
2AC Inherency - Extensions 90
Infrastructure investment declining, in both public and private sectors.
NUTTING, 2012
[Rex, MarketWatch's international commentary editor, “Investments in the future have dried up; Commentary: Infrastructure spending down 20% since recession began,” 6/01, ]
This time, however, we’re not so fortunate. Instead of picking up the shovel and getting to work, we’ve thrown the shovel aside, complaining that we just can’t afford to repair what Hoover, FDR, Eisenhower, and LBJ built, much less invest in the infrastructure than our grandchildren will need. The fact is, we’re investing less than we were before the recession hit more than four years ago, not just in government money but in private money, as well. Here are the facts, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis: Government investments (in structures and in equipment) ramped up between 2007 and 2010, only to fall back to 2005 levels by early 2012. The trajectory for private-sector investments was the opposite — a collapse followed by a modest rebound — but they arrived in the same place: back at 2005 levels, some 6% lower than when the recession began. Looking just at investments in structures (such as buildings, roads, mines, utilities and factories), private companies are investing no more today (in inflation-adjusted terms) than they were in late 1978, according to data from the BEA. All together, public- and private-sector investments in structures are down about 20% compared with 2007, in inflation-adjusted terms. In 2007, we spent $684 billion on structures; in 2011, we spent $550 billion. Even before the recession arrived, we were underinvesting. Investments in infrastructure as a share of the economy had declined by 20% compared with 1960, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service. One widely cited estimate from civil engineers put the infrastructure gap at more than $2 trillion.
2AC Harms [Racism] – A/t: #1 91
1. Extend our MEMMI and FORSTATER evidence. As long we win that structural unemployment is racist, it does not matter that other racist actions exist. You have a moral obligation to do everything you can to end structural unemployment because the system of unemployment in the United States is a root cause of current racial tension. It creates cycles of poverty that reinforce the same stereotypes that create more unemployment.
2. Racism should apriori be rejected. Racist epistemologies distort reality, so you should not trust their evidence.
HAWKESWORTH, Professor of Women’s Studies at Rutgers, 2009
[Mary, “Policy discourse as sanctioned ignorance: theorizing the erasure of feminist knowledge” Critical Policy Studies Vol. 3, Nos. 3–4, October–December]
In his discussion of extrinsic racism, Anthony Appiah (1992) introduced the problem of evidence blindness as a manifestation of a ‘cognitive incapacity’ to perceive evidence contrary to one’s beliefs. Although Appiah worried about the policy implications of a psychological account of evidence blindness, he suggested that racism so systematically deforms the psyche that a racist’s ability to integrate new information into his/her cognitive framework is literally impaired. The feminist conception of knowledge as a theoretically constituted human practice provides an alternate account and a richer resource for understanding evidence blindness. It not only avoids the difficulties of attributing psychological defects to those with intransigent views, but also provides an alternative to conspiracy theories of error associated with naïve versions of empiricism, which suggest that the mind is a mirror that accurately reflects objects in the external world (Watkins 1957, Rorty 1979). If our minds faithfully record and store objective depictions of all that happens, error becomes difficult to explain without resorting to a cynical imputation of manipulative motives. J.W.N. Watkins (1957, p. 95) pointed out long ago that certain versions of empiricism give rise to a conspiracy theory of error: ‘A certain intolerance of error is implicit in . . . empiricism as classically formulated . . . It implies that if two people are in serious factual or moral disagreement, at least one of them must be either the direct or indirect victim of some else’s willful deception or a willful deceiver.’ On this view, evidence blindness is a ruse for deceit. It marks the ‘will to power’ that manipulates, lies, distorts, and misrepresents in order to promote a particular agenda. While the intransigence of evidence blindness may make a conspiracy theory of error attractive, it also offers too facile an account. Relying on a mistaken account of knowledge, the conspiracy theory of error explains away a problem that it is important to take seriously. Naïve accounts of knowledge, which mistakenly assume the mind is passive and observation is direct and unmediated, neglect the critical role of language, culture, and theory in structuring perception and cognition. Feminist scholars suggest that the multiple mediations of knowledge that stem from language, culture, society, history, and complex theories about the world provide much richer resources for understanding problems of evidence blindness. The conception of cognition as a human practice suggests that evidence blindness may stem from tacit assumptions that structure perceptions, making some things appear normal, natural, unquestionable, given. Precisely because these assumptions are widely shared, they insulate beliefs from critical scrutiny. Rather than assuming that evidence is manifest, that facts speak for themselves, feminist analysis begins from the premise of plurality, acknowledging the existence of multiple perspectives, the partiality and incompleteness of accounts, and the role of theories in structuring perception and cognition. By examining tacit presuppositions of alternative accounts, feminist inquiry helps make visible sources of error overlooked by mainstream approaches, probing how such errors may preclude perception of evidence advanced within alternate theoretical frameworks. Approaching evidence blindness with a sophisticated understanding of the complex interaction of theoretical assumptions, social values, and discipline-specific methods in the constitution of facticity enables feminist inquiry to examine dimensions of contention over evidence by interrogating value-laden presuppositions that structure perception and cognition, but which are open to critical reflection, and change.
2AC Harms [Racism] – A/t: #2 92
1. Extend our MEMMI evidence. Racism is the root cause of violence because it allows people to view others as less than human, which creates every atrocity. Violence is impossible if everyone is viewed equally.
2. Racism is the root cause of violence.
FOUCAULT, 1976
[Michel, former Chair at the College of France, Society Must be Defended: Lectures at the College de France, 1975-1976, p. 254-257 Trans. David Macey]
What in fact is racism? It is primarily a way of introducing a break into the domain of life that is under power's control: the break between what must live and what must die. The appearance within the biological continuum of the human race of races, the distinction among races, the hierarchy of races, the fact that certain races are described as good and that others, in contrast, are described as inferior: all this is a way of fragmenting the field of the biological that power controls. It is a way of separating out the groups that exist within a population. It is, in short, a way of establishing a biological type caesura within a population that appears to be a biological domain. This will allow power to treat that population as a mixture of races, or to be more accurate, to treat the species, to subdivide the species it controls, into the subspecies known, precisely, as races. That is the first function of racism: to fragment, to create caesuras within the biological continuum addressed by biopower. Racism also has a second function. Its role is, if you like, to allow the establishment of a positive relation of this type: "The more you kill, the more deaths you will cause" or "The very fact that you let more die will allow you to live more." I would say that this relation ("If you want to live, you must take lives, you must be able to kill") was not invented by either racism or the modern State. It is the relationship of war: "In order to live, you must destroy your enemies." But racism does make the relationship of war-"If you want to live, the other must die" - function in a way that is completely new and that is quite compatible with the exercise of biopower. On the one hand, racism makes it possible to establish a relationship between my life and the death of the other that is not a military or warlike relationship of confrontation, but a biological-type relationship: "The more inferior species die out, the more abnormal individuals are eliminated, the fewer degenerates there will be in the species as a whole, and the more Ias species rather than individual-can live, the stronger I will be, the more vigorous I will be. I will be able to proliferate." The fact that the other dies does not mean simply that I live in the sense that his death guarantees my safety; the death of the other, the death of the bad race, of the inferior race (or the degenerate, or the abnormal) is something that will make life in general healthier: healthier and purer. This is not, then, a military, warlike, or political relationship, but a biological relationship. And the reason this mechanism can come into play is that the enemies who have to be done away with are not adversaries in the political sense of the term; they are threats, either external or internal, to the population and for the population. In the biopower system, in other words, killing or the imperative to kill is acceptable only if it results not in a victory over political adversaries, but in the elimination of the biological threat to and the improvement of the species or race. There is a direct connection between the two. In a normalizing society, race or racism is the precondition that makes killing acceptable.
2AC Harms [Racism] – A/t: #3 93
1. This argument begs the question of how impacts come to be. Extend our FORSTATER and MEMMI evidence: allowing racism to exist through structural unemployment devalues everyone’s life because it either makes you an oppressor or the oppressed.
2. Racism comes first – outweighs nuclear war.
MOHAN, NO DATE
[Brij, Professor at LSU, ECLIPSE OF FREEDOM, p. 3-4]
Metaphors of existence symbolize variegated aspects of the human reality. However, words can be apocalyptic. "There are words," de Beauvoir writes, "as murderous as gas chambers. " Expressions can be unifying and explosive; they portray explicit messages and implicit agendas in human affairs and social configurations. Manifestly the Cold War is over. But them world is not without nuclear terror. Ethnic strife and political instabilities in the New World Order -- following the dissolution of the Soviet Union -- have generated fears of nuclear terrorism and blackmail in view of the widening circle of nuclear powers. Despite encouraging trends in nuclear disarmament, unsettling questions, power, and fear of terrorism continue to characterize the crisis of the new age which is stumbling at the threshold of the twenty-first century. The ordeal of existence transcends the thermonuclear fever because the latter does not directly impact the day-to-day operations if the common people. The fear of crime, accidents, loss of job, and health care on one hand; and the sources of racism, sexism, and ageism on the other hand have created a counterculture of denial and disbelief that has shattered the façade of civility. Civilization loses its significance when its social institutions become counterproductive. It is this aspect of the mega-crisis that we are concerned about.
3. Ignoring rights and systemic impacts allows all violence to be legitimized.
KATEB, 1992
[George, Professor of Politics and Director of the Program in Political Philosophy at Princeton, The Inner Ocean, p. 11]
I do not mean to take seriously the idea that utilitarianism is a satisfactory replacement for the theory of rights. The well-being (or mere preferences) of the majority cannot override the rightful claims of individuals. In a time when the theory of rights is global it is noteworthy that some moral philosophers disparage the theory of rights. The political experience of this century should be enough to make them hesitate: it is not clear that, say, some version of utilitarianism could not justify totalitarian evil. It also could be fairly easy for some utilitarians to justify any war and any dictatorship, and very easy to justify any kind of ruthless-ness even in societies that pay some attention to rights. There is no end to the immoral permissions that one or another type of utilitarianism grants. Everything is permitted, if the calculation is right. No, an advocate of rights cannot take utilitarianism seriously as a competing general theory of political morality, nor any other competing general theory. Rather, particular principles or considerations must be given a place. A theory of rights may simply leave many decisions undetermined or have to admit that rights may have to be overridden (but never for the sake of Social well-being or mere policy preference). Als , kinds of rights may sometimes conflict, and it is not always possible to end that conflict either by an elaboration of the theory of rights or by an appeal to some other principle.
2AC Harms [Racism] – A/t: #4 94
1. Ignoring racism by claiming “it will fix itself if we leave it alone” is an excuse to allow atrocities to happen. Stopping every act of racism must always come first.
BARNDT, 1991
[Joseph, Dismantling Racism: The Continuing Challenge to White America, 1991, p. 155-56]
To study racism is to study walls. We have looked at barriers and fences and limitations, ghettos and prisons. The prison of racism confines us all, people of color and white people alike. It shackles the victimizer as well as the victim. The walls forcibly keep people of color and white people separate from each other; in our separate prisons we are all prevented from achieving the human potential that God intends for us. The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty, subservience, and powerlessness are cruel, inhuman, and unjust; the effects of uncontrolled power, privilege, and greed, which are the marks of our white prison will inevitably destroy us as well. But we have also seen that the walls of racism can be dismantled. We are not condemned to an inexorable fate, but are offered the vision and the possibility of freedom. Brick by brick, stone by stone, the prison of individual, institutional, and cultural racism can be destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is time to tear down, once and for all, the walls of racism.
2AC Harms [Economy] – A/t: #1 95
1. Extend our CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS and U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 2010 evidence. Transportation infrastructure is a unique sector of the economy where stimulus can work because it creates immediate employment and investment across many economic sectors.
2. Stimulus spending works, even if the money has to be borrowed. Their authors make elementary mistakes.
THOMA, Professor of Economics at University of Oregon, 2009
[Mark, PhD Washington State University, “A Line in the Sand,” 1/15, ]
Fama's reasoning is dead wrong--and embarrassing. Fama's reasoning is dead wrong for an elementary reason. The accounting identity that savings are equal to investment is true only under a particular definition of investment--one that counts unwanted growth in inventories as part of investment--and under a particular valuation of unexpected inventory accumulation--that which values unwanted inventory accumulation at its cost. In general, the value of unwanted inventory accumulation can't be equal to its cost--the inventory accumulation is unwanted and unexpected, meaning that they tried to sell it at a normal price and failed, and it is now sitting in a corner of a warehouse somewhere. ... Moreover, unwanted inventory accumulation and decumulation today affects incomes and savings next week. Let's tell a story. Suppose that it is Friday, January 2, 2009, and all of a sudden the federal government borrows some money--reducing savings--and buys some extra stuff. Savings is still equal to investment on January 2: savings went down because the government ran a bigger deficit but investment also went down because firms sold extra and so their inventories dropped. What happens on Monday, January 5? Over the weekend the firms mark the value of the goods in their remaining inventory up: inventories are now scarce. They revisit their production plans. Sunday night they call some extra workers and tell them to show up on Monday--that they are expanding production because they are now short of inventories. So when Monday rolls around more people are at work. Thus incomes are higher on Monday than they were on Friday. And in all likelihood savings will be higher as well, for consumers on Monday probably won't raise their consumption spending by as much as their incomes rose. Maybe on Monday purchases will be back in balance with production, and there will be no more unwanted inventory changes. Maybe it will take until Monday January 12 before the change in inventories is back to its desired level. Maybe it will take until ... 2010. But when the change in inventories does come back to its wanted level, production, employment, income, savings, and investment will all be higher than they were on January 1: the stimulus will have worked. Yet every single day savings are equal to investment according to the accounting conventions of the National Income and Product Accounts. Fama's conclusion--that stimulus programs cannot work--has nothing at all to do with his premise--that savings always equals investment in the NIPA framework. ... Fama does not know enough national income accounting to know that that is what he is assuming. He does not understand the identity he deploys as equation (1). He thinks that "investment" means "growth in the value of the capital stock." He simply does not understand what the NIPA investment concept is, or that what he thinks of as "investment" is not in general equal to savings. All of this is part of the undergraduate sophomore economics curriculum. It is gone over again very quickly in graduate school--for example, David Romer (2006), Advanced Macroeconomics 3e, p. 224: If one treats goods that a firm produces and then holds as inventories as purchased by the firm, then all output is purchased by someone. Thus actual expenditure equals the economy's output, Y. In equilibrium, planned and actual expenditure must be equal. If planned expenditure falls short of actual expenditure, for example, firms are accumulating unwanted inventories; they will respond by cutting their production... These mistakes are, literally, elementary ones. They were elementary when R.G. Hawtrey and the other staffers of the British Treasury made them in the 1920s. They carry the implication not just that government cannot stimulate or depress the economy, but that no set of private investment or savings decisions can stimulate or depress the economy either, and thus that there can be no business cycle fluctuations from any source whatsoever--because every action that shifts savings or investment simply moves resources from one use to another. What is extraordinary is that these mistakes are being rederived today, at the end of the 2000s, without any consciousness of their past or of the refutations of them.
2AC Harms [Economy] – A/t: #1 96
3. The multiplier effect and effective resource distribution prove there is no crowding-out.
CALBREATH, 2009
[David, Union-Tribune Staff Writer, “Government spending is tool to revive the economy”, 2/01, ]
As politicians on Capitol Hill debate how much money to pour into the latest stimulus package, they may take heart from the findings of a recent study from the University of California San Diego, which suggests that government spending programs can be very useful in revitalizing the economy. In a year-old study now being updated to reflect the ongoing economic crisis, UCSD economist Valerie Ramey took a look at government spending programs from the Eisenhower era through the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Her conclusion: For every $1 the government spent, it generated an average of $1.40 in economic growth. “Raising spending stimulates the economy,” Ramey said. “On average, government spending raises the gross domestic product and raises employment, although it sometimes leads to a small decrease in consumer spending, as consumers find themselves in competition with the government.” Over the past two months, the stimulus package – created to revive an economy laid low by the mortgage crisis – has evolved from a near-record $700 billion proposal to a leviathan between $819 billion and $888 billion, depending on whether you're looking at the House or Senate version. Many economists say even that will not be enough to revive the economy. As originally envisioned, the package was aimed at infrastructure construction and bolstering state and local budgets, with the goal of creating or preserving 3 million jobs through 2011. That continues to be the core of the bill, but now embedded within in its 647 pages are proposals to devote millions of dollars to funding the National Endowment for the Arts, revamping the Department of Commerce headquarters, rebuilding restrooms in national parks and buying new computers for government agencies, among other things. Although critics describe some of those proposals as “pork” projects, supporters of the bill say they will create jobs and stir economic growth, which is the point of the bill. To assuage some critics – and to fulfill Obama's campaign promises – the bill also includes $275 billion in tax cuts, including reductions to the alternative minimum tax, income taxes and corporate taxes. But several studies last week agreed with Ramey's findings at UCSD: In times like these, the most important step the government can take is to spend. “A massive hole in demand is emerging as consumers, businesses, and state and local governments are forced to cut back,” said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHT Global Insight, an economic analysis firm in Massachusetts. “The federal government is the only entity that can fill that gap, either by spending itself or by providing the financing for spending in the rest of the economy.” In a report last week, Gault compared the benefits of three elements of the stimulus proposal: tax cuts, infrastructure spending and transfers of federal funds to state and local governments. Gault found that the most effective use of the money would be spending on infrastructure projects, generating $1.70 in economic activity for every $1 spent. “This should not be surprising, since the spending creates GDP both directly, by putting idle resources to work, and indirectly, since those businesses and workers receiving extra income will then be able to spend more,” he said. Transfers to state and local governments would generate $1.40 for every $1 spent, he said, partly by preventing further job losses.
2AC Harms [Economy] – A/t: #2 97
1. High unemployment destroys economic potential by making it impossible for the economy to recover from other factors.
GUARDIAN, 2012
[“With unemployment stuck at 8.2%, campaigns accentuate the negatives,” 7/06, ]
So we have yet another disappointing jobs report, as the US economy added only 80,000 jobs in June – lower than the average forecast of around 90,000 new jobs in June and only marginally greater than the 77,000 jobs added in May. This follows a report earlier this week that manufacturing, which had appeared to be rebounding, was facing the lowest level in eight months, as the Institute for Supply Management's factory index fell to 52 in June. While the jobs report is not catastrophic, it means that the economy continues to be stuck in low gear, unable to add enough jobs to lower the unemployment rate. At 8.2%, the unemployment rate has exceeded 8% since February 2009, the longest documented period that it has been so high since 1948, when monthly unemployment rate records began. What is particularly dispiriting is that this follows a period of higher growth in late 2011. After gross domestic product had risen by 3% in the last three months of 2011, the growth rate fell back to 1.9% during the first three months of 2012. Economic research by Ken Rogoff of Harvard University and Carmen Reinhart of the Peterson Institute has shown that in the wake of a severe financial and banking crisis, economies can take up to a decade to bring unemployment and growth rates back to pre-crisis levels. But the US economy has faced additional obstacles – from the ongoing eurozone crisis and the congressional cliff-hangers over fiscal policy. Unfortunately, neither of these is likely to be resolved soon. While the eurozone continues to lurch from one supposed remedy to another, it falls deeper into recession and the markets grow increasingly skeptical and impatient. And in the US, Congress has made no headway toward resolving the next fiscal cliff: the 2013 expiration of the Bush tax cuts. This will impose more than $600bn in higher taxes and reductions in fiscal spending if no agreement is reached. Without a sustained fall in unemployment, accompanied by a sustained rise in income, consumers will be unwilling to spend more and businesses will be unwilling to hire and invest more. That will leave the US economy inching along at a slow creep. For the Obama campaign, Friday's numbers must have confirmed for them that the economy will give them no quarter between now and November. The question now revolves around which candidate has the most compelling negatives. It's clear that the Romney campaign believes their path to victory lies in blaming Obama for the state of the economy. On cue, Kevin Madden of the Romney campaign immediately seized upon the weak jobs numbers, calling Obama responsible for a "vicious cycle of low growth".
2AC Harms [Economy] – A/t: #3 98
1. Extend our MARSHALL AND THOMASSON evidence. We are on the verge of a double-dip recession now because there is no incentive for private-sector investment in transportation infrastructure.
2. A double-dip recession is likely now.
FOX BUSINESS, 2012
[Matt Egan, “Recession Odds Grow After Dreary ISM Report,” 7/02, ]
A closely-watched economic gauge revealed on Monday that the U.S. manufacturing sector dipped into contraction territory in June for the first time in nearly three years, once again setting off alarm bells that the nation could be teetering back towards recession. The surprisingly gloomy Institute for Supply Management index is the latest piece of evidence showing the U.S. economy is slowing down amid jitters about the eurozone debt debacle, China’s slowdown and lingering policy uncertainties at home. The index plummeted to 49.7 in June, badly missing forecasts for 52 and marking the first sub-50 reading since July 2009 when the U.S. economy was emerging from the Great Recession. "This is not good. Not good at all,” Dan Greenhaus, chief global strategist at BTIG, wrote in a note. “The ISM Manufacturing Index remains a premier economic indicator and a reading below 50 in June is incredibly, incredibly worrisome.” Recession Looming? Besides the headline drop below the crucial 50 level, economists were alarmed by a plunge in the new orders component of the index to 47.8 from a 13-month high of 60.1 in May. According to John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics, the decline in the new orders index was one of the three largest in the past 32 years. It nearly matched a tumble seen in new orders in October 2001 in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. “It fell back to earth with a really big clunk,” said Ryding. He said it’s not yet clear whether last month’s decline was in response to a May reading that was out of whack or if it signals greater trouble. The U.S. joins a slew of other countries that have recently slipped into contraction territory on the manufacturing front, including Brazil, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Most of the eurozone is also in contraction mode, including economic heavyweights France, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands. The dreary ISM report, combined with the global weakness and other gloomy indicators, appears to have increased the chances of a recession in the U.S.
2AC Solvency – A/t: #1 99
1. We control the uniqueness. Extend our SCHWARTZ and MARSHALL AND THOMASSON evidence. The economy is already on the verge of disaster, so there is no chance that inflation will do any more damage.
2. Their evidence is written by crackpots with no serious qualifications. Prefer evidence from our professors and scholars who argue that the plan helps the economy more than hurts it. Any inflation caused by the plan would result in more capital flowing through the economy, creating net growth.
[ELR = Employer of Last Resort, identical to Public Service Employment]
NELL, 2001
[Edward, Malcolm B. Smith Professor of Economics, Graduate Faculty of the New School for Social Research; “Short-Run Macroeconomic Stabilization by an Employer of Last Resort,” Seminar Paper No. 8, April, ]
Now consider what happens when both the Employer of Last Resort wage and the private sector wage are changed together. This is a change in the wage structure of the whole system and it has a significant impact on the economy . The effects of such a change can be decomposed into two parts. First, there will be a change in household spending, and consequently, in employment and output. Suppose the wage increases; then spending and employment will be higher. But the new level of the wage now means that the labor force will be smaller, if households typically defend a target standard of living, or larger if higher wages attract new participants in the labor force. Taking the latter as an example, we can draw in the equilibrium level of employment and output at the new wage, exactly as in Figure 6. Now however, in Figure 10, we mark off the new level of full employment. The additional workers will now be employed in the ELR, so the household consumption function will have to be redrawn to reflect this. Their employment will now generate additional ELR output, so the output function will likewise have to be redrawn, as will the Government ELR spending function. The additional ELR employment, matched by additional Government ELR spending, must lead to an increase in household consumption spending by ELR-supported households. This increases private sector employment, leading to further respending of wages. So, as Figure 10 clearly shows, both output and private sector employment will increase, when the level of full employment rises as a result of an increase in the real wage. Of course, if the level of full employment fell when the wage rose, as it would if households uniformly aimed at target incomes, the opposite conclusions would follow. The impact of a change in the wage structure depends on the nature and shape of the labor supply function.
2AC Solvency – A/t: #1 100
3. The economy will not recover without a the plan because of unemployment, tax appeals and foreclosures. Public Service Employment is critical to overcome all alternate causalities.
WRAY, 2009
[L. Randall, Senior Scholar and professor of economics and director of the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability at the University of Missouri Economic Perspectives from Kansas City, “The Carnage Continues: Time to Ramp Up the Stimulus” 7/07, ]
Some like to see green shoots everywhere, but that is becoming an increasingly audacious hope. Here are four related stories from the July 5th edition of the New York Times: Tax Bill Appeals Take Rising Toll on Governments By Jack Healy Homeowners across the country are challenging their property tax bills in droves as the value of their homes drop, threatening local governments with another big drain on their budgets…. The tax appeals and reassessments present a new budget nightmare for governments. In a survey conducted by the National Association of Counties, 20076 percent of large counties said that falling property tax revenue was significantly affecting their budgets…. Officials in some states say their property tax revenue is falling for the first time since World War II. Safety Net Is Fraying for the Very Poor By Erik Eckholm Government "safety net" programs like Social Security and food stamps have pulled growing numbers of Americans out of poverty since the mid-1990s. But even before the current recession, these programs were providing less help to the most desperately poor, mainly nonworking families with children… The recession is expected to raise poverty rates, economists agree, although the impact is being softened by the federal stimulus package adopted this year…. "It's a good thing we have the stimulus package," Mr. {Arloc} Sherman said. "But what happens to the most vulnerable families in two years, when most of the provisions expire?" Employment Report Sours the Market By Jeff Sommer A grim report on unemployment on Thursday let the air out of the stock market…. In a monthly report, the Labor Department said that 467,000 jobs were lost in June. In surveys, most economists expected 100,000 fewer jobs lost. The unemployment rate edged up to 9.5 percent from 9.4 percent the previous month, to its highest level in 26 years, and virtually all analysts expect joblessness to mount in the coming months. So Many Foreclosures, So Little Logic By Gretchen Morgenson LAST week, the stock market tumbled on news that housing foreclosures and delinquencies rose again in the first quarter. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said that among the 34 million loans it tracks, foreclosures in progress rose 22 percent, to 844, 200389. That figure was 73 percent higher than in the same period last year.... But the most fascinating, and frightening, figures in the data detail how much money is lost when foreclosed homes are sold. In June, the data show almost 32,000 liquidation sales; the average loss on those was 64.7 percent of the original loan balance. What do these reports have in common? They provide powerful evidence that the federal government is not doing enough to help the "real" economy. As Sam Gompers famously responded when asked what workers wanted--"More!"—our nation's state and local governments, households, workers, and poor need more help, now. We have tried the Reagan/Paulson/Rubin/Geithner "trickle down" approach of targeting relief to Wall Street, but the only thing trickling down is misery. The only way to stop the downward spiral is to substitute trickle-up policy—and even if nothing trickles-up, at least we will have helped those most in need.
2AC Solvency – A/t: #2 101
1. Public Service Employment immediately creates new demand and wages to cycle through the economy.
HERBERT, 2011
[Bob, fellow at Demos, B.A. State University of New York, “Put America Back To Work”, Bob, PolicyShop, 2008/30, ]
We need a public jobs program in America now. A number of approaches have been offered, including a particularly thoughtful and comprehensive proposal prepared for Demos by Philip Harvey, a professor of law and economics at Rutgers University. The idea is simple: “Create jobs for the unemployed directly and immediately in public employment programs that produce useful goods and services for the public’s benefit.” As Harvey’s report explains: “When jobs program participants spend their wages, and program administrators purchase materials and supplies for program projects, the benefits delivered in the first instance to unemployed workers trickle up to the private sector, inducing private sector job creation that supplements the immediate employment effect of the job creation program itself.” A crucial aspect of the program is that it would begin to fill the demand gap that is hampering the economic recovery. With so many millions of people out of work, the demand for goods and services is diminished. Consumers are tapped out. Private businesses are not hiring workers because the demand is not there for the additional goods and services they would be producing. Direct job creation would put people to work quickly, without having to wait many long months, or possibly years, for the economy to fully recover. The money from their paychecks would be pumped immediately into the economy. Like infrastructure spending, a carefully crafted direct jobs plan would be an investment that would be repaid many times over, just as investments in Hoover Dam, rural electrification, the Works Progress Administration and the G.I. Bill delivered enormous longterm benefits to the society. F.D.R., in his first inaugural address, told a worried nation that “our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” It was a task, he insisted, that should be treated “as we would treat the emergency of a war.” The question today, in one of our darkest economic hours, is whether we’re smart enough to heed that essential lesson of history.
2AC Solvency – A/t: #2 102
2. Infrastructure deficiencies put a ceiling on growth. New investment is necessary to break the cycle.
LIKOSKY, 2011
[Michael, senior fellow at the Institute for Public Knowledge at NYU, “Banking on the Future,” 7/12, ]
FOR decades, we have neglected the foundation of our economy while other countries have invested in state-of-the-art water, energy and transportation infrastructure. Our manufacturing base has migrated abroad; our innovation edge may soon follow. If we don’t find a way to build a sound foundation for growth, the American dream will survive only in our heads and history books. But how we will pay for it? Given the fights over the deficit and the debt, it is doubtful that a second, costly stimulus package could gain traction. President Franklin D. Roosevelt faced a similar predicament in the 1930s when the possibility of a double-dip Depression loomed. For this reason, the New Deal’s second wave aggressively pursued public-private partnerships and quasi-public authorities. Roosevelt described the best-known of these enterprises, the Tennessee Valley Authority, as a “corporation clothed with the power of government but possessed of the flexibility and initiative of a private enterprise.” A bipartisan bill introduced by senators including John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, seeks a similar but modernized solution: it would create an American Infrastructure Financing Authority to move private capital, now sitting on the sidelines in pension, private equity, sovereign and other funds, into much-needed projects. Rather than sell debt to investors and then allocate funds through grants, formulas and earmarks, the authority would get a one-time infusion of federal money ($10 billion in the Senate bill) and then extend targeted loans and limited loan guarantees to projects that need a push to get going but can pay for themselves over time — like a road that collects tolls, an energy plant that collects user fees, or a port that imposes fees on goods entering or leaving the country. The idea of such a bank dates to the mid-1990s. Even then, our growth was hampered by the inadequacy of our infrastructure and a lack of appetite for selling public debt to cover construction costs. Today we find ourselves trapped in a vicious cycle that makes this proposal more urgent than ever. Our degraded infrastructure straitjackets growth. We resist borrowing, fearful of financing pork-barrel projects selected because of political calculations rather than need. While we have channeled capital into wars and debt, our competitors in Asia and Latin America have worked with infrastructure banks to lay a sound foundation for growth. As a result, we must compete not only with their lower labor costs but also with their advanced energy, transportation and information platforms, which are a magnet even for American businesses. A recent survey by the Rockefeller Foundation found that Americans overwhelmingly supported greater private investment in infrastructure. Even so, there is understandable skepticism about public-private partnerships; Wall Street has not re-earned the trust of citizens who saw hard-earned dollars vacuumed out of their retirement accounts and homes. An infrastructure bank would not endanger taxpayer money, because under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, passed after the savings and loan scandal, it would have to meet accounting and reporting requirements and limit government liability. The proposed authority would not and could not become a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. It would be owned by and operated for America, not shareholders. The World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and similar institutions helped debt-burdened developing countries to grow through infrastructure investments and laid the foundations for the global high-tech economy. For instance, they literally laid the infrastructure of the Web through a fiber-optic link around the globe. Infrastructure banks retrofitted ports to receive and process shipping containers, which made it profitable to manufacture goods overseas. Similar investments anchored energy-intensive microchip fabrication. President Obama has proposed a $30 billion infrastructure bank that, unlike the Senate proposal, would not necessarily sustain itself over time. His proposal is tied to the reauthorization of federal highway transportation money and is not, in my view, as far-reaching or well designed as the Senate proposal. But he recognizes, as his predecessors did, the importance of infrastructure to national security. For Lincoln, it was the transcontinental railroad; for F.D.R., an industrial platform to support military manufacturing; for Eisenhower, an interstate highway system, originally conceived to ease the transport of munitions. America’s ability to project strength, to rebuild its battered economy and to advance its values is possible only if we possess modern infrastructure.
Public Service Employment Negative 103
1NC Harms [Racism] Frontline 1
2NC Harms [Racism] - Extension #1 1
2NC Harms [Racism] - Extension #3 1
1NC Harms [Economy] Frontline 1
2NC Harms [Economy] – Extension #1 1
2NC Harms [Economy] – Extension #3 1
1NC Solvency Frontline 1
2NC Solvency – Extension #1 1
2NC Solvency – Extension #2 2
1NC Harms [Racism] Frontline 104
1. There are alternate causalities to racism, and the media perpetuates racism by depoliticizing it.
BALKRAN, 1999
[Stephen, Department of Political Science, University of Connecticut, Mass Media and Racism, ]
Clearly, the economic structure of the American news media and the local media make them subject to pressures from powerful interest groups. In 1967, the Kerner Report attacked the mass media for their inadequate handling of day-to-day coverage of racial events. The Report charged the media with failing to properly communicate about race to the majority of their audience. That is, white America needed to hear more about the actual conditions and feelings of African-Americans in the U.S. Only when events are associated with concern of the "white public" do they become newsworthy. Given the situation in America where the major news media have predominantly white reporters and serve a mainly white audience, it follows that the "public" which dictates newsworthy events is a white public. The day to day tensions of black existence and exploitation, which are crucial concerns of the black community, are not primary concerns of the white public. Only the symptoms of these conditions, such as freedom rides and social disturbances, impinge upon whites. Hence, it is only such "events" which become newsworthy in a white press.
2. Racism is not the root cause of violence.
MERTUS, 1999
[Julie, Associate Professor and Co-Director of the MA program in Ethics, Peace and Global Affairs at American University, 2012-3-99, “THE ROLE OF RACISM AS A CAUSE OF OR FACTOR IN WARS AND CIVIL CONFLICT,” p. 5-6, ]
II. CHARACTERISTICS OF CONFLICTS WITH RACIAL DIMENSION: ROLES OF RACISM 18. The above discussion demonstrates a primary characteristic of conflicts with a racial dimension. Political mobilisation linked to real and imagined group differences arises where the state’s administrative structures and legal institutions distribute scarce resources based on ethnic/national differences. The problem is particularly acute where, as in Rwanda and Yugoslavia, lead positions in military and police forces are distributed based on group identity.20 Yugoslavia and Rwanda are textbook examples of cases in which the controlling entity (the state, the party, the colonial entity) “for its own administrative convenience and in order to improve control over local élites, may select certain ethnic élites and organisations as collaborators or channels for the transmission of government patronage.”21 This favouritism based on group identity serves to polarise societies and, additionally, to institutionalise and make acceptable intra- group suspicion and hatred. 19. In Rwanda and Kosovo, polarisation and racism played a role, not as the root cause of conflict, but as a tool of élites. In both Rwanda and Kosovo, many of those who participated in the propaganda inciting racism, were intellectuals.22 It is characteristic of conflicts with a racist dimension that élites have the ability to manipulate racism because of other conditions in the country, such as: structural poverty, unmet human development needs, comparative deprivation of one group to another, media manipulation of misunderstandings among the general populace, and the absence of human rights, the rule of law and civil and political institutions encouraging citizen participation. Where a group perceives a threat to its interests and values, rising counter- élites find playing the racist/nationalist/ chauvinist card a particularly useful tool to assert a right to rule to protect the “true” national or ethnic interest. In Rwanda and Kosovo, extremist élites played upon the deep fears and frustrations of the populace.
1NC Harms [Racism] Frontline 105
3. All lives are infinitely valuable—the only ethical option is maximizing the number saved.
CUMMISKY, 1996
[David, professor of philosophy at Bates, Kantian Consequentialism, p. 131]
Finally, even if one grants that saving two persons with dignity cannot outweigh and compensate for killing one—because dignity cannot be added and summed this way—this point still does not justify deontological constraints. On the extreme interpretation, why would not killing one person be a stronger obligation than saving two persons? If I am concerned with the priceless dignity of each, it would seem that I may still save two; it is just that my reason cannot be that the two compensate for the loss of one. Consider Hill’s example of a priceless object: If I can save two of three priceless statutes only by destroying one, then I cannot claim that saving two is not outweighed by the one that was not destroyed. Indeed, even if dignity cannot be simply summed up, how is the extreme interpretation inconsistent with the idea that I should save as many priceless objects as possible? Even if two do not simply outweigh and thus compensate for the loss of one, each is priceless; thus, I have good reason to save as many as I can. In short, it is not clear how the extreme interpretation justifies the ordinary killing/letting-die distinction or even how it conflicts with the conclusion that the more persons with dignity who are saved, the better.
4. Racism is gradually fading out.
MCWHORTER, 2008
[John, “Racism in Retreat,” New York Sun, ]
"You don't know what they'll do to him," they'd say. As often as not, the idea was that America could not seriously support a black man for its highest office. I didn't get this. The America I live in today does not seem as deeply stamped by bigotry as these people seemed to think. It seemed as if, on this topic, I was talking to people who had woken up after 25 years and didn't know how the country had changed. Couldn't they see that this man's color was only going to help? Well, here we are. Are there some bigots? Of course. Did they, or any purported instance of "racism" during the campaign, keep Barack Obama from the nomination? His victory demonstrates the main platform of my race writing. The guiding question in everything I have ever written on race is: Why do so many people exaggerate about racism? This exaggeration is a nasty hangover from the sixties, and the place it has taken as a purported badge of intellectual and moral gravitas is a tire-block on coherent, constructive sociopolitical discussion. Here's a typical case for what passes as enlightenment. On my desk(top) is an article from last year's American Psychologist. The wisdom imparted? To be a person of color these days is to withstand an endless barrage of racist "microaggressions." Say to someone, "When I look at you, I don't see color" and you "deny their ethnic experiences." You do the same by saying, "As a woman, I know what you go through as a racial minority," as well as with hate speech such as "America is a melting pot." Other "microaggressions" include college buildings being all named after straight, white rich men (I'm not kidding about the straight part). This sort of thing will not do. Why channel mental energy into performance art of this kind? Some may mistake me as implying that it would be okay to stop talking about racism. But that interpretation is incorrect: I am stating that it would be okay to stop talking about racism. We need to be talking about serious activism focused on results. Those who suppose that the main meal in the aforementioned is to decry racism are not helping people. At this point, if racism was unattended to for 10 years, during that time it would play exactly the same kind of role it does in America now — elusive, marginal, and insignificant. Note that I did not say that there was no racism. There seems to be an assumption that when discussing racism, it is a sign of higher wisdom to neglect the issue of its degree. This assumption is neither logical nor productive. I reject it, and am pleased to see increasing numbers of black people doing same. Of course there is racism. The question is whether there is enough to matter. All evidence shows that there is not. No, the number of black men in prison is not counterevidence: black legislators were solidly behind the laws penalizing possession of crack more heavily than powder.
2NC Harms [Racism] - Extension #1 106
1. Extend our BALKRAN evidence. The plan is only dealing with one example of racism, but there are thousands of others that they do nothing about. This means we are consciously allowing violence regardless of whether you do the plan because you are choosing not to work on the other examples.
2. Racism will still persist because of people’s prejudices.
TRAN, 2007
[Can, “Causes of racism,” 4/30, ]
Frustration, fear, ignorance, and distrust are four leading factors of racism. However, the correct term should be "prejudicial." Racism means different races. There happens to be no genetic difference between Black, White, Asian, Latino, Native American, Arab, etc. While those are three strong factors of prejudice, it can be fought with tolerance, learning, and understanding. We just have to put in the time and effort. It takes time to understand things. Think of this as taking a school course. It's like investing an in endeavor with great returns. Keep in mind that prejudice is just about everywhere. The United States is the great melting pot of cultures with prejudice playing the role as a very harsh and hurtful counter-balance. Keep in mind that prejudice is a very complex subject and a conversation revolving around prejudice can go on for numerous hours.
2NC Harms [Racism] - Extension #3 107
1. Extinction outweighs. This is the only way to access the value of future generations.
NYE, 1986
[Joseph, Phd in Political Science at Harvard University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; “Nuclear Ethics” pg. 45-46]
Is there any end that could justify a nuclear war that threatens the survival of the species? Is not all-out nuclear war just as self contradictory in the real world as pacifism is accused of being? Some people argue that "we are required to undergo gross injustice that will break many souls sooner than ourselves be the authors of mass murder." Still others say that "when a person makes survival the highest value, he has declared that there is nothing he will not betray. But for a civilization to sacrifice itself makes no sense since there are not survivors to give meaning to the sacrifical [sic] act. In that case, survival may be worth betrayal." Is it possible to avoid the "moral calamity of a policy like unilateral disarmament that forces us to choose between being dead or red (while increasing the chances of both)"? How one judges the issue of ends can be affected by how one poses the questions. If one asks "what is worth a billion lives (or the survival of the species)," it is natural to resist contemplating a positive answer. But suppose one asks, "is it possible to imagine any threat to our civilization and values that would justify raising the threat to a billion lives from one in ten thousand to one in a thousand for a specific period?" Then there are several plausible answers, including a democratic way of life and cherished freedoms that give meaning to life beyond mere survival. When we pursue several values simultaneously, we face the fact that they often conflict and that we face difficult tradeoffs. If we make one value absolute in priority, we are likely to get that value and little else. Survival is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of other values, but that does not make it sufficient. Logical priority does not make it an absolute value. Few people act as though survival were an absolute value in their personal lives, or they would never enter an automobile. We can give survival of the species a very high priority without giving it the paralyzing status of an absolute value. Some degree of risk is unavoidable if individuals or societies are to avoid paralysis and enhance the quality of life beyond mere survival. The degree of that risk is a justifiable topic of both prudential and moral reasoning.
2NC Harms [Racism] - Extension #3 108
2. Consequences outweigh, and their fierce dogmatism makes them complicit with the evil they criticize.
ISAAC, 2002
[Jeffery, Professor of political science at Indiana-Bloomington, Director of the Center for the Study of Democracy and Public Life, PhD from Yale “Ends, Means, and Politics,” Dissent Magazine, Vol. 49, Iss. 2]
As a result, the most important political questions are simply not asked. It is assumed that U.S. military intervention is an act of "aggression," but no consideration is given to the aggression to which intervention is a response. The status quo ante in Afghanistan is not, as peace activists would have it, peace, but rather terrorist violence abetted by a regime--the Taliban--that rose to power through brutality and repression. This requires us to ask a question that most "peace" activists would prefer not to ask: What should be done to respond to the violence of a Saddam Hussein, or a Milosevic, or a Taliban regime? What means are likely to stop violence and bring criminals to justice? Calls for diplomacy and international law are well intended and important; they implicate a decent and civilized ethic of global order. But they are also vague and empty, because they are not accompanied by any account of how diplomacy or international law can work effectively to address the problem at hand. The campus left offers no such account. To do so would require it to contemplate tragic choices in which moral goodness is of limited utility. Here what matters is not purity of intention but the intelligent exercise of power. Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate feature of the world. It is the core of politics. Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the world. Politics, in large part, involves contests over the distribution and use of power. To accomplish anything in the political world, one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about. And to develop such means is to develop, and to exercise, power. To say this is not to say that power is beyond morality. It is to say that power is not reducible to morality. As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught, an unyielding concern with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern may be morally laudable, reflecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of one's intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters; (2) it fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of politics--as opposed to religion--pacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant. Just as the alignment with "good" may engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of "good" that generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough that one's goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask about the effects of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways. Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.
1NC Harms [Economy] Frontline 109
1) Turn – Stimulus plans hurt the economy.
A. Three reasons – crowding out, hurts investment, and future taxes.
COCHRANE, Professor of Finance at University of Chicago, 2009
[John, Distinguished Professor of Finance at Booth School of Business, PhD Economics Cal Berkeley, past President and Fellow of American Finance Association, Research Associate of National Bureau of Economic Research and Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute; “Fiscal Stimulus, Fiscal Inflation, or Fiscal Fallacies?” 2/27, ]
Most fiscal stimulus arguments are based on fallacies, because they ignore three basic facts. First, if money is not going to be printed, it has to come from somewhere. If the government borrows a dollar from you, that is a dollar that you do not spend, or that you do not lend to a company to spend on new investment. Every dollar of increased government spending must correspond to one less dollar of private spending. Jobs created by stimulus spending are offset by jobs lost from the decline in private spending. We can build roads instead of factories, but fiscal stimulus can’t help us to build more of both1 . This form of “crowding out” is just accounting, and doesn't rest on any perceptions or behavioral assumptions. Second, investment is “spending” every bit as much as is consumption. Keynesian fiscal stimulus advocates want money spent on consumption, not saved. They evaluate past stimulus programs by whether people who got stimulus money spent it on consumption goods rather than save it. But the economy overall does not care if you buy a car, or if you lend money to a company that buys a forklift. Third, people must ignore the fact that the government will raise future taxes to pay back the debt. If you know your taxes will go up in the future, the right thing to do with a stimulus check is to buy government bonds so you can pay those higher taxes. Now the net effect of fiscal stimulus is exactly zero, except to raise future tax distortions. The classic arguments for fiscal stimulus presume that the government can systematically fool people.
B. All historical examples prove our argument.
RIEDL, Fellow at Heritage Foundation, 2010
[Brian, Lead Budget Analyst, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, B.A. Economics and Political Science at University of Wisconsin, M.A. Public Affairs, Princeton, “Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth: Answering the Critics,” 1/05, ]
Proponents of President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill continue to insist that the massive government bailout played a decisive role in moving the economy out of the recession. Yet assuming no destructive government actions, the economy's self-correction mechanism was widely expected to move the economy out of recession in 2009 anyway. With a parade of "stimulus" bills the past two years (going back to President George W. Bush's tax rebate in early 2008), it was entirely predictable that some would link the expected end of the recession to whichever stimulus bill happened to come last. Indeed, President Obama's stimulus bill failed by its own standards. In a January 2009 report, White House economists predicted that the stimulus bill would create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs by 2010. Since then, 2003.5 million more net jobs have been lost, pushing the unemployment rate above 10 percent.[1] The fact that government failed to spend its way to prosperity is not an isolated incident: During the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending--yet unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II. Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 stimulus spending bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world)--yet its economy remained stagnant. In 2001, President Bush responded to a recession by "injecting" tax rebates into the economy. The economy did not respond until two years later, when tax rate reductions were implemented. In 2008, President Bush tried to head off the current recession with another round of tax rebates. The recession continued to worsen. Now, the most recent $787 billion stimulus bill was intended to keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. In November, it topped 10 percent.[2] Undeterred by these repeated stimulus failures, President Obama is calling for yet another stimulus bill.[3] There is every reason to expect another round to fail as miserably as the past ones, and it would bury the nation deeper in debt.
1NC Harms [Economy] Frontline 110
2. There is no impact to job loss. It actually helps the economy.
AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH, 2008
[“Unemployment Trends and Economic Recovery,” ]
Recent unemployment numbers have conjured up the fear of a coming new Great Depression. A careful look, however, suggests no economy-wide collapse in employment. In addition, some unemployment during an economic downturn is actually essential for a stable economic recovery. The Department of Labor said December 11 that around 573,000 people applied for unemployment insurance payments, up from 515,000 the week earlier. While these initial claims seem large, the job loss occurred in a non-farm U.S. workforce of more than 135 million people, with 4.4 million currently collecting unemployment insurance claims. The vast majority of the working population remains employed and earning a living. In November 2008, non-farm employment was only 1.4 percent below the level of a year earlier, based on Labor Department data. Even subtracting government jobs from this total, private sector non-farm employment was only down 1.8 percent from the previous year. While there has been a decline in employment across much of the economy, it has been far from even. As the table below shows, the highest rates of job loss are clustered in a handful of sectors. At the same time, there have been industries where employment has grown, despite the economic downturn. Not surprisingly, the largest job loss has been in residential housing construction, automobile production, and textile manufacturing. The burst of the housing bubble has sent the home construction industry into a nose dive, with 11.4 percent fewer jobs compared to last year. Employment in the motor vehicle and parts industry has fallen 14.9 percent over the last year. In the auto dealer retail trade, 2009.3 percent fewer people are now employed. Most of this decline has been experienced among the Big Three American automakers. The textile mills are employing 13.9 percent fewer workers compared to November of last year. Apparel industry employment has decreased by 8.9 percent. This primarily is the result of the continuing growth of global competition and the cost-efficiencies foreign suppliers provide. With consumers adjusting their budgets to a post-boom environment, other retail businesses such as electronic and appliance stores, and clothing and department stores have reduced the number of workers they employ. These cuts have been far more modest, in the range of 4 and 5.5 percent compared to last November. Other sectors as the data in the table indicate, have reduced the level of employment from a year earlier only in the range of 1 to 3 percent for the most part. Even in the commercial banking sector employment has declined by only 1 percent, according to the Labor Department’s data over the last year. On the other hand, since November of 2007, employment has continued to increase in the oil, gas and coal industries, with employment growing in these sectors in the range of 9.4 to 9.7 percent. This positive employment trend has continued even as energy prices rapidly declined over the last four months. Employment also has continued to grow, perhaps not surprisingly, in government and in those industries that rely heavily on various forms of social welfare spending such as health care and education. Direct government jobs at the local, state and federal levels have grown between 1 and 1.6 percent over the last year. Employment in educational services went up by 3.6 percent and in health care and related services by 2.9 percent. As difficult as it is to experience, unemployment is a necessary and healthy part of an economic recovery process that follows the bursting of the bubbles of an economic boom. The Federal Reserve followed an extremely aggressive monetary policy over the last five to seven years, creating a huge increase in the money supply that artificially lowered interest rates to practically zero and filled the banks with plenty of cash to lend to both the credit and uncredit worthy, as I detailed in an earlier commentary on “The Financial Bubble was Created by Central Bank Policy." The housing and consumer spending booms were bound to end when the inflationary bubbles popped. Investment resources, capital, and portions of the labor force were drawn into employments that could only last for as long as the inflationary boom. When the downturn began, it was inevitable that many of the employments created during the boom would begin to disappear. Where the bubbles were biggest is where, inescapably, the greatest amount of employment would be lost. The task ahead is to ensure a healthy economic recovery by allowing the market to find correct prices, wages, and asset values. This will enable people to discover what things are worth in the post-boom era, and where sustainable employments may be found.
1NC Harms [Economy] Frontline 111
3. There won’t be a double-dip recession. Their evidence is toying with the numbers.
THE ATLANTIC, 2012
[“The U.S. Economy Is Suffering From a Severe Case of Seasonal Affective Disorder,” 7/09, ]
In the autumn of 2010, things were finally rounding into shape for the U.S. economy. Between October and April, we added more than 100,000 jobs for seven consecutive months -- our best streak since 2005. In the winter, Goldman Sachs boldly declared 2011 the Year of America and many investors agreed. We were wrong. The economy wilted in the summer of 2011. Suddenly economists were talking about a double-dip recession. Job creation averaged less than 100,000 for four consecutive months until September. In the autumn of 2011, things were finally rounding into shape for the U.S. economy. Between September and March, we added more than 100,000 jobs for seven consecutive months -- our best streak since, well, exactly a year earlier. In the winter, optimism reined on Wall Street as stocks soared in anticipation of a big 2012. We were wrong, again. The economy has wilted in the warmer months of 2012, again. Economists are fretting about a double-dip, again. With preliminary estimates in for May and June, job creation has, once again, averaged less than 100,00 for three consecutive months. For the third time in two years, economic prognosticators are getting a bad case of whiplash. What the heck is going on here? It's like economists have always said: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me thrice, shame on seasonal adjustments. Okay, economists haven't always said that. But they're starting to wonder whether the Bureau of Labor Statistics is exaggerating both the cold-month jobs surge and the summer doldrums. Every month, BLS tinkers with its jobs statistics by applying a statistical technique called "seasonal adjustment" to account for seasonal events that would otherwise make jobs data fluctuate wildly (i.e.: weather, holidays, the opening and closing of schools). If the BLS is over-adjusting, that means that the bad months (like the last three) aren't as bad as they seem, and the good months (like the previous seven) weren't as good as we thought. When Floyd Norris of the New York Times looked at annual change in actual private sector employment since January 2000 ("looking at 12-month changes means you can ignore seasonal adjustments") he saw a recurring weakness in summertime jobs reports. In fact, the last time we had a June, July, or August with more than 100,000 jobs created was back in 2006. On the other hand, the months between October and March have each added more than 110,000 jobs for two consecutive years. Could it be a coincidence? Sure. The Libyan Revolution helped drive up oil prices in 2011, and one year later the Euro/China slowdown hurt global growth. But if the seasonality theory if correct, two things are true. First, the recovery has been more of a steady muddle than a roller-coaster over the last few years. Second, we'll have two more disappointing jobs reports for July and August, followed by a happy September surprise. The October report drops on November 2. That's four days before the 2012 election.
2NC Harms [Economy] – Extension #1 112
1. There are three reasons in the Cochrane evidence that adding more government spending does NOT increase growth. Prefer this evidence because it’s from a Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago.
a. Crowds out private spending. Giving someone a job or service they wouldn’t otherwise have removes a potential buyer from the private market.
b. Requires future taxes to pay back the stimulus. Smart people keep their stimulus checks to pay back those taxes, causing no increase in consumption.
c. There’s no way to create money out of nowhere; if you borrow from domestic investors, you decrease the investment part of the equation. If you borrow from foreigners, you raise net exports. This all leaves total output unchanged.
RIEDL, Fellow at Heritage Foundation, 2010
[Brian, Lead Budget Analyst, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, B.A. Economics and Political Science at University of Wisconsin, M.A. Public Affairs, Princeton, “Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth: Answering the Critics,” 1/05, ]
Moving forward, the important question is why government spending fails to end recessions. Spending-stimulus advocates claim that Congress can "inject" new money into the economy, increasing demand and therefore production. This raises the obvious question: From where does the government acquire the money it pumps into the economy? Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress injectsinto the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. Congress cannot create new purchasing power out of thin air. If it funds new spending with taxes, it is simply redistributing existing purchasing power (while decreasing incentives to produce income and output). If Congress instead borrows the money from domestic investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy. If they borrow the money from foreigners, the balance of payments will adjust by equally raising net imports, leaving total demand and output unchanged. Every dollar Congress spends must first come from somewhere else. For example, many lawmakers claim that every $1 billion in highway stimulus can create 47, 200576 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion from the private economy, which will then lose at least as many jobs. Highway spending simply transfers jobs and income from one part of the economy to another. As Heritage Foundation economist Ronald Utt has explained, "The only way that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47, 200576 new jobs is if the $1 billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven." This statement has been confirmed by the Department of Transportation and the General Accounting Office (since renamed the Government Accountability Office), yet lawmakers continue to base policy on this economic fallacy. Removing water from one end of a swimming pool and pouring it in the other end will not raise the overall water level. Similarly, taking dollars from one part of the economy and distributing it to another part of the economy will not expand the economy.
2NC Harms [Economy] – Extension #1 113
2. Our methodology is better.
A. Empirics: from the Bush stimulus to incorrect Obama predictions of the stimulus to the WPA’s failure to help employment, all empirical examples do not help the economy.
B. Stimulus destroys the economy in the long-term.
RIEDL, Fellow at Heritage Foundation, 2010
[Brian, Lead Budget Analyst, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, B.A. Economics and Political Science at University of Wisconsin, M.A. Public Affairs, Princeton, “Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth: Answering the Critics,” 1/05, ]
In fact, large stimulus bills often reduce long-term productivity by transferring resources from the more productive private sector to the less productive government. The government rarely receives good value for the dollars it spends. However, stimulus bills provide politicians with the political justification to grant tax dollars to favored constituencies. By increasing the budget deficit, large stimulus bills eventually contribute to higher interest rates while dropping even more debt on future generations.
3. There is no multiplier effect, because government spending crowds out spending from other areas.
RIEDL, Fellow at Heritage Foundation, 2010
[Brian, Lead Budget Analyst, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, B.A. Economics and Political Science at University of Wisconsin, M.A. Public Affairs, Princeton, “Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth: Answering the Critics,” 1/05, ]
Critics' Objection No. 3: Government Spending Has a Multiplier Effect That Allows the Money to Re-circulate Through the Economy Multiple Times. This point is correct but irrelevant to the question of stimulus. Yes, $100 in unemployment benefits can be spent at a grocery store, which, in turn, can use that $100 to pay salaries and support other jobs. The total amount of additional economic activity will be well above $100; but because government borrows the $100, that same money is now unavailable to the private sector--which would have spent the same $100 with the same multiplier effect. Consider a more comprehensive example. A family might normally put its $10,000 savings in a CD at the local bank. The bank would then lend that $10,000 to the local hardware store, which would then recycle that spending around the town, supporting local jobs. Suppose that the family instead buys a $10,000 government bond that funds the stimulus bill. Washington spends that $10,000 in a different town, supporting jobs there instead. The stimulus has not created new spending, jobs, or a multiplier effect. It has merely moved them to a new town. The mistaken view of fiscal stimulus persists because people can easily observe the factories and people put to work with government funds. By contrast, people cannot easily observe the jobs that would have been created or factories used elsewhere in the economy with those same dollars had they not been lent to Washington. In his 1848 essay, "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen," French economist Frederic Bastiat termed this the "broken-window fallacy," a reference to a local myth that breaking windows would stimulate the economy by creating window-repair jobs. In reality, the window-repair spending comes out of funds that otherwise would have been spent (and created jobs) elsewhere in town. Today, the broken-windows fallacy explains why thousands of new stimulus jobs are not improving the total employment picture.
2NC Harms [Economy] – Extension #3 114
1. A double-dip recession is unlikely.
ETF DAILY NEWS, 2012
[“4 Reasons You Won’t See A Double Dip Recession In 2012” 6/22, ]
Russ Koesterich: For the third summer in a row, the US economy is slowing and Europe is teetering on the brink of an abyss. While renewed fears of a US double dip are reasonable, I believe the United States will not see a recession in 2012 for the following four reasons: 1.) Europe is struggling, but it’s slowly stumbling toward a solution. It’s true that Europe is likely to continue to be a chronic source of stress for the global economy. That said, we have seen some tentative signs of progress in recent weeks. The results of the second Greek election mitigated the risk of a near-term Greek default or exit. And while Spain has yet to articulate a definitive plan to recapitalize its banking system, at least it has acknowledged there’s a problem. 2.) Apparent US weakness can partly be attributed to statistical quirks. The weakness of recent US economic data can be attributed to other factors besides an economic slowdown. Take May’s disappointing non-farm payroll report, for instance. The collapse of the construction industry likely is wreaking havoc with how the jobs data is adjusted for seasonal variations, meaning that winter was probably not as strong as the data indicated, nor spring as weak as the headline numbers suggested. The Euro’s Demise Has Been Set in Motion: Are you protected? "Nationalism will emerge. Healthier countries will not see fit to spend their hard earned money to bail out their less responsible neighbors." CLICK HERE to get your Free E-Book, “Why It’s Curtains for the Euro” 3.) Leading indicators remain stable. While most economic measures continue to be sluggish, leading economic indicators are still signaling positive growth. Our favorite metric, the Chicago Fed National Activity Index, is stuck at zero, close to its average level over the past few years. This is certainly not indicative of a robust economy, but it’s still consistent with US growth in the 2% range or even slightly better. Other leading indicators also confirm a continuation of the expansion. Lost in din of last month’s non-farm payroll report debacle was the May ISM manufacturing report. While weak, it was by no means a disaster. In particular, the new orders component, which tends to lead economic activity, rose to its best level since the spring of 2011. 4.) Gasoline prices are down. Finally, oil prices have come down. While the consumer still faces a number of headwinds, cheaper gasoline prices are providing some relief for stretched middle-income consumers. While I am cautiously optimistic that the United States will remain in a slow growth mode for the rest of 2012, I have an important caveat for 2013: the fiscal cliff. The pending fiscal drag – equivalent to roughly 4% of gross domestic product – resulting from tax hikes and spending cuts set to go into effect in early 2013 would arguably be large enough to push an economy stuck at 2% growth back into a recession. Right now, the odds still favor a last minute compromise to avert most or all of the tax hikes and spending cuts. However, if Washington stumbles, today’s recession fears will become justified.
2NC Harms [Economy] – Extension #3 115
2. Double-dip recession unlikely in U.S. because there are countervailing forces.
FOLEY, 2012
[Stephen, Associate Business Editor of The Independent, “Stephen Foley: America should avoid a double-dip recession,” 6/02, ]
US Outlook There is no positive way to spin the May unemployment numbers released in the US yesterday. Jobs growth has decelerated sharply in the world's largest economy, the Americans lucky enough to be in employment are working fewer hours, and there is no improvement on the immediate horizon. Temporary employment – usually a signal that businesses' demand for labour has increased and that they will likely add permanent jobs in the near future – was down, too. The headline number showed just 69,000 new jobs last month, lower than even the most bearish economist's forecast, and that compared to an April figure that was itself revised downward. The construction industry, which had been kept busier than usual in the mild winter, finally ran out of steam. Cash-strapped localand state governments also reduced their headcount. It all points to a year of sub-par growth, in which that disappointing 1.9 per cent annualised figure for first-quarter GDP is typical of what is to come. The US is not going to be the engine of the global economy this year, it is now clear. China and India are sputtering, too. The kamikaze pilots of the eurozone are still in their austere death spiral. It is not easy to be optimistic. And yet, the US is still very far from recession, and all these economic woes have unleashed powerful countervailing forces. Oil prices have slid, reducing the pocketbook pressure on US drivers, and interest rates are jaw-droppingly low. The gloomy employment figures sent the yield on 10-year Treasuries below 1.5 per cent for the first time in history. Who needs quantitative easing, when you have that level of monetary stimulus? The odds are still that the US economy will right itself without a double-dip recession, but it isn't morning in America yet, and that bodes ill for President Barack Obama's re-election prospects.
1NC Solvency Frontline 116
1. Turn: Inflation. A) Deficit correction is KEY—increased spending will lead to higher inflation and kill the economy.
LAZZARO, 2009
[Joseph, “Budget deficit rises in May, nears $1 trillion for year,” 6/11, ]
U.S. government budget receipts continue to reflect the contraction effects of the nation's worst recession in more than 25 years. The federal budget deficit increased slightly in May to $189.7 billion as receipts fell while outlays increased for the bailouts and the stimulus program, the U.S. Commerce Department announced Wednesday. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News had expected the May deficit to total $180.0 billion. In May, outlays rose to $306.9 billion, up 6 percent compared to May 2008, while receipts, commonly known as revenue, rose to $117.2 billion, down 6 percent versus May 2008. What's more, for the first eight months of fiscal year 2009, which began in October 2008, the budget deficit soared to $991.8 billion, or more than three times the $319.4 billion posted for the same period a year ago. Outlays increased 19 percent to $2.37 billion in the period, while receipts declined 18 percent to $1.37 billion. The Obama administration forecasts a record $1.84 trillion deficit for this year, followed by a $1.26 trillion in fiscal 2010. Last year, fiscal year 2008, the U.S. government posted a then-record $454.8 billion deficit. What, then, is the best way to first reduce, then eliminate the budget deficit? Major U.S. think tanks have decidedly different recommendations. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, argues the Obama administration's increased government spending could endanger not only the U.S. economy, but the federal government's credit rating. "The possibility of much higher inflation, which would reduce the real value of the payments received by the holders of U.S. debt, is a very real threat to the economy generally but especially to debt holders and, therefore, to the U.S. credit rating," the Heritage Foundation's J.D. Foster wrote in a research report. Foster recommends that the Obama administration cut the budget deficit by abandoning current policies to increase government spending and taxation.
B) Inflation causes irreversible economic collapse.
FILGER, 2009
[Sheldon, Writer and founder of , “U.S. Economy Risks Dire Prospect of Hyperinflation,” 5/25, ]
China, the major purchaser of Treasuries and holder of $1 trillion of U.S. government debt, is already on record as expressing concern for the integrity of its American investments, and has begun actively exploring alternatives to the U.S. dollar as the primary global reserve currency. These moves by China are not based on fears of expropriation of its U.S. assets, but focuses on the specter of hyperinflation destroying much of the value of assets denominated in U.S. dollars. No doubt China's economic experts are well aware of the growing number of economists who are convinced that the U.S. will be unable to service its rapidly expanding debt burden without significant inflation. Inflation in monetary terms means the erosion of the intrinsic value of the American dollar. What is most frightening about the policy moves being enacted by the Fed and Treasury is that their actions may not be a reckless gamble after all. They may have come to the conclusion that only hyperinflation will enable the United Sates to avoid national insolvency. In effect, they may be pursuing the exact opposite course undertaken by Paul Volcker in the early 1980's. If that is their prescription for the dire economic crisis confronting the U.S., then one must conclude that Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers have learned nothing from history. Once the spigot of hyperinflation is tuned on, it becomes a cascading torrent that is almost impossible to switch off, and which in its wake inflicts inconceivable levels of economic, political and social devastation. Before it is too late, President Obama should put the brakes on his economic team's dangerous gamble with the haunting specter of hyperinflation. If he fails to act in time, a hellish prospect may be his economic and political legacy.
1NC Solvency Frontline 117
2. Infrastructure won’t stimulate the economy in the short term because the multiplier effect takes too long.
KURTZLEBEN, 2011
[Danielle, Former Research Assistant at George Washington University, “Are Infrastructure Projects the Answer to America’s Jobs Problem?” 8/22, ]
The theory behind infrastructure spending is the multiplier effect: the idea that every dollar in government expenditures can increase GDP by more than one dollar by starting economic chain reactions: the government pays firms for goods and services and those firms then pay employees who then spend their paychecks. Moody's Analytics estimates that the multiplier effect for increases in government spending is generally larger than the multiplier for tax cuts. Any additional dollar spent on permanent tax cuts adds to GDP by significantly less than a dollar. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent, for example, would add to GDP by $0.29 for every dollar of revenue reduction, according to calculations from Moody's. Infrastructure spending would add by $1.59 for every dollar spent, while extending unemployment insurance and temporarily increasing food stamps would add even more. The mitigating factor, then, is the speed (or lack thereof) with which infrastructure spending works. In past recessions, infrastructure projects have taken so long to get off the ground that their effects were only felt after recovery had begun, says Alan Viard, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "Dollar for dollar, [tax cuts and direct government payments] may not stimulate the economy as much as infrastructure spending, but they can be timed effectively. ... If we expect [economic weakness] to last long enough for new infrastructure spending to come online, we've really got pretty serious problems."
2NC Solvency – Extension #1 118
1. Inflation will remain low in 2012 without the plan.
REUTERS, 2012
[“WRAPUP 1-Top Fed officials argue case for more U.S. easing,” 7/09, ]
"So far data has been coming in weak and I gave a weak forecast myself," he told reporters after his speech. "I think it's appropriate to have more quantitative easing." Rosengren, like Evans, is at the dovish end of the spectrum among top Fed officials. Neither is a voting member of the FOMC this year, but both will be in 2013. At the forum, Rosengren said he thought inflation would only be around 1.2 percent in 2012. Evans also said wage pressures were virtually non-existent and that inflation was likely to stay at or below the Fed's 2 percent target.
2. Inflation collapses the economy.
ROBBINS, 2009
[Ron, MBA, “Interest Rate Manipulation and Loose Money Promote Economic Collapse,” ]
Economies with excessively loose monetary policies and who force interest rates to ultra low levels for extended periods of time eventually succumb to a massive top-heavy debt structure which at some point 'topples over.' These countries then suffer either a deflationary debt implosion/depression in which much of the debt is liquidated, or the country's central bank instigates a huge inflationary push to reduce the value of all credit market debt in the country by vastly increasing the amount of currency and the expansion of its money supply. A big inflationary push frequently leads to a lack of confidence in the country's currency and hence the possibility of 'hyper-inflation' occurring as everyone unloads the country's currency for real goods or other currencies. Argentina earlier this decade and Zimbabwe recently, are examples of central bank sponsored inflation that led to no confidence in their currencies, resulting in hyper-inflation. The inflationary approach is what appears to be favoured by the American, Japanese and British central banks. From an Enlightened Economics perspective, the actions of manipulating down interest rates and the over printing of money by central banks fall under a terrible fallacy: the belief that we can resolve our short-term economic problems by going more into debt and not concern ourselves with the long-term consequences. A global consciousness has to arise which understands that manipulating markets, most especially interest rates and money supply, leads to highly unstable economies which in time either implode or explode!
2NC Solvency – Extension #2 119
1. Transportation infrastructure fails to stimulate the economy because states will use the money to balance their budgets in their short-term rather than investing.
EPSTEIN, 2012
[Jim, “How Stimulus Fails,” April, ]
It’s not hard to make the case that President Barack Obama’s $840 billion stimulus was a failure. The economy, which was supposed to recover as a result of the massive spending, has largely remained in the doldrums. The administration’s prediction in the event that the stimulus didn’t pass—an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent—was exceeded within two months of February 2009, when the bill was signed into law. (At the time, the total cost was said to be $787 billion; that figure was later adjusted upward by more than $50 billion to align with the president’s budget.) Democratic dead-enders claim this laughably inaccurate employment projection was based on a lack of knowledge about how lousy the economy really was. They tend to overlook another broken stimulus promise: that 90 percent of the jobs “created or saved” would be in the private sector. In fact, the biggest beneficiaries of stimulus funds have been public school teachers. These big-picture truths paint a picture damning enough. But to better understand the fallacies of stimulus economics, it helps to take a close-up look at how the money was spent. To capture such a cross-section of stimulus reality, went to Silver Spring, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C., that is home to many government contractors and other recipients of money earmarked for the “shovel-ready” projects that were supposed to bring the economy back to life. The ground rules for stimulus dollars, as laid out by Obama’s top economic adviser at the time, Larry Summers, were based on the insights of legendary 20th-century economist John Maynard Keynes. The funds were to be “targeted” at resources idled by the recession, and the interventions were to be “temporary” and “timely,” injected quickly into the economy. None of that turned out to be true. “Even if you were to believe that government spending can trigger economic growth,” says reason columnist Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, “the money is never spent in a way that’s consistent with the conditions laid out by the Keynesians for it to be efficient.” Infrastructure: The first stimulus project in the nation to get shovels into the ground was the resurfacing of Maryland’s Route 650. One reason for the quick turnaround: The job consisted of routine road repairs. That would prove typical of stimulus expenditures. Obama said the stimulus would put nearly 400,000 people back to work rebuilding America. But in the year after the stimulus was passed, the U.S. construction industry shed about 900,000 jobs, or 14 percent of its work force. The industry still hadn’t recovered two-and-a-half years later. In Maryland, the “specialty trades,” a subset of the construction industry that handles big infrastructure projects, have lost an estimated 8 percent of their work force since the stimulus was passed, amounting to 8,000 jobs. Against that backdrop, the state’s Department of Transportation says stimulus money for transit projects has paid for the full-time salaries of about 600 construction workers since the middle of 2009. Why didn’t Maryland’s $771 million in stimulus outlays for transit infrastructure have a bigger impact on the local economy? Partly because Gov. Martin O’Malley cut his own infrastructure budget more than enough to offset gains from the stimulus. Maryland’s Transportation Trust Fund generally pays for highway repairs by collecting a special gas tax and other user fees. After the stimulus money was made available, O’Malley raided the trust fund, diverting $861 million during the next three years to help balance the state budget, according to information provided by Maryland’s Department of Legislative Services. Even with the stimulus, state spending on transit infrastructure has seen a net decrease of $90 million since 2009. That sort of scenario played out all across the country. Stimulus dollars were used to cover general expenses rather than activating idle resources.
NAFTA Affirmative 120
Background Notes: NAFTA 121
• What is NAFTA?
“Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) began on January 1, 1994. This agreement will remove most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. […] In addition, many tariffs were eliminated immediately, with others being phased out over periods of 5 to 15 years. This allowed for an orderly adjustment to free trade with Mexico, with full implementation beginning January 1, 2008.”
• ARRA – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Obama’s stimulus bill)
Definition of 'Tariff'
“A tax imposed on imported goods and services. Tariffs are used to restrict trade, as they increase the price of imported goods and services, making them more expensive to consumers.”
Definition of 'Protectionism'
“Trade protectionism is used by countries when they think their industries are being damaged by unfair competition by other countries. It is a defensive measure, and it is usually politically motivated. […] It can make the country, and the industries it is trying to protect, less competitive on the global marketplace. […]
Countries use a variety of ways to protect their trade. One way is to enact tariffs, which tax imports. This immediately raises the price of the imported goods, and therefore less competitive when compared to locally produced goods. This works especially well for a country like the U.S., which imports a lot of its goods.
The most famous example is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. It was originally designed to protect farmers from agricultural imports from Europe, which was stepping up farming after the destruction of World War I. However, by the time the bill made it through Congress, it had slapped tariffs on many more imports. As so often happens with tariffs, other countries retaliated. This tariff war restricted global trade, and was one reason for the extended severity of the Great Depression. […] A third method is by imposing quotas on imported goods. This can one of the most effective methods for protecting trade, since the foreign country cannot ship more goods no matter how low it sets the price through subsidies.
Advantages of Trade Protectionism
If a country is trying to grow strong in a new industry, tariffs will protect it from foreign competitors. This allows companies in the new industry time to learn how to produce the good efficiently, and develop their own competitive advantages.
Protectionism also temporarily creates jobs for domestic workers. As domestic companies are protected by tariffs, quotas or subsidies, they will hire locally. This will occur until other countries retaliate by erecting their own protectionism within that industry.
Disadvantages of Trade Protectionism
In the long term, trade protectionism weakens the industry. Without competition, companies within the industry won't innovate and improve their products or services. There's no need to. Eventually, consumers will pay more for a lower quality product than they would get from foreign competitors. Job outsourcing is a result of declining U.S. competitiveness, itself is a result of decades of the U.S. not investing in education. This is particularly true for high tech, engineering, and science. Increased trade opens new markets for businesses to sell their products. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that ending all trade barriers would increase U.S. income by $500 billion.
Increasing U.S. protectionism will further slow economic growth and cause more layoffs, not less. If the U.S. closes its borders, other countries will do the same. This could cause layoffs among the 12 million U.S. workers who owe their jobs to exports.”
Background Notes: NAFTA 122
Definition of 'Trade War'
“A negative side effect of protectionism that occurs when Country A raises tariffs on Country B's imports in retaliation for Country B raising tariffs on Country A's imports. Trade wars may be instigated when one country perceives another country's trading practices to be unfair or when domestic trade unions pressure politicians to make imported goods less attractive to consumers.”
Political Geography of Arctic Ocean
“The Arctic Ocean is the smallest of the world's five oceans […] The Northwest Passage (US and Canada) and Northern Sea Route (Norway and Russia) are two important seasonal waterways. In recent years the polar ice pack has thinned allowing for increased navigation and raising the possibility of future sovereignty and shipping disputes among countries bordering the Arctic Ocean.”
Michael Byers, The Moscow Times, 9 June 2012
“The Arctic Ocean's coastline belongs mostly to Russia and Canada, the two largest countries in the world.
Each country owns territory on either side of a series of contested, and increasingly ice-free, Arctic straits. Russia considers the narrowest parts of the Northern Sea Route to be ‘internal waters.’ Canada takes the same view of the Northwest Passage. Internal waters are not territorial waters, and foreign ships have no right to access them without permission from the coastal state.
Russia and Canada face a single, common source of opposition to their claims — namely, the United States, which insists that both the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage are ‘international straits.’”
• What is NORAD? (Harms: US – Canada Relations Arctic Conflict Impact)
“The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a United States and Canada bi-national organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Aerospace warning includes the monitoring of man-made objects in space, and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, through mutual support arrangements with other commands.”
NAFTA Affirmative 1AC 123
Contention 1 is INHERENCY:
The United States is violating the North American Free Trade Agreement through “Buy America” clauses by requiring all materials used in transportation infrastructure construction to be made in the U.S.
A. President Obama’s “Buy America” stimulus bill requires construction materials to be US-only, which violates NAFTA and threatens its future
COOKE, 2009
[Shamus, social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action, “Cracks Emerging in NAFTA,” 8/12, ]
The once-solid North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) is starting to show its age. The 1994 trade agreement that laid the foundation for the economic/political integration of North America is encountering serious internal ruptures, threatening future “progress.” The problems are numerous: fights over trade, immigration, and military cooperation are all issues that Obama recently discussed in Mexico with his NAFTA partners, Mexico and Canada. The annual meeting that usually delivers plans for additional integration was instead used to remedy these heated issues, none of which were fully solved. Both Mexico and Canada are angry with the U.S. for the “buy American” provision in Obama’s stimulus bill, which they label correctly as “protectionist.” The bill is explicit that many of the raw materials used in construction projects must be bought from U.S. corporations only, in violation of NAFTA. Mexico soon retaliated with taxes (tariffs) on dozens of U.S. goods entering Mexico, a spat that was hoped to have been solved with Obama’s visit.
B. Obama’s anti-NAFTA policies give in to protectionist pressure
LONG, 2009
[Melissa, J.D., SMU, “RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN NAFTA,” 5/21, ]
CURRENTLY, the most predominant issue regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is whether the agreement should be reopened and renegotiated in the near future. This paper will address this and other issues facing NAFTA right now. First, there is much debate revolving around newly elected President Obama’s desire to renegotiate NAFTA. Additionally, the “Buy American” and “Buy Canadian” policies of those two member countries signify a more protectionist approach to trade. II. THE DEBATE OVER NAFTA RENEGOTIATION Some believe that all of the benefits that were to be reaped by NAFTA had been fully achieved as of the year 2000. The “current trends in regional economic integration suggest that the post FTA/NAFTA effect is mature and has tapered off.” The primary reasons that drew the three nations into NAFTA many years ago are now drawing the nations away from each other. The fact that the United States is seeking out a twoway trade with China, in addition to making investments in China, provides evidence for this theory. But Canada is not engaging in a similar strategy, leaving an opening for China to take over Canada’s position as the highest trade partner to the United States. As the new leader of the United States, President Barack Obama will likely “face more political pressure on protectionism than any other U.S. chief executive since 1930.” Many believe that while NAFTA was a “state-of-the-art” agreement fifteen years ago when it was created, this is no longer the case. During his campaign for the presidency, President Obama made it clear that he supported the reopening of NAFTA, even threatening withdrawal from the agreement entirely if it was necessary to make Canada and Mexico cooperate. However, many economists are expressing concern that renegotiating NAFTA would “reduce trade and stir alarm about a wave of protectionism.”
NAFTA Affirmative 1AC 124
Thus, we present the following PLAN:
The United States federal government should substantially increase its investment in transportation infrastructure in the United States using the best available materials manufactured in North America.
NAFTA Affirmative 1AC 125
Contention 2 is the HARMS:
Scenario 1 is Free Trade.
“Buy America” is protectionist and this hurts free trade, which is key to global stability.
A. Enforcing “Buy America” on construction materials has caused a trade war and trade restrictions from Canada
FURCHTGOTT-ROTH, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, 2009
[Diana, M.Phil Oxford Univ., senior fellow at Manhattan Institute and formerly Hudson Institute, “Starting a trade war with “Buy America”,” 6/19, ]
When Congress inserted “Buy America” protectionist provisions that required some goods (such as steel, cement, and textiles) financed by the stimulus bill to be made in America, our government invited a trade war with important economic partners. Now China and Canada are imposing their own protectionist regulations, potentially destroying well-paid American jobs in the export sector. Other countries may follow suit. This week China reported that the government now requires stimulus projects to use domestic suppliers when possible, even though in February it promised to treat foreign companies equally. The Chinese $585 billion stimulus package has resulted in a World Bank growth forecast of 7.2% for China this year, far above other industrialized countries. And on June 6 the delegates at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities passed a resolution calling on “local infrastructure projects, including environmental projects such as water and wastewater treatment projects, [to] procure goods and materials required for the projects only from companies whose countries of origin do not impose trade restrictions against goods and materials manufactured in Canada.”
B. “Buy America” guarantees retaliation that will destroy U.S. trade leadership and global free trade.
MALKIEL, Professor of Economics at Princeton University, 2009
[Burton, PhD Princeton, MBA Harvard, formerly Council of Economic Advisers and President of American Finance Association, “Congress Wants a Trade War,” 2/05, ]
Buy American provisions invite retaliation by other nations, and the spread of "beggar thy neighbor" policies throughout the world. This House provision caused a palpable anxiety during the recent World Economic Forum at Davos, and America's closest allies are furious. "Buy American" would effectively ban Canadian steel products and other raw materials from infrastructure projects receiving stimulus funds. Foreign steel would only be allowed if domestic products were either unavailable or drove up the cost of the project by 25% or more. If the provision is not diluted, Mr. Obama will find a very hostile reception during his first international trip to Canada later this month. Hostility has been no less evident in Europe and China. The European Union has said that it will not stand by idly if the U.S. violates its trade agreements and its obligations to the World Trade Organization. The risks of retaliation and a trade war are very real.
NAFTA Affirmative 1AC 126
C. The U.S. can’t close itself off to the world – global trade leadership is critical to the economy and international security
PANITCHPAKDI, Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2004
[Supachai, former Director General of World Trade Organization and Thailand Deputy Minister of Finance, PhD Netherland School of Economics and visiting fellow at Cambridge University, “American Leadership and the World Trade Organization,” 2/26, ]
This should be a major concern to the US for two reasons: First, the US is now integrated with the world economy as never before. A quarter of US GDP is tied to international trade, up from 10 per cent in 1970 — the largest such increase of any developed economy over this period. A third of US growth since 1990 has been generated by trade. And America's trade is increasingly global in scope — 37 per cent with Canada and Mexico, 23 per cent with Europe, 27 per cent with Asia. Last year alone, exports to China rose by almost 30 per cent. The US has also grown more reliant on the rules of the multilateral system to keep world markets open. Not only has it initiated more WTO dispute proceedings than any other country — some 75 since 1995 — according to USTR it has also won or successfully settled most of the cases it has brought. The point is this: even the US cannot achieve prosperity on its own; it is increasingly dependent on international trade, and the rules-based economic order that underpins it. As the biggest economy, largest trader and one of the most open markets in the world, it is axiomatic [self-evident] that the US has the greatest interest in widening and deepening the multilateral system. Furthermore, expanding international trade through the WTO generates increased global prosperity, in turn creating yet more opportunities for the US economy. The second point is that strengthening the world trading system is essential to America's wider global objectives. Fighting terrorism, reducing poverty, improving health, integrating China and other countries in the global economy — all of these issues are linked, in one way or another, to world trade. This is not to say that trade is the answer to all America's economic concerns; only that meaningful solutions are inconceivable without it. The world trading system is the linchpin of today's global order — underpinning its security as well as its prosperity. A successful WTO is an example of how multilateralism can work. Conversely, if it weakens or fails, much else could fail with it. This is something which the US — at the epicenter of a more interdependent world — cannot afford to ignore.
NAFTA Affirmative 1AC 127
D. Free trade is necessary to get countries to cooperate instead of fight, and this prevents nuclear war.
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE, 1999
[No author credited, “Commentary: Free trade solves extinction,” 12/1, Lexis/Nexis]
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.
NAFTA Affirmative 1AC 128
Harms Scenario 2 is U.S./Canada Relations.
“Buy America” divides the U.S. and Canada, preventing cooperation to stand up to Russia and prevent war over Arctic oil.
A. We are in a trade war with Canada which can only be resolved by exempting them from “Buy America” and integrating our economies
DAWSON AND FRAZER, 2011
[Laura, PhD Political Science, Associate Professor at Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, former senior advisor at United States Embassy and Department of State, senior fellow of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and Public Policy Scholar at Wilson Center; Paul, fellow at Harvard’s Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and Special Advisor, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, former Communications Director to Canadian Prime Minister and Spokesperson for Canadian Foreign Minister, “A ‘Buy America’ wake-up call for Canada,” Toronto Star, 9/24, ]
While the bill may not pass in its current form (if at all), the spectre of Buy America has provoked howls of outrage north of the border because Canada wasn’t granted an automatic exemption. Some media say it’s the opening shot of a looming trade war. One MP suggests “calling in” the U.S. ambassador, while others are demanding Buy Canadian countermeasures. (Few have mentioned that Ontario imposed similar local-content restrictions in the feed-in tariff plan in its Green Energy Act; in Geneva the WTO is currently reviewing the validity of this action.) Policy-makers need to look outside of Washington and Ottawa and find out what is needed by the people who actually make things and sell them. In speeches on economic relations both Canadian Ambassador Gary Doer and U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson emphasize the fact that Canada and the United States build things together. What we need to strive for now is a serious long-term commitment to build things together better. This latest iteration of Buy America is symptomatic of a larger problem. Its re-emergence is evidence that Canada and the United States have not developed institutions that are sufficient to manage the integrated nature of our two economies.
NAFTA Affirmative 1AC 129
B. Economic disputes have a direct impact on their willingness to cooperate on other issues, such as Arctic resource competition with Russia
BURNEY AND HAMPSON, Professors at Carleton University, 2012
[Derek, Visiting Professor and Senior Distinguished Fellow at Carleton University Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, M.A., Queen’s University, former Canadian Assistant Deputy Minister for US Affairs and Associate Undersecretary, ambassador to US and Korea, and Chief of Staff, Office of Prime Minister; Fen Osler, Professor and Director of The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, PhD Harvard and MSc Economics at London School of Economics, senior fellow at US Institute of Peace, “How Obama Lost Canada,” 6/25, ]
Economically, Canada and the United States are joined at the hip. Each country is the other’s number-one trading partner — in 2011, the two-way trade in goods and services totaled $681 billion, more than U.S. trade with Mexico or China — and trade with Canada supports more than eight million U.S. jobs. Yet the Obama administration has recently jeopardized this important relationship. It failed to combat the Buy American provision in Congress’ stimulus bill, which inefficiently excluded Canadian participation in infrastructure spending. What’s more, by engaging in protectionism, Washington has violated the substance and spirit of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the trade bloc formed in 1994 among Canada, the United States, and Mexico. As a result, NAFTA, which was initially intended as a template for broader trade expansion by all three partners, has languished while each country has negotiated a spaghetti bowl of bilateral trade agreements with other countries. Trilateral economic summits among the NAFTA partners have become little more than photo-ops accompanied by bland communiqués [official reports]. Bilateral meetings between U.S. and Canadian leaders, which were a regular feature of the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush eras, have also mostly fallen by the wayside. Meanwhile, the United States demanded upfront concessions from Canada as the price of entry to negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a regional free-trade group, while preserving massive agriculture subsidies of its own. The protracted wrangling over a seat at the table does not augur [foretell, signify] well for meaningful progress. After years of procrastination, Canada finally secured an agreement for a new Detroit-Windsor bridge — over which 25 percent of trade between Canada and the United States crosses — but only after it offered to cover all of the initial costs. The U.S. share is to be repaid over time by the tolls collected, but any shortfalls will rest with Canadian taxpayers. Canada was essentially forced to hold negotiations with Michigan; the U.S. federal government observed quietly from the sidelines. The United States’ mistreatment of Canada extends beyond economic issues. Washington has also failed to trust and respect its loyal ally. To name one small but telling example, when Canada ran for a nonpermanent seat on the UN Security Council in 2010, the United States offered little support. For whatever reason, Portugal was a more compelling choice. One would also think the United States and Canada could find common ground on security, economic, and environmental issues in the Arctic, an area of shared sovereignty and responsibility. Yet there has been little more than senseless bickering and public spats between Ottawa [capital city of Canada] and Washington on who should attend what meeting of Arctic states. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, went out of her way to rake Canada over the coals for hosting a meeting of Arctic coastal nations in March 2010 and failing to invite other countries with “legitimate interests” in the region. But she was also taking a jab at Canada’s long-standing claims to the waters of the Arctic archipelago, including the Northwest Passage, which the United States rejects. While Canada and the United States squabble, Russia and China are aggressively asserting their own interests in the region.
NAFTA Affirmative 1AC 130
C. Only US-Canadian cooperation can successfully and peacefully stand up to Russia’s desire to dominate Arctic oil resources
DOWD, Adjunct Professor of History at Butler University, 2011
[Alan, Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute, M.A., Indiana University, “The Big Chill: Energy Needs Fueling Tensions in the Arctic,” 12/01, ]
To brace for that possibility and thwart Russia’s Arctic fait accompli [irreversible fact], the United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway—all NATO members and Arctic nations—should follow the Cold War playbook: build up the assets needed to defend their interests, use those assets to deter aggression, and deal with Moscow from a posture of strength and unity. The challenge is to remain open to cooperation while bracing for worst-case scenarios. After all, Russia is not the Soviet Union. Even as Putin and his puppets make mischief, Moscow is open to making deals. Russia and Norway, for instance, recently resolved a long-running boundary dispute, paving the way for development in 67,000 square-miles of the Arctic. Moreover, the U.S., Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway have agreed on Arctic search-and-rescue responsibilities (Cummins). In a world of increasingly integrated markets, we know there is much to gain from Arctic cooperation and much to lose from protracted military standoff. But we also know that dealing naively with Moscow carries a heavy cost—and that integration is a two-way street. “Russian leaders today yearn not for integration,” the Brookings Institution’s Robert Kagan concludes, “but for a return to a special Russian greatness.” In short, Russia is more interested in recreating the autarky [economic independence] of some bygone era than in the shared benefits of globalization. Framework for Partnership Dealing with Russia is about power. As Churchill once said of his Russian counterparts, “There is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness.” When the message is clear—or “hard and consistent,” to use Putin’s language—Russia will take a cooperative posture. When the message is unclear, Russia will take what it can get. Just consider Russia’s contrasting treatment of its neighbors: Moscow blusters about Poland and the Baltic states but keeps its hands off, largely because they are protected by the U.S.-NATO umbrella. Conversely, Russia bullies Ukraine, garrisons [deploys] its troops—uninvited—in Moldova, and occupies Georgian territory. The common denominator of these unfortunate countries: They have no U.S. security guarantee. Russia should be given an opportunity to participate as a responsible partner in Arctic development. But if Russia continues to take Putin’s hard line, the U.S. and its allies are left with few other options than standing together or allowing Russia to divide and conquer. To avoid that, the allies may need to agree among themselves on lines of demarcation, transit routes and exploration rights—and then pool their resources to protect their shared interests. This will require investment in Arctic capabilities. For instance, the U.S. has only three polar icebreakers, two of which have exceeded their projected 30-year lifespan (O’Rourke). Russia can deploy 20 icebreakers. “We have extremely limited Arctic response capabilities,” explains Adm. Robert Papp, USCG commandant. Noting that the Coast Guard has “the lead role in ensuring Arctic maritime safety, security and stewardship,” Papp urges Congress “to start building infrastructure up there” (Joling and Papp). Washington’s defense cuts will only exacerbate these gaps, especially as Russia’s oil-aided boom enables it to retool its armed forces. Investing just 1.1 percent of its GDP on defense, Canada faces even greater challenges in defending its Arctic interests. But if the allies can combine their Arctic capabilities—each filling a niche role—and agree on a common approach to Arctic security, the framework to put those capabilities into practice is arguably already in place. Jointly operated by the U.S. and Canada, NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] could serve as the model for an Arctic security partnership. Just as NORAD defends North American airspace, an allied maritime arrangement under the NORAD rubric [rule, guide] could provide for security in Arctic waters.
NAFTA Affirmative 1AC 131
D. Oil resources in the Arctic are extremely valuable to the U.S., Canada, and Russia, and this is building to military confrontation.
HART, JONES, AND STEVEN, 2012
[Andrew, doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado; Bruce, PhD London School of Economics, former Senior Advisor to Secretary General of United Nations and Acting Secretary of United Nations Policy Committee, Senior Fellow and Director of the Managing Global Order Initiative at Brookings Institute and NYU Center on International Cooperation; David, Senior Fellow at NYU Center on International Cooperation, M.A., English at Oxford, “Chill Out Why Cooperation is Balancing Conflict Among Major Powers in the New Arctic,” May, ]
Russia stands to be the biggest winner if it succeeds in finding and developing the Arctic’s energy. The USGS estimates that 70% of total Arctic gas reserves lie in Russian territorial waters. Gazprom is already investing heavily in developing its continental shelf and is experimenting with both fixed and floating ice-resistant production units. Prospects for aggressive development, however, are likely to be hampered by the developing global gas glut, with shale reserves cheaper to extract and much nearer to important markets. The United States also has important interests, with slightly under a third of the projected oil resource found in the Alaska Platform assessment unit, an area over which Canada also has a minor claim. Exploitation of these resources is possible while energy prices are high, but the U.S. Energy Information Administration has warned that Arctic reserves will be more expensive, risky, and time consuming to develop than deposits elsewhere in the world. Private sector interest is increasing, however, with Shell describing its Alaskan offshore fields as having the same potential as the great oil discoveries of the 20th century in the Middle East. With so much at stake, interest in the Arctic is not only commercial, but once again strategic. While some scientists now predict the region will experience largely ice-free summers within twenty years, in the short term, navigation will pass through a series of new maritime choke points in the Bering Sea and in Canada’s waterways. Control of Arctic navigation confers important political, economic and military leverage. There are also concerns that competition for energy reserves will become militarized, with U.S. maritime strategy identifying the potential for “competition and conflict for access and natural resources.” The United States and Canada have long clashed over the legal status of the Northwest Passage. Shortly after his election in 2006, the Canadian Prime Minister promised to “assert Canada’s jurisdiction over the islands, waterways and resources in the Arctic”, and argued that sovereignty had to be earned by “having planes in the air, ships in the sea and, most importantly, boots on the ground.” Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy of 2011 takes a similar, if somewhat less confrontational, line. Russian sabre rattling has aroused the greatest fears. In 2007, Russian explorer and Presidential Envoy for the Arctic, Artur Chilingarov, led an expedition that planted a flag on the Arctic sea bed. He told the media that “the North Pole is an extension of the Russian coastal shelf.” In 2008, the head of the Russian navy saw the potential for a future “redistribution of power [in the Arctic], up to armed intervention.” A year later, Russia’s new Arctic policy underlined the importance of securing sovereignty over the country’s strategic resource base in the region and of ensuring ‘exclusive’ control over the Northern Sea Route. Reacting to the building ill-will, the Center for a New American Security quipped that “the only thing in the Arctic melting faster than the northern ice cap is the international comity [harmony, courtesy].” A military reaction to increased tensions is now well underway. Although the classified nature of many decisions hampers observers from making a sound assessment of the evolving military balance, each of the five major Arctic States (U.S., Canada, Denmark, Norway and Russia) is either rebuilding its Arctic capabilities or planning to do so in the near future. In September 2011, Russia announced plans to deploy two brigades to the Arctic. It has also ordered three nuclear and six diesel ice-breakers. Russia has fired cruise missiles over the Arctic, resumed regular patrols of the region for the first time since the break-up of the USSR, and announced plans to augment its naval surface capabilities and its submarine force. Canada is buying 65 F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft in part to defend its Arctic sovereignty. It is also expanding its Arctic fleet, building a flagship icebreaker that should be launched in 2017, and developing ground satellite stations to enhance its surveillance of the region. Denmark is establishing an Arctic Command that will eventually deploy F-16 aircraft to Greenland, while Norway has recently moved its military headquarters to a disused Cold War base in the Arctic and, in building five frigates equipped with the Aegis combat system, has undertaken its largest ever military expenditure.
NAFTA Affirmative 1AC 132
E. Arctic conflict leads to nuclear war
STAPLES, 2009
[Stephen, President of Rideau Institute, “PRESENTATION NOTES STEPS TOWARD AN ARCTIC NUCLEAR WEAPON FREE ZONE,” 8/10, ]
The fact is, the Arctic is becoming an zone of increased military competition. Russian President Medvedev has announced the creation of a special military force to defend Arctic claims. Russian General Vladimir Shamanov declared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and that Russia’s submarine fleet would increase its “operational radius.” This week, two Russian attack submarines were spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years. In January, on the eve of Obama’s inauguration, President Bush issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. As Michael Hamel-Greene has pointed out, it affirmed as a priority to preserve U.S. military vessel and aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater capabilities to protect U.S. borders in the Arctic. The Bush administration’s disastrous eight years in office, particularly its decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty and deploy missile defence interceptors and a radar in Eastern Europe, has greatly contributed to the instability we are seeing today. The Arctic has figured in this renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems, particularly the upgrading of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar for ballistic missile defence. The Canadian government, as well, has put forward new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic, including proposed ice-capable ships, a northern military training base and a deep water port. Denmark last week released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the country should create a dedicated Arctic military contingent that draws on army, navy and air force assets with ship-based helicopters able to drop troops anywhere. Danish fighter planes could be patrolling Greenlandic airspace. Last year, Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed F-35 fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that country held a major Arctic military practice involving 7,000 soldiers from 13 countries in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil rigs. The manoeuvres prompted a protest from Russia – which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since the end of the Second World War. About 12,000 troops, 20050 aircraft and several warships were involved. Jayantha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash and former United Nations Under-Secretary for Disarmament Affairs, summarizes the situation bluntly. He warns us that “From those in the international peace and security sector, deep concerns are being expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states – the United States and the Russian Federation, which together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world – converge on the Arctic and have competing claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries – Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway – could, if unresolved, lead to conflict escalating into the threat or use of nuclear weapons.”
NAFTA Affirmative 1AC 133
Contention Three is Solvency:
Opening up trade with Canada and Mexico helps the U.S. economy and boosts U.S. trade leadership.
A. Opening transportation construction materials to Canada and Mexico reaffirms cooperation under NAFTA
HUGHES, 1996
[Lawrence, JD and LLM New York Law School, MS Transportation Engineering, Polytechnic University, former Operations Analysis Manager at New York City Department of Transportation, “Buy North America: A Revision to FTA Buy America Requirements,” Transportation Law Journal, 23 Transp. L.J. 207 1995-1996, HEIN Online]
Buy America provisions for American content and final assembly should be changed to nothing less than "Buy North America." The American and Canadian transit markets are interdependent, and have historically developed together. The reasons for the imposition of Buy America requirements have to do with Europe and Japan, not Canada or Mexico. Development of a common transit market between the United States, Canada, and Mexico is consistent with NAFTA and Buy America principles. Free access by Americans to Canadian markets while Canadians are restricted from American markets is viewed by the industry as unfair and inconsistent with CFTA [Canada Free Trade Agreement] and NAFTA principles.
B. A strong NAFTA is key to the U.S. manufacturing industry
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 2010
[“Steps to a 21st Century U.S.-Mexico Border,” ]
Since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico has become the third-largest U.S. trading partner behind Canada and China. However, it is the second-largest export market for U.S. businesses, and some 22 states depend on Mexico as their No. 1 or No. 2 export market. The trade relationship between our two nations is vast, with $397 billion worth of products being traded last year alone. Eighty percent of it is carried across the border by truck. This means that more than $1 billion in cross-border commerce is taking place every day—$45 million an hour—and virtually all of it tariff free under NAFTA. Mexico purchased $163 billion in U.S. goods in 2010 alone. Mexico is also the United States’ third largest foreign provider of petroleum and the largest foreign supplier of fresh fruits and vegetables. The trading relationship is strong, and each country has a fundamental stake in the success of the other. Trade between the United States and Mexico creates and supports jobs for millions of Americans and Mexicans. In 2010, 13% of all U.S. exports were destined to Mexican markets. Overall, nearly 31 million American jobs are supported by trade. That translates into more than one in every five U.S. jobs linked to the import and export of goods and services. Furthermore, exports generated nearly half of U.S. economic growth in 2010, adding well over a percentage point to GDP growth. The U.S. manufacturing industry depends on NAFTA, sending more than half of its exports to either Canada or Mexico. Since NAFTA began, U.S. manufacturers have boosted their output by more than 50%. Contrary to popular belief, 97% of all exporters are small and medium-size businesses. Considering that these same companies create the vast majority of job growth, it is imperative to improve their ability to compete in global markets.
Add-on Advantage: Mexican Stability 134
A. NAFTA allows for technological innovation in Mexico, and bolsters the government’s ability to deal with crises which has a multiplier effect on solvency.
VILLAREAL, 2010
[M. Angeles, Specialist in International Trade and Finance for Congressional Research Service, “NAFTA and the Mexican Economy,” 6/03, ]
A 2005 World Bank study assessing some of the economic impacts from NAFTA on Mexico concluded that NAFTA helped Mexico get closer to the levels of development in the United States and Canada. The study states that NAFTA helped Mexican manufacturers to adopt to U.S. technological innovations more quickly and likely had positive impacts on the number and quality of jobs. Another finding was that since NAFTA went into effect, the overall macroeconomic [dealing with national economy] volatility, or wide variations in the GDP growth rate, has declined in Mexico. Business cycles in Mexico, the United States, and Canada have had higher levels of synchronicity since NAFTA, and NAFTA has reinforced the high sensitivity of Mexican economic sectors to economic developments in the United States.24 Several economists have noted that it is likely that NAFTA contributed to Mexico’s economic recovery directly and indirectly after the 1995 currency crisis. Mexico responded to the crisis by implementing a strong economic adjustment program but also by fully adhering to its NAFTA obligations to liberalize trade with the United States and Canada. NAFTA may have supported the resolve of the Mexican government to continue with the course of market-based economic reforms, resulting in increasing investor confidence in Mexico. The World Bank study estimates that FDI in Mexico would have been approximately 40% lower without NAFTA.25
B. Mexican economic growth is critical to prevent state collapse and increased cross-border violence.
BARNES, 2011
[Joe, Bonner Means Baker Fellow at James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, former US State Department diplomat, “Oil and U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Relations,” 4/29, ]
There is already a short- to medium-term risk of substantial instability in Mexico. As noted, the country is enduring extremely high levels of drug-related violence. Even if the Mexican government eventually succeeds in its efforts to suppress this violence, the process is likely to be expensive, bloody, and corrosive in terms of human rights. A period of feeble economic growth, combined with a fiscal crisis associated with a drop in revenues from Pemex, could create a “perfect storm” south of the border. If this were to occur, Washington would have no choice but to respond. In the longer-term, the United States has a clear interest in robust economic growth and fiscal sustainability in Mexico.34 There is at least one major example of the U.S. coming to Mexico’s aid in an economic emergency. In 1994, the United States extended US$20 billion in loan guarantees to Mexico when the peso collapsed, in large part to make U.S. creditors whole.35 Not least, a healthy Mexican economy would reduce the flow of illegal immigration to the United States. To the extent that prospects for such growth and sustainability are enhanced by reform of Pemex, the United States should be supportive. It might be best, in terms of U.S. economic and commercial interests, were Pemex to be fully privatized, but even partial reforms would be welcome. Not all national oil companies are created equal: Pemex’s development into something like Norway’s Statol would mark an important improvement.36
Add-on Advantage: Mexican Stability 135
3. Mexican instability allows drug cartels to smuggle nuclear weapons into the United States for terrorists.
THE HILL, 2009
[Jordy Yager, “Border lawmakers fear drug-terrorism link,” 3/07, ]
Members of Congress are raising the alarm that war-like conditions on the Mexican border could lead to Mexican drug cartels helping terrorists attack the U.S. “When you have…gangs and they have loose ties with al Qaeda and then you have Iran not too far away from building a nuclear capability, nuclear terrorism may not be far off,” said Rep. Trent Franks (R- Ariz.), a member of the House Armed Services committee. The Mexican drug cartels’ violence accounted for more than 6,000 deaths last year, and in recent months it has begun spilling over into the districts of lawmakers from the southwest region, even as far north as Phoenix, Ariz. -- which has become, Franks noted, the “kidnap capital of the U.S.” Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), whose district borders Mexico, said that while the situation is bad, it could easily get worse. “The goal of the cartels is to make money,” said Cuellar, who sits on the House Homeland Security committee. “If they can smuggle in drugs and human cargo, then certainly they can smuggle other things in, other devices to cause us harm.”
4. Even if an attempt at nuclear terrorism fails, the United States will retaliate with nuclear weapons, causing global nuclear war.
SPEICE, 2006
[Patrick, JD Candidate at Wake Forest University, “Negligence and Nuclear Nonproliferation: Eliminating the Current Liability Barrier to Bilateral US-Russian Nonproliferation Assistance Programs” William and Mary Law Review, Lexis]
The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States or its allies by hostile states, as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.
2AC Inherency - Extensions 136
1. The recent stimulus bill reauthorized “Buy America” laws for transportation infrastructure, which require that all materials purchased must be made in the United States.
MUNICIPAL CASTINGS ASSOCIATION, 2009
[“THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT BUY AMERICA REQUIREMENT,” ]
The Buy America provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the Stimulus) mandates that: No foreign iron, steel, or manufactured goods are permitted for use in a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of any public building or public work if the funding for the project is made available by the ARRA. "Public buildings or public works" covered by the requirement include – but are not limited to: "sewers," "mains," and "pumping stations." With respect to determining whether iron and steel is "produced in the United States," implementing regulations and guidance specify that "production in the United States of the iron or steel used as construction material requires that all manufacturing processes must take place in the United States, except metallurgical processes involving refinement of steel additives." This provision appears to reflect similar Buy America provisions in the U.S. transportation laws. It is longstanding precedent of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Buy America provision – upon which the Stimulus Act’s Buy America provision is based – that with respect to iron and steel, "produced in the United States" means that "all manufacturing processes must take place domestically." FHWA has stated that with respect to iron and steel, "[m]anufacturing begins with the initial melting and mixing, and continues through the coating stage. Any process which modifies the chemical content, the physical size or shape, or the final finish is considered a manufacturing process. These processes include rolling, extruding, machining, bending, grinding, drilling and coating. "Coating" includes epoxy coating, galvanizing, painting, or any other coating that protects or enhances the value of the material."
2AC Inherency - Extensions 137
2. Despite aiming for free trade, NAFTA does not eliminate “Buy America” provisions.
HUGHES, 1996
[Lawrence, transportation planner with the New York City Department of Transportation, and has previously planned transportation services with the MTA New York City Transit Authority and the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, “Buy North America: A Revision to FTA Buy America Requirements,” Transportation Law Journal, 23 Transp. L.J. 207 1995-1996, HEIN Online]
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiations were based largely on the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CFTA)." Although the CFTA expanded on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provisions regarding government procurements exceeding $25,000, it did not eliminate Buy America." Federally funded projects of provincial, state, or local governments remained unaffected. NAFTA was enacted into law in 1993, and became effective on January 1, 1994. Several economic objectives were achieved with NAFTA. The agreement was to expand sales opportunities between American, Canadian, and Mexican companies exporting to each other. Another goal of the agreement was to enhance North American international competitiveness by permitting companies to set up operations where it would be most profitable economically, without the distortions caused by trade or investment barriers, and to send a strong and encouraging signal throughout the hemisphere regarding the U.S. commitment to freer trade and open markets. Finally, NAFTA was to eliminate tariffs and quotas within North America.' But, even with these goals of opening the North American market to free trade, the Buy America barriers to the free trade of transit equipment still exist.
2AC Harms [Free Trade] Frontline - A/t: #1 138
1. Extend our COPLEY NEWS SERVICE evidence. The warrant is that international trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO create legal frameworks for countries to have disputes addressed without needing to go to war. They haven’t attacked the warrant or provide any argument for why that warrant no longer applies.
2. World War 2 proves that developing more trade makes it too expensive for countries to fight each other, but trade wars will escalate to shooting wars.
GRISWOLD, 2002
[Daniel, Associate Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at CATO Institute, “Seven Moral Arguments for Free Trade”, 2005/01, ]
In an 1845 speech in the British House of Commons, Richard Cobden called free trade “that advance which is calculated to knit nations more together in the bonds of peace by means of commercial intercourse.” Free trade does not guarantee peace, but it does strengthen peace by raising the cost of war to governments and their citizens. As nations become more integrated through expanding markets, they have more to lose should trade be disrupted. In recent years, the twin trends of globalization and democratization have produced their own “peace dividend”: since 1987, real spending on armaments throughout the world has dropped by more than one-third. Since the end of the Cold War, the threat of major international wars has receded. Those nations most closely associated with international terrorism – Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and North Korea – are among the least globalized countries in the world in terms of non-oil trade and foreign investment. Not one of them belongs to the World Trade Organization. During the 1930s, the industrialized nations waged trade wars against each other. They raised tariffs and imposed quotas in order to protect domestic industry. The result, however, was that other nations only raised their barriers even further, choking off global trade and deepening and prolonging the global economic depression. Those dark economic times contributed to the conflict that became World War II. America’s post-war policy of encouraging free trade through multilateral trade agreements was aimed at promoting peace as much as it was prosperity.
2AC Harms [Free Trade] Frontline - A/t: #2 139
1. The TPP will never be implemented because too many other countries and citizens object.
THE NATION, 2012
[Lori Wallach, staff writer, “NAFTA on Steroids,” 6/27, ]
The goal was to complete the TPP this year. Thankfully, opposition by some countries to the most extreme corporate demands has slowed negotiations. Australia has announced it will not submit to the parallel corporate court system, and it and New Zealand have rejected a US proposal to allow pharmaceutical companies to challenge their government medicine formularies’ pricing decisions, which have managed to keep their drug costs much lower than in the United States. Every country has rejected the US proposal to extend drug patent monopolies. This text was leaked, allowing government health officials and activists in all the countries to fight back. Many countries have also rejected a US proposal that would forbid countries from using capital controls, taxes or other macro-prudential measures to limit the destructive power of financial speculators. However, we face a race against time—much of the TPP text has been agreed on. Will the banksters, Big Pharma, Big Oil, agribusiness, tobacco multinationals and the other usual suspects get away with this massive assault on democracy? Will the public wake up to this threat and fight back, demanding either a fair deal or no deal? The Doha Round of WTO expansion, the FTAA and other corporate attacks via “trade” agreements were successfully derailed when citizens around the world took action to hold their governments accountable. Certainly in an election year, we are well poised to turn around the TPP as well.
2. We control Uniqueness: Protectionism is on the rise globally, putting free trade at risk.
WALL STREET JOURNAL, 2012
[Sudeep Reddy, staff writer, “Trade Protectionism Rises as Economies Slow,” 6/14, ]
As worries rise about an economic slowdown, major nations around the world are ramping up measures to protect their economies from trade threats. Global Trade Alert, an independent monitoring group, says in a new report today that at least 110 new protectionist measures were implemented around the world since the Group of 20 advanced and developing economies met in France last November. Of those 110, 20089 were by G-20 members, who meet again next week in Mexico. Protectionist measures such as export restrictions and higher tariffs spiked after the 2008 financial crisis but didn’t subside afterward. Since then, nations have been pursuing stealthier measures — “murky protectionism” — to circumvent international trade rules, the group says.
2AC Harms [Free Trade] Frontline - A/t: #2 140
3. Allowing open competition with Canada and Mexico is necessary to create a stronger regional trade base. The TPP is focused on Asian countries.
HUGHES, 1996
[Lawrence, transportation planner with the New York City Department of Transportation, and has previously planned transportation services with the MTA New York City Transit Authority and the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, “Buy North America: A Revision to FTA Buy America Requirements,” Transportation Law Journal, 23 Transp. L.J. 207 1995-1996, HEIN Online]
Only through the inclusion of all three NAFTA countries will there be sufficient competition to ensure quality products at competitive prices. Maintaining barriers against Canadian and Mexican products will simply cost Americans more money without providing any net gains.210 Proponents of free trade argue, notwithstanding short-term dislocations, growth generated in both the United States and Canada will make the North American economy a more formidable counter-balance to the unified European market. "[T]he reduction of barriers on both sides of the border will spur economic integration that should make US firms more competitive globally.
2AC Harms [Free Trade] Frontline - A/t: #3 141
1. Our scenario is specific: The European Union proves other countries will pursue retaliation in the World Trade Organization against “Buy America” laws.
WALL STREET JOURNAL, 2009
[NEIL KING JR. and JOHN W. MILLER, “Obama Risks Flap on 'Buy American',” 2/04, ]
Mr. Obama's statements Tuesday came a day after the European Union said in a letter to the White House that the U.S. would set a "very dangerous precedent" if it passed legislation containing a "Buy American" clause. EU officials said Tuesday that the trade bloc would likely file a complaint at the World Trade Organization if the U.S. stimulus plan contains language strongly favoring U.S. suppliers. The problem, these officials said, is that a clause forcing Washington to favor U.S. goods, as some lawmakers would like, might violate agreements within the WTO that limit discrimination in government spending. "We would have to look at our all options, including a WTO case, if 'Buy American' passes," an EU official said.
2. U.S. leadership on free trade is necessary for global acceptance of trade regimes. If the U.S. pursues protectionist measures, other countries will too.
PANITCHPAKDI, Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2004
[Supachai, former Director General of World Trade Organization and Thailand Deputy Minister of Finance, PhD Netherland School of Economics and visiting fellow at Cambridge University, “American Leadership and the World Trade Organization,” 2/26, ]
These priorities must continue to guide US policy — as they have done since the Second World War. America has been the main driving force behind eight rounds of multilateral trade negotiations, including the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the creation of the WTO. The US — together with the EU — was instrumental in launching the latest Doha Round two years ago. Likewise, the recent initiative, spearheaded by Ambassador Zoellick, to re-energize the negotiations and move them towards a successful conclusion is yet another example of how essential the US is to the multilateral process — signalling that the US remains committed to further liberalization, that the Round is moving, and that other countries have a tangible reason to get on board. The reality is this: when the US leads the system can move forward; when it withdraws, the system drifts.
2AC Harms [Free Trade] Frontline - A/t: #3 142
3. Enforcing “Buy America” creates an uneven playing field for trading partners, and is making NAFTA ineffective.
[FTA = Federal Transit Administration]
HUGHES, 1996
[Lawrence, transportation planner with the New York City Department of Transportation, and has previously planned transportation services with the MTA New York City Transit Authority and the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, “Buy North America: A Revision to FTA Buy America Requirements,” Transportation Law Journal, 23 Transp. L.J. 207 1995-1996, HEIN Online]
The United States has taken a position which is inconsistent with Buy America and NAFTA. It has said transit procurement is a federal, not a state or local, function, so Buy America may be applied; and transit procurement is a state or local, not federal, function, so NAFTA does not apply. Not only is the FTA position inconsistent, but it is unfair, economically damaging to the other NAFTA signatories, particularly Canada, and contrary to the spirit of NAFTA. It may prevent a transit agency from being able to purchase the best product available. With no Buy Canadian requirements, American manufacturers have expanded to the Canadian market. This trend will continue under NAFTA. Prior to NAFTA's passage, FIA Administrator Gordon Linton said, "We can stay the way we are and go the way of the dinosaur, or we can really participate in the global market."'' Linton said President Clinton was in favor of NAFTA because it would allow U.S. manufacturers to expand to Canada and Mexico.' He added this could increase the American market by 30 to 35 percent which would more than make up for a shrinking American market. Yet, Linton says the Buy America mandate will not change under NAFTA. Thus, contrary to the spirit of NAFTA, Linton has taken an aggressive and predatory stance by advising American manufacturers to go expand and exploit the Canadian and Mexican markets, and to refuse manufacturers in those countries to sell to the United States.
2AC Harms [U.S./Canada Relations] Frontline - A/t: #1 143
1. Extend our DOWD and STAPLES evidence. Countries have already put military forces into the Arctic and are preparing for war to secure new resources. If Russia was truly focused on domestic resources, they would not have planted a flag on the North Pole.
2. Climate change has increased the strategic value of the Arctic, leading to more competition and conflict.
HART, JONES, AND STEVEN, 2012
[Andrew, doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado; Bruce, PhD London School of Economics, former Senior Advisor to Secretary General of United Nations and Acting Secretary of United Nations Policy Committee, Senior Fellow and Director of the Managing Global Order Initiative at Brookings Institute and NYU Center on International Cooperation; David, Senior Fellow at NYU Center on International Cooperation, M.A., English at Oxford, “Chill Out Why Cooperation is Balancing Conflict Among Major Powers in the New Arctic,” May, ]
As the Cold War receded, so too did the strategic significance of the Arctic, once a zone of U.S.-Soviet contestation. In recent years, tensions have once again been rising. From the infamous planting of the Russian flag on the floor of the Arctic Ocean in 2007 to Secretary Clinton’s appearance at the May 2011 Arctic Council ministerial, states have turned their attention to the North. The drivers of this shift are rapidly melting ice and the consequent prospects for the development of energy resources; its facilitators have been innovating in extraction technologies and marine transportation systems to move cargoes of hydrocarbons and hard minerals along previously inaccessible sea routes. Rising oil prices in 2004 - 2008 generated investment resources. These changes have created a complex and, to some, worrying political picture. Many fear the Arctic will see an intensifying battle for sovereign control and commercial advantage. While such a view may be “more alarmist than alarming,” insecurity in the far North has increased risks of political and military conflict and highlighted the need for a stable maritime security system to manage disputes and other security concerns.
2AC Harms [U.S./Canada Relations] Frontline - A/t: #1 144
3. Suspicions about other countries’ intentions in the Arctic make miscalculation and war inevitable.
HART, JONES, AND STEVEN, 2012
[Andrew, doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado; Bruce, PhD London School of Economics, former Senior Advisor to Secretary General of United Nations and Acting Secretary of United Nations Policy Committee, Senior Fellow and Director of the Managing Global Order Initiative at Brookings Institute and NYU Center on International Cooperation; David, Senior Fellow at NYU Center on International Cooperation, M.A., English at Oxford, “Chill Out Why Cooperation is Balancing Conflict Among Major Powers in the New Arctic,” May, ]
Territorial and transshipment disputes both create potential for a classic security dilemma. While any state must expect to lose from conflict in the Arctic, it is still rational for governments to re-arm due to uncertainty about the intentions of others and to maintain the option of exerting unilateral control over contested boundaries should this be come necessary. Furthermore, a military presence tends to increase the value a country places on its interests in the region. This dynamic creates a heightened risk of miscalculation and selffulfilling prophesy, with the potential to trigger a crisis, low-level conflict, or even a war. Perceptions of Russian unpredictability are an important accelerant. Its history of militarizing the Arctic during the Cold War heightens concerns about its future intentions, as has its more recent use of energy as a tool of political coercion. Other states have found it difficult to discern offensive or defensive intentions from Russia’s military capabilities. For example, are conventional land-based military units better at taking or defending territory up North? What about naval resources? Do ice-breaker fleets enable Russia’s navy a greater advantage on offense, even if they are necessary for search and rescue, and for transshipment? A lack of consensus on such questions inevitably increases the potential for negative spirals.
4. The legal agreements covering the Arctic are too weak to adequately solve conflict.
HART, JONES, AND STEVEN, 2012
[Andrew, doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado; Bruce, Senior Fellow and Director of the Managing Global Order Initiative at Brookings and New York University’s Center on International Cooperation; David, Senior Fellow at NYU/CIC and leads MGO’s Geopolitics
of Scarcity Project, “Chill Out Why Cooperation is Balancing Conflict Among Major Powers in the New Arctic,” May, ]
In sum, the legal system designed to govern the continental shelf exhibits shortcomings that should breed caution about its future capacity. The definition of a continental shelf is far from clear. The forum for addressing territorial claims has a weak mandate, with states able to choose whether to accept or reject CLCS rulings, and may be too opaque to command legitimacy. It is relatively unproven in the Arctic, although it has demonstrated some successes elsewhere (Tonga, New Zealand and Fiji, for example, settled a boundary delimitation dispute using the CLCS mechanism). As figure 2 shows, the burden on CLCS and UNCLOS will increase as a growing number of claims are submitted. The next decade will demonstrate whether it has ability to cope with the pressure this will create.
2AC Harms [U.S./Canada Relations] Frontline - A/t: #2 145
1. Extend our DAWSON AND FRAZER evidence. “Buy America” has shown Canada that they do not really matter to American policymakers and has caused a permanent rift in relations. Even if the relationship rebounds over the long-term, a war in the Arctic will already have happened.
2. U.S./Canadian relations are at their lowest point in decades.
BURNEY AND HAMPSON, Professors at Carleton University, 2012
[Derek, Visiting Professor and Senior Distinguished Fellow at Carleton University Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, M.A., Queen’s University, former Canadian Assistant Deputy Minister for US Affairs and Associate Undersecretary, ambassador to US and Korea, and Chief of Staff, Office of Prime Minister; Fen Osler, Professor and Director of The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, PhD Harvard and MSc Economics at London School of Economics, senior fellow at US Institute of Peace, “How Obama Lost Canada,” 6/25, ]
Obama’s choice marked a triumph of campaign posturing over pragmatism and diplomacy, and it brought U.S.-Canadian relations to their lowest point in decades. It was hardly the first time that the administration has fumbled issues with Ottawa. Although relations have been civil, they have rarely been productive. Whether on trade, the environment, or Canada’s shared contribution in places such as Afghanistan, time and again the United States has jilted its northern neighbor. If the pattern of neglect continues, Ottawa will get less interested in cooperating with Washington. Already, Canada has reacted by turning elsewhere — namely, toward Asia — for more reliable economic partners.
2AC Harms [U.S./Canada Relations] Frontline - A/t: #2 146
3. Relations were resilient when Canada had nowhere else to turn. Today, they will abandon the U.S. for partnerships in Asia.
BURNEY AND HAMPSON, 2012
[Derek, an Officer of the Order of Canada, is a senior strategic advisor to Norton Rose Canada LLP; Fen Osler, Chancellor’s Professor and Director of The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, “How Obama Lost Canada,” 6/25, ]
Back then, Canada had little choice but to find a way to fix its relationship with the United States, the only game in town. Ottawa is in a different position now. Today, it enjoys a respectable platform of self-confidence, having weathered the financial crisis and ensuing recession far better than the United States. And unlike in the past, Canada can now look beyond its own neighborhood for economic opportunities — especially to the rising economies of Asia. Indeed, Canada has made a full-court press in the Asia-Pacific region. It is wooing countries such as China, India, Japan, and South Korea, which are eager to invest and trade in Canadian minerals, energy, and agricultural products. Harper has announced Canada’s intention to explore free-trade negotiations with China, and talks with Japan, Thailand, India, and South Korea are under way. As Harper put it during a visit to China in February, “We want to sell our energy to people who want to buy our energy.”
4. Canada is willing to move away from the U.S. on economic issues.
BURNEY AND HAMPSON, 2012
[Derek, an Officer of the Order of Canada, is a senior strategic advisor to Norton Rose Canada LLP; Fen Osler, Chancellor’s Professor and Director of The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, “How Obama Lost Canada,” 6/25, ]
To be sure, Canadian companies will never abandon the U.S. market. Nevertheless, the U.S. recession and the rise of Asia have allowed Canada to diversify its economic relations. In 2010, only 68 percent of Canadian exports were destined for the United States, down from 85 percent in 2000. Canadians are accustomed to benign neglect from a neighbor preoccupied with more urgent global flashpoints, but since that neglect has grown so much as to be malign, they have begun to reappraise their relationship with the United States. As Canada develops closer ties with China and finds more receptive outlets for its exports, the United States may find itself with a less obliging partner to the north.
2AC Harms [U.S./Canada Relations] Frontline - A/t: #3 147
1. Extend our BURNSEY AND HAMPSON evidence. Trade and economic growth are the most important factors to the U.S. and Canadian relationship, so “Buy America” and NAFTA overwhelm all others issues.
2. The Canadian government is already making moves to start a trade war over “Buy America.”
TORONTO STAR, 2011
[Les Whittington, staff writer, “Trade war looms over new Buy American threat in U.S.,” 9/14, ]
A trade war with the United States loomed Wednesday after the Harper government vowed to fight the latest move by Washington to exclude Canadian companies from bidding on billions of dollars worth of economic stimulus projects. International Trade Minister Ed Fast acknowledged that the rebirth of the Buy American threat caught Ottawa completely off guard. “I was very surprised and certainly disappointed that the Obama administration has returned to that kind of a trade barrier initiative,” he told CBC-TV. In the opening salvo of another bilateral trade dispute, Fast slammed U.S. President Barack Obama for including Buy American provisions in the $447-billion (U.S.) jobs bill announced last week.
3. “Buy America” prevents the U.S. and Canada from developing true cooperation because it constantly creates new crises to overcome.
DAWSON AND FRAZER, 2011
[Laura, PhD Political Science, Associate Professor at Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, former senior advisor at United States Embassy and Department of State, senior fellow of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and Public Policy Scholar at Wilson Center; Paul, fellow at Harvard’s Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and Special Advisor, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, former Communications Director to Canadian Prime Minister and Spokesperson for Canadian Foreign Minister, “A ‘Buy America’ wake-up call for Canada,” Toronto Star, 2009/24, ]
If the new American Jobs Act passes, Canadian manufacturers and suppliers will again feel the squeeze of Buy America rules that restrict how U.S. state and local governments can spend federal stimulus money. Is Buy America a sign that the United States wants to torpedo our negotiations on better borders and smarter regulations? No. The White House designed the act with the needs of unemployed Americans in mind. Canada did not figure into the equation. But Buy America is indicative of the serious problem of ad hoc economic management that has become the norm in Canada-U.S. relations. Instead of working together on strategies to reduce internal problems and build our regional competitiveness in the world, we hop from crisis to crisis.
Harms [Mexican Stability Add-On] Frontline - A/t: #1 148
1. Extend our VILLAREAL evidence. NAFTA creates growth in every sector of the Mexican economy, and gives the government the political support necessary to enact effective reforms. This creates stability and support for government policies.
2. NAFTA directly fixes the main trade issues with Mexico’s economy.
SOMMER, 2008
[Heidi, junior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, “The Economic Benefits of NAFTA to the United States and Mexico,” 6/16, ]
Prior to the 1980s, high import tariffs and quotas characterized Mexico's international trade policy, along with restrictions on foreign investment and ownership. But following a severe economic crisis in the early 1980s, the country began liberalizing its protectionist policies. In the years since, Mexico has implemented 11 free trade agreements — with the European Union, countries in South and Central America, Japan and, most importantly, the United States and Canada. The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Mexico and its two northern neighbors eliminated the majority of taxes on products traded among the countries, and called for a gradual phase-out of other tariffs. Although there have been calls to renegotiate or suspend NAFTA, after nearly 14 years under the treaty it is clear that both Mexico and the United States have benefitted from more open trade.
Harms [Mexican Stability Add-On] Frontline - A/t: #1 149
3. NAFTA is under threat from protectionism, but strengthening the free trade regime is critical for U.S. and Mexican economic growth through increased foreign investment.
SOMMER, 2008
[Heidi, junior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, “The Economic Benefits of NAFTA to the United States and Mexico,” 6/16, ]
Trucking and PEMEX's financial straits are not the only problems facing U.S.-Mexican trade. In the United States, opposition to NAFTA in its entirety — and to trade agreements in general — has become more vocal recently, with mounting calls for suspension or renegotiation of the treaty. Doing so would be a mistake. Protectionism hurts America's status as a preferred trading partner and proponent of global growth. Moreover, withdrawing from the international trading system would allow the European Union and fast-growing Asian countries to take the lead in trade negotiations, which would put U.S. goods and services at a competitive disadvantage. Economic liberalization under NAFTA has been a slow process, and is still incomplete. Moving forward, both the United States and Mexico will undoubtedly face more challenges to free trade. Overcoming these challenges is paramount. With an open environment for foreign trade and investment, and a large and growing domestic market, Mexico will become an ever-more attractive destination for foreign investment. In the United States, convincing trade protectionists that free trade provides a net benefit to the economy will help ensure economic growth and a dynamic economy well into the future.
Harms [Mexican Stability Add-On] Frontline - A/t: #2 150
1. Extend our THE HILL evidence. Terrorists can get nuclear materials from anti-American governments like Iran, and these weapons can be easily smuggled across an unguarded border after the Mexican government becomes unstable. Defer Affirmative on probability because it only takes one success to cause our impacts.
2. Terrorists can acquire the materials necessary to build a nuclear weapon. Numerous radioactive materials go unaccounted for each year.
KONKEL, 2005
[Todd, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, “Container Security: Preventing a Nuclear Catastrophe” the Journal of International Policy Solutions, ]
Whereas obtaining enough fissile material for a working nuclear bomb could prove logistically challenging, there is no shortage of radioactive material that a terrorist could use to construct a dirty bomb. Sources of radioisotopes can be found in a diverse array of medical and industrial technologies. For example, cesium-137 and cobalt-60 are commonly used in nuclear medicine, and americium-241 can be found in certain oil exploration equipment. According to a 2003 study by the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, between October 1996 and September 2001, an average of three hundred commercial radioactive sources were lost or unaccounted for (or “orphaned”) each year. Of these orphaned sources, 20056 percent were not recovered.19 Figures published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1998 are even more pessimistic, estimating that there were as many as thirty thousand orphaned radioactive sources in the U.S. at that time. Given the availability and relative insecurity of nuclear materials, policymakers must address the very real risk that sophisticated terrorists might succeed in obtaining such materials. The story of David Hahn, a nuclear-savvy Michigan teenager, should serve as ample warning. Over the course of three years beginning in 1991, Hahn collected and purified enough radioactive material in his mother’s potting shed to put forty thousand nearby residents at risk due to the dangers posed by the release of radioactive dust and radiation. A terrorist organization with sufficient determination and financial resources would no doubt pose a much greater threat.
Harms [Mexican Stability Add-On] Frontline - A/t: #3 151
1. Strong NAFTA is responsible for growth in Mexican exports and GDP.
SOMMER, 2008
[Heidi, junior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, “The Economic Benefits of NAFTA to the United States and Mexico,” 6/16, ]
The Mexican economy is the world's 13th largest. Yet it is the United States' third-largest trading partner and the second-largest market for U.S. exports. This partnership owes much to NAFTA; two-way trade between Mexico and the United States has more than quadrupled since the agreement was implemented (see the figure): The value of Mexican goods exported to the United States grew from $39.9 billion in 1993 to $210.8 billion in 2007, an increase of 437 percent. The United States exported $136.5 billion worth of goods to Mexico in 2007, up 242 percent since 1993. Over that period, gross domestic product (GDP) grew 50 percent in the United States and 46 percent in Mexico.
2. NAFTA is necessary for increasing foreign direct investment in the Mexican economy.
SOMMER, 2008
[Heidi, junior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, “The Economic Benefits of NAFTA to the United States and Mexico,” 6/16, ]
The United States is the largest source of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico, accounting for over half of the $19 billion invested there in 2006. In addition, U.S. companies contribute around 50 percent of the investment funds for Mexico's maquiladoras — factories that assemble products (such as apparel, auto parts and electronic goods) from imported U. S. components for export back to the United States. These firms account for almost half of Mexican exports and over $41 billion in annual sales. Investment in Mexico has helped increase the efficiency of U.S. domestic production. Many manufacturing companies are able to reduce costs by shifting assembly of their products to the maquiladoras. This has helped boost U.S. manufacturing output, which rose by almost 60 percent from 1993 to 2006. By contrast, output increased only 42 percent in the 13 years before NAFTA.
3. NAFTA and free trade directly increase jobs and wages in critical Mexican industries.
SOMMER, 2008
[Heidi, junior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, “The Economic Benefits of NAFTA to the United States and Mexico,” 6/16, ]
Mexican employment levels have been more volatile since the implementation of NAFTA. But, as of 2005, the Mexican affiliates of U.S. companies employed nearly 840,000 people who contributed 3.3 percent to Mexico's GDP. Wages for Mexican workers have grown steadily since the 1994 peso crisis (reaching precrisis levels in 1997) and increasing each year since. In addition, Mexican industries that export goods or are located in regions with a high level of foreign investment also pay higher wages. According to Mexico's Secretariat of Economy, exporting companies pay salaries 37 percent higher than those that don't export.
2AC Solvency Frontline – A/t: #1 152
1. Extend our U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE evidence. Strengthening NAFTA is critical to U.S. jobs and competitiveness by getting access to foreign markets and better materials. Their evidence assumes that manufacturing is an entirely domestic market, but globalization makes free competition a necessity for growth.
2. There is no risk of offense because “Buy America” contains loopholes that mean manufacturing will probably take place in other countries anyway, but this doesn’t change the signal.
STEPHENS, 2009
[Angela, J.D., magna cum laude, University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, “Made in America?” Feb, ]
The rationale accompanying the Economic Stimulus Package emphasizes the “three P’s”: (1) Put money into the economy; (2) Put Americans back to work; and (3) Provide needed infrastructure upgrades (transportation, heavy civil/utility, and building construction). Sadly, under the current federal law there is no guarantee that American funds applied to rebuild the infrastructure will be paid to American workers or American companies. Under the interpretation of the current law there is every possibility that foreign mill steel and foreign fabricated steel could find its way into public works projects funded by the 2009 Stimulus Package. It is clear that most Americans are not aware of the loopholes in the current law. At this writing it is still unclear whether our legislators will take the action necessary to close those loopholes. There are two separate “domestic only” provisions applicable to federal construction projects. On the surface, these provisions require using American materials. One set of provisions applies to bridge construction and is contained in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Buy America statutes, which, in turn, are derived from the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. The other set of provisions is contained in the Buy American Act, and applies to non-transportation federal construction projects.1 (Note the subtle difference: “Buy America” for bridges and “Buy American” for buildings.) In application, neither guarantees that American public works projects will be built exclusively with American material and American labor.
2AC Solvency Frontline – A/t: #1 153
3. Infrastructure investment directly creates strong economic growth.
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 2010
[“Steps to a 21st Century U.S.-Mexico Border,” ]
To keep pace with transformations in the national and global economies, the U.S. transportation system needs to expand, modernize, and adapt to the changing and growing need for freight movement and passenger mobility. Long-term underinvestment in transportation infrastructure is having an increasingly negative effect on the ability of the United States and its industries to compete in the global economy. We believe that federal transportation policy, programs, and resources should support U.S. global competitiveness, international trade policies, interstate commerce, interstate passenger travel, emergency preparedness, and national defense, all of which are compelling national interests. The federal government bears significant responsibility to ensure that efforts advancing the following policy objectives are prioritized and funded: • Modernization and maintenance • Safety • Freight mobility • Urban mobility • Rural connectivity • Energy and the environment We strongly support the use of private sector investment to meet the demands of our overburdened and crumbling infrastructure. While it should not supplant current federal investments, private investment, where appropriate, will help supplement federal, state, and local dollars. The federal government should encourage project financing and delivery approaches that provide incentives for private investment to expand its role as financing partner and lender of last resort. In addition, Congress should lift the cap on private activity bonds for highway and transit infrastructure. Investment in infrastructure is an investment in economic prosperity. Each dollar invested in highway and transit construction generates $1.80 of gross domestic product in the short term, according to Standard & Poor’s DRI. Every dollar that taxpayers invest in public transportation generates about $6 in economic returns, reports Cambridge Systematics. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, each $1 billion in federal highway investment accompanied by a state match supports 34, 200779 jobs. Conversely, a decaying surface transportation system costs the U.S. economy $78 billion annually in lost time and fuel; and crashes—approximately one-third of which are attributable to road conditions—drain an additional $220 billion.
2AC Solvency Frontline – A/t: #1 154
4. Canadian manufacturing is equal to American, and most of the parts were designed by American companies.
HUGHES, 1996
[Lawrence, transportation planner with the New York City Department of Transportation, and has previously planned transportation services with the MTA New York City Transit Authority and the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, “Buy North America: A Revision to FTA Buy America Requirements,” Transportation Law Journal, 23 Transp. L.J. 207 1995-1996, HEIN Online]
Inclusion of Canadian buses regularly in American transit procurements will not represent a major change. Canadian and American transit equipment is virtually indistinguishable (using shared common designs and company origins) on account of nearly identical operating conditions. Canadian bus designs and some railcar designs were developed by American companies, and produced in Canada under license or by a Canadian subsidiary.
5. Protectionism can only hurt U.S. manufacturing, proven by the decline of industry after “Buy America” was applied to transportation.
HUGHES, 1996
[Lawrence, transportation planner with the New York City Department of Transportation, and has previously planned transportation services with the MTA New York City Transit Authority and the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, “Buy North America: A Revision to FTA Buy America Requirements,” Transportation Law Journal, 23 Transp. L.J. 207 1995-1996, HEIN Online]
Protectionism has not worked. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 provided the greatest inflation-adjusted level of funding for transit ever. The influx of dollars and regulation merely postponed the inevitable failure of the Buy America rules. Today, according to data collected by Booz, Allen and Hamilton, the U.S. railcar manufacturers have a lower market share than before the first 1978 Buy America regulation. The same is true with bus manufacturers, though not to nearly the same degree as with railcar manufacturers. All but two of the American bus manufacturers and the American railcar manufacturer are on shaky financial ground.
2AC Solvency Frontline – A/t: #1 155
6. Trade retaliation from other countries is killing domestic jobs by forcing out U.S. companies from competition.
FURCHTGOTT-ROTH, 2009
[Diana, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, “Starting a trade war with “Buy America”,” 6/19, ]
The tragic losers of “Buy America” are free trade agreements and potential job growth in the American economy. Seductively, “Buy America” promises workers they can have it all — cheap goods from China, oil from Canada, as well as protection from global competition. But real life just doesn’t work that way. In reality, “Buy America” is shorthand for fewer jobs as other countries retaliate. Many markets no longer have national boundaries but global reaches. America sits at the center of global markets for technology, equipment manufacturing, finance, banking, fashion, and advertising — to name but a few. When international markets expand, America grows. When barriers are erected to trade, jobs — and also wages —shrink. Trade creates jobs not just through investments of foreign companies at home, but also by increasing employment at exporting firms. This effect, though less obvious, is far more significant. That’s why “Buy America” hurts employment.
7. Free movement of goods is critical to restoring growth. Enforcing “Buy America” now will make the recession worse.
MALKIEL, Professor of Economics at Princeton University, 2009
[Burton, PhD Princeton, MBA Harvard, formerly Council of Economic Advisers and President of American Finance Association, “Congress Wants a Trade War,” 2/05, ]
This Buy American momentum is bad economics, and by threatening to destabilize trade and capital flows, it risks turning a global recession into a 1930s-style depression. Asked about Buy American on Tuesday, President Barack Obama told Fox News that "we can't send a protectionist message." He said on ABC News that he doesn't want anything in the stimulus bill that is "going to trigger a trade war." He's right. Suppose that we did not allow free trade between the 50 American states. Citizens like me in New Jersey would be far worse off if we could not buy pineapples from Hawaii, wine and vegetables from California, wheat from Kansas, and oil from Texas and Louisiana while we sell pharmaceuticals to the rest of the country. The specialization that trade makes possible allows all of us to live better. The situation is the same with respect to world trade. Both we and the Chinese are better off if we can import inexpensive clothing from China and sell them large-scale computers and data storage equipment.
NAFTA Negative 156
1NC Harms [Free Trade] Frontline 1
2NC Harms [Free Trade] - Extension #1 1
2NC Harms [Free Trade] - Extension #2 1
2NC Harms [Free Trade] - Extension #3 1
1NC Harms [U.S./Canada Relations] Frontline 1
2NC Harms [U.S./Canada Relations] - Extension #1 1
2NC Harms [U.S./Canada Relations] - Extension #2 1
2NC Harms [U.S./Canada Relations] - Extension #3 1
1NC Harms [Mexican Stability] Frontline 1
2NC Harms [Mexican Stability] - Extension #1 1
2NC Harms [Mexican Stability] - Extension #2 1
2NC Harms [Mexican Stability] - Extension #3 1
1NC Solvency Frontline 1
2NC Solvency - Extension #1 1
1NC Harms [Free Trade] Frontline 157
1. Their impact evidence is terrible. COPLEY NEWS SERVICE is old, uncredited and has no qualifications for speaking about global trade.
2. Non-Unique: NAFTA is not key to U.S. trade leadership. The U.S. is negotiating a Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal far larger than NAFTA.
, 2012
[Josh Eidelson; “Trans-Pacific Partnership: Larger than NAFTA?” 6/14, ]
The document contains draft text of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement currently being negotiated between the U.S. and eight Pacific countries. The Obama administration has shrouded the negotiation in secrecy, but the document, published by a coalition including the consumer group Public Citizen, sheds a light on the process — and the view isn’t pretty. “The leaked document,” says Todd Tucker, the research director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division, “shows that in all of the major respects, this is exactly the same template that was used in NAFTA and other agreements that President Obama campaigned against.” Public Citizen warns that the provisions of the agreement would allow other countries to join in the future, giving it the potential to become a new global trade agreement, larger than NAFTA.
1NC Harms [Free Trade] Frontline 158
3. No Impact: The history of protectionism proves “Buy America” will not cause a trade war, and any retaliation will be limited.
ATHREYA, 2009
[Bama, Executive Director, International Labor Rights Forum, “Why “Buy America” is Not Going to Start a Global Trade War (And Why Our Tax Dollars Should Not be Spent on Sweatshops),” 2/04, ]
As I have stated, we do not believe protectionism helps workers either here or abroad. A trade war among developed nations, or between developed and developing nations, would be a devastating turn of events as nations struggle to deal with the impacts of the global economic crisis. However, given the vast disparity in policy responses among both OECD and G-20 nations, it is unlikely in the extreme that any nation would be the first to "go nuclear" in this sense. The UK and France are struggling to make peace with their own domestic labor movements' demonstrations over unpopular policies. China, which is facing its own very serious unemployment crisis, with literally millions of angry and laid off workers, announced as early as November 2008 its own comprehensive domestic stimulus package, with major new investments in housing, rural infrastructure, health and education and the Chinese government has recently offered $10 billion in subsidies to its domestic textile industry. In fact, just today the China Daily reported that the Chinese government would be providing tax rebates and other incentives to domestic manufacturers. We don't oppose China's efforts to deal with its own serious unemployment problem and growing unrest. We just find it interesting that the international business press is not up in arms suggesting that such protections will spark global retaliation. Also, domestic procurement criteria have been around for a long time and haven't succeeded in sparking a trade war yet. The latest provisions, as our friends at Global Trade Watch have very helpfully pointed out, do little more than reflect what is already in US procurement guidelines. The House stimulus package requirement that US steel and iron be used for federal and state transportation infrastructure projects simply extends existing law (the 1982 Buy America Act). As these provisions already require most relevant federal agencies, including the Federal Transit Authority, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Aviation Administration, and contain a waiver clause, there is little the stimulus package adds in reality. Other federal procurement guidelines, such as that requiring the US Department of Defense to use domestic suppliers for all apparel items, including body armor, already govern more than $4 billion in federal procurement and have not had any dramatic effect on global trade in this sector- nor have they been challenged at the WTO or other trade dispute bodies. Thanks to research from Global Trade Watch, we can also note that the EU and Canada have excluded considerably broader swaths of their procurement activity from WTO rules than the Buy America provisions in question.
2NC Harms [Free Trade] - Extension #1 159
1. Give their COPLEY NEWS SERVICE evidence zero weight. The only warrant is that countries will not go to war if they cooperate, but countries cooperate in the United Nations everyday on non-trade issues. This takes out the entire advantage.
2. Trade does not decrease the likelihood of conflict.
GELPI AND GREICO, 2005
[Christopher, Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University; Joseph, Professor of Political Science at Duke University; “Democracy, Interdependence, and the Sources of the Liberal Peace”, Journal of Peace Research, ]
As we have already emphasized, increasing levels of trade between an autocratic and democratic country are unlikely to constrain the former from initiating militarized disputes against the latter. As depicted in Figure 1, our analysis indicates that an increase in trade dependence by an autocratic challenger on a democratic target from zero to 5% of the former's GDP would increase the probability of the challenger’s dispute initiation from about 0.31% to 0.29%. Thus, the overall probability of dispute initiation by an autocratic country against a democracy is fairly high (given the rarity of disputes) at 23 nearly .3% per country per year. Moreover, increased trade does little or nothing to alter that risk. Increases in trade dependence also have little effect on the likelihood that one autocracy will initiate a conflict with another. In this instance, the probability of dispute initiation remains constant at 0.33% regardless of the challenger’s level of trade dependence.
2NC Harms [Free Trade] - Extension #2 160
1. Extend our evidence. The U.S. is already working on bigger trade deals, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will have a bigger impact on U.S. trade leadership than NAFTA because they are global and not regional.
2. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is much larger than NAFTA and will shape all future trade deals and solve the Affirmative by banning “Buy America.”
THE NATION, 2012
[Lori Wallach, staff writer, “NAFTA on Steroids,” 6/27, ]
The stakes are extremely high, because the TPP may well be the last “trade” agreement Washington negotiates. This is because if it’s completed, the TPP would remain open for any other country to join. In May US Trade Representative Ron Kirk said he “would love nothing more” than to have China join. In June Mexico and Canada entered the process, creating a NAFTA on steroids, with most of Asia to boot. Countries would be obliged to conform all their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP’s rules—in effect, a corporate coup d’état. The proposed pact would limit even how governments can spend their tax dollars. Buy America and other Buy Local procurement preferences that invest in the US economy would be banned, and “sweat-free,” human rights or environmental conditions on government contracts could be challenged. If the TPP comes to fruition, its retrograde rules could be altered only if all countries agreed, regardless of domestic election outcomes or changes in public opinion. And unlike much domestic legislation, the TPP would have no expiration date.
3. Trade expansion is inevitable because globalization is empowering developing economies.
BRAINARD, 2008
[Lael, Vice President and Director for Global Economy and Development, “America’s Trade Agenda: Examining the Trade Enforcement Act of 2007,” 5/22, brookings.edu/testimony/2008/0522_trade_brainard.aspx]
We are experiencing a period of breathtaking global integration that dwarfs previous episodes. Global trade has more than doubled in the last 7 years alone. The entry of India and China amounts to a 70 percent expansion of the global labor force—with wages less than a tenth of the level in wealthy economies. This expansion is more than three times bigger than the globalization challenge of the 1970s and 80s associated with the sequential advances of Japan, South Korea, and the other Asian tigers. It is also far larger than the more recent integration of the North American market. If, as is now widely expected, these trends in population and productivity growth continue, the time will soon approach where the balance of global economic heft flips. According to my colleague, Homi Kharas, the so-called emerging BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) economies will account for over half of world income by 2050, up from 13 percent today, while the share of the G7 wealthiest economies will slip from 57 percent today to one quarter of world income in 2050. And by 2030, 20083 percent of the world’s middle class consumers will reside in what are today considered emerging markets.
2NC Harms [Free Trade] - Extension #3 161
1. Extend our ARTHREYA evidence. International trade is resilient. Even if the U.S. has “Buy America” clauses, other countries will not retaliate and trade relations will return to normal in the short-term.
2. Countries strongly prefer free trade over protectionism, and global trade will recover because countries will inevitably return to openness.
IKENSON, 2009
[Daniel, director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies, “A protectionism fling,” Free Trade Bulletin 37, ]
Still even more importantly, the trade rules are not so restrictive that governments obsess over finding ways around them. It is not the existence of the rules that compels countries to liberalize trade. Governments typically are not looking for excuses to raise trade barriers. If compliance were the primary motivation for countries to liberalize trade, we would not observe applied tariff rates that are so much lower than the maximum allowable rates. And we would likely observe much greater use of the various trade remedies across industries and more invocation of restrictions in the name of health and other technical barriers to trade. Trade liberalization is motivated by self-interest, and the disparities between bound and applied rates are explained by the fact that most members have a preference for openness. There are real benefits, beyond the reciprocal openings of others' markets, to keeping one's own trade barriers low. Nevertheless, governments have been invoking protectionist measures over the past several months. Here are just a few examples: * In India, tariffs and other restrictions have been raised on some steel products; * Ecuador raised tariffs on 940 different products by a range of 5 to 20 percentage points; * Indonesia limited the number of points of entry into domestic commerce for imported products and is requiring its civil servants to buy only Indonesian made products; and * Argentina made licensing requirements more onerous for so-called sensitive products, such as auto parts, textiles, TVs, and shoes. And here is how a top-circulation American daily newspaper described the global flirtation with trade barriers in December: Moving to shield battered domestic manufacturers from foreign imports, Indonesia is slapping restrictions on at least 500 products this month, demanding special licenses and new fees on imports. Russia is hiking tariffs on imported cars, poultry and pork. France is launching a state fund to protect French companies from foreign takeovers. Officials in Argentina and Brazil are seeking to raise tariffs on products from imported wine and textiles to leather goods and peaches. There may be nothing necessarily incorrect about the facts reported. But the tone and implications are possibly misleading. It is hard to accept the otherwise marginally significant facts without also accepting the provocative metaphors and sense of impending doom. Those actions have less antagonistic explanations and more benign interpretations. The actions of Indonesia, Argentina, and Brazil are consistent with their rights under the WTO agreements and will have a negligible collective impact on world trade. Russia is not even a member of the WTO and frequently behaves outside of international norms, so its actions have very limited representative value. And France has intervened to block foreign takeovers of French companies on other occasions this decade, so its actions are not particularly noteworthy. The popular media usually lacks nuance in its accounting of trade policy events and often intones that the present will be a replay of the 1930s.
1NC Harms [U.S./Canada Relations] Frontline 162
1. No impact: Profit motive means countries would rather develop the resources they already have then expand into the Arctic.
THE ECONOMIST, 2012
[No Author Credited, “Too much to fight over,” 6/16, ]
Yet the risks of Arctic conflict have been exaggerated. Most of the Arctic is clearly assigned to individual countries. According to a Danish estimate, 1995% of Arctic mineral resources are within agreed national boundaries. The biggest of the half-dozen remaining territorial disputes is between the United States and Canada, over whether the north-west passage is in international or Canadian waters, hardly a casus belli. Far from violent, the development of the Arctic is likely to be uncommonly harmonious, for three related reasons. One is the profit motive. The five Arctic littoral countries, Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway, would sooner develop the resources they have than argue over those they do not have. A sign of this was an agreement between Russia and Norway last year to fix their maritime border in the Barents Sea, ending a decades-long dispute. The border area is probably rich in oil; both countries are now racing to get exploration started.
2. Non-unique: U.S./Canadian relations are on the rebound.
OTTAWA CITIZEN, 2012
[Andrew Cohen, staff writer, “Obama hasn’t lost Canada,” 7/02, ]
There are also fewer “bilateral meetings” between leaders, they moan. Really? Barack Obama and Stephen Harper see each regularly in multilateral forums and telephone each other when necessary. From this thin gruel comes the bountiful repast of the worst relations in decades. Wasn’t it not long ago that we didn’t join the Americans in Iraq and announced it clumsily, inviting real anger? And we didn’t join ballistic missile defence? Is today worse than then? Or, are we back to the 1980s, when the U.S. ambassador was apoplectic about our stand on cruise missile testing, foreign investment and the metric system — and said so often, publicly? On balance, there is much to applaud in the current relationship: the approval of the new bridge to Michigan, the new negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a more efficient border, and robust trade and investment. If the relationship is a mess, Canadians are unfazed. Indeed, a recent poll finds 67 per cent us would vote for Obama today. He’s more popular here than at home. Problems? Of course. It may be that Obama and Harper don’t like each other personally. It may be there is distrust on issues, and the United States is arbitrary and abrupt with us, which is how a superpower acts in this big world. Years ago, that worried us. It shouldn’t today.
1NC Harms [U.S./Canada Relations] Frontline 163
3. Alternate Causality: There are numerous roadblocks to U.S./Canadian cooperation that are not trade-related.
BURNEY AND HAMPSON, Professors at Carleton University, 2012
[Derek, Visiting Professor and Senior Distinguished Fellow at Carleton University Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, M.A., Queen’s University, former Canadian Assistant Deputy Minister for US Affairs and Associate Undersecretary, ambassador to US and Korea, and Chief of Staff, Office of Prime Minister; Fen Osler, Professor and Director of The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, PhD Harvard and MSc Economics at London School of Economics, senior fellow at US Institute of Peace, “How Obama Lost Canada,” 6/25, ]
The United States’ mistreatment of Canada extends beyond economic issues. Washington has also failed to trust and respect its loyal ally. To name one small but telling example, when Canada ran for a nonpermanent seat on the UN Security Council in 2010, the United States offered little support. For whatever reason, Portugal was a more compelling choice. One would also think the United States and Canada could find common ground on security, economic, and environmental issues in the Arctic, an area of shared sovereignty and responsibility. Yet there has been little more than senseless bickering and public spats between Ottawa and Washington on who should attend what meeting of Arctic states. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, went out of her way to rake Canada over the coals for hosting a meeting of Arctic coastal nations in March 2010 and failing to invite other countries with “legitimate interests” in the region. But she was also taking a jab at Canada’s long-standing claims to the waters of the Arctic archipelago, including the Northwest Passage, which the United States rejects. While Canada and the United States squabble, Russia and China are aggressively asserting their own interests in the region.
2NC Harms [U.S./Canada Relations] - Extension #1 164
1. Extend our ECONOMIST evidence. The countries with interests in the Arctic have bigger financial incentives to develop their domestic energy supplies than they do in starting a war over risky and expensive new resources.
2. There is no risk of war because countries are already starting to cooperate.
HART, JONES, AND STEVEN, 2012
[Andrew, doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado; Bruce, PhD London School of Economics, former Senior Advisor to Secretary General of United Nations and Acting Secretary of United Nations Policy Committee, Senior Fellow and Director of the Managing Global Order Initiative at Brookings Institute and NYU Center on International Cooperation; David, Senior Fellow at NYU Center on International Cooperation, M.A., English at Oxford, “Chill Out Why Cooperation is Balancing Conflict Among Major Powers in the New Arctic,” May, ]
As growing multilateral momentum demonstrates, the Arctic is a zone neither of pure competition or cooperation, but is instead a mix of both. On balance, however, nationalistic pressures are being contained more effectively than has been assumed in many popular accounts. As climate change has multiplied stakes in the region, Arctic nations have tended to show increased willingness to work together, actively seeking to quell fears about territory annexation, unilateral resources grabs, and domination of key maritime chokepoints. It is perhaps unsurprising that a series of informal and formal multilateral processes have emerged to help states address boundary issues in an orderly way and to keep the commercial environment stable and accessible. States have a strong interest in a stable Arctic. Energy extraction and Arctic navigation are already subject to substantial environmental, technological and economic uncertainties. In contrast, geopolitical grandstanding is a preventable source of distraction. There is little reason for complacency, however. While some of the new cooperative arrangements are imaginative in conception, they remain limited in scope and contentious issues are yet to be tackled. In the future, the key risks are as follows:
2NC Harms [U.S./Canada Relations] - Extension #2 165
1. Extend our OTTAWA CITIZEN evidence. The United States and Canada have a long history of positive relations and will overcome any minor issue like “Buy America.”
2. The U.S. and Canada argue all the time, but relations are resilient and they will eventually come together.
BURNEY AND HAMPSON, Professors at Carleton University, 2012
[Derek, Visiting Professor and Senior Distinguished Fellow at Carleton University Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, M.A., Queen’s University, former Canadian Assistant Deputy Minister for US Affairs and Associate Undersecretary, ambassador to US and Korea, and Chief of Staff, Office of Prime Minister; Fen Osler, Professor and Director of The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, PhD Harvard and MSc Economics at London School of Economics, senior fellow at US Institute of Peace, “How Obama Lost Canada,” 6/25, ]
Of course, the U.S.-Canadian relationship has had its rocky moments before. In the 1970s and 1980s, in response to public concern over the United States’ economic domination of Canada, Ottawa enacted a wide variety of protectionist measures that irritated Washington. Eventually, the two countries recognized their mutual interests and resolved what differences they had, ratifying the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1987 and its successor, NAFTA, seven years later.
3. No Internal Link: Canada has unique access to U.S. officials, and this guarantees relations will always rebound.
TORONTO STAR, 2012
[Mitch Potter, staff writer, “Are Canada-U.S. relations on the rocks?” 6/26, ]
Chris Sands, a bilateral affairs specialist and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, laughed away the essay’s premise, noting that the White House has “never failed to give Canada a hearing” throughout this administration. “It’s not all roses and daffodils — there will always be issues in a relationship as complex as that of Canada and the U.S.,” Sands said. “I, too, have criticisms of Obama. But it just sounds whiny to me. The fact is, Stephen Harper has more meetings with Obama than some of the president’s own cabinet does.” He said the idea that Canada-U.S. relations are in trouble “sort of hearkens back to that era of people thinking ‘we’re special,’ ‘we’re better than the other friends,’ ‘we have a special relationship’ — and that was always a bit of a fantasy.”
2NC Harms [U.S./Canada Relations] - Extension #3 166
1. Extend our BURNSEY AND HAMPSON evidence. Even if “Buy America” matters to Canada, there are numerous other issues that the two countries are fighting over that are just as important and that the plan does not resolve. These include Afghanistan and Northwest Passage travel authority.
2. The U.S. is refusing to work with Canada on global warming.
BURNEY AND HAMPSON, Professors at Carleton University, 2012
[Derek, Visiting Professor and Senior Distinguished Fellow at Carleton University Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, M.A., Queen’s University, former Canadian Assistant Deputy Minister for US Affairs and Associate Undersecretary, ambassador to US and Korea, and Chief of Staff, Office of Prime Minister; Fen Osler, Professor and Director of The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, PhD Harvard and MSc Economics at London School of Economics, senior fellow at US Institute of Peace, “How Obama Lost Canada,” 6/25, ]
Beginning with Obama’s visit to Ottawa in February 2009, Canada has also made repeated overtures to find consensus on climate change, pressing for common North American approaches and fuel standards to curtail carbon emissions. No representative from the Obama administration showed any interest in such a strategy; instead, the administration preferred a unilateral approach, which died in the Senate. The bilateral “clean energy dialogue” Obama touted during his 2009 visit has become a monologue.
Harms [Mexican Stability Add-On] Frontline 167
1. NAFTA does not help the Mexican economy because there are so many alternate causalities.
VILLAREAL, 2010
[M. Angeles, Specialist in International Trade and Finance for Congressional Research Service, “NAFTA and the Mexican Economy,” 6/03, ]
The effects of NAFTA on the Mexican economy are difficult to isolate from other factors that affect the economy, such as economic cycles in the United States (Mexico’s largest trading partner) and currency fluctuations. In addition, Mexico’s unilateral trade liberalization measures of the 1980s and the currency crisis of 1995 both affected economic growth, per capita gross domestic product (GDP), and real wages. While NAFTA may have brought economic and social benefits to the Mexican economy as a whole, the benefits have not been evenly distributed throughout the country. The agricultural sector experienced a higher amount of worker displacement after NAFTA, in part because of increased competition from the United States but also because of Mexican domestic agricultural reforms. In terms of regional effects, initial conditions in Mexico appear to have determined which Mexican states experienced stronger economic growth as a result of NAFTA. Some economists argue that while trade liberalization may narrow income disparities over the long run with other countries, it may indirectly lead to larger disparities in income levels within a country.
2. Terrorists can’t get or deploy nuclear weapons because security systems are too strong.
ASIA TIMES, 2010
[Shibil Siddiqi, staff writer, “Terrorism: The nuclear summit’s ‘straw man’”, 2004/16, ]
In actuality, the threat of terrorists acquiring a working nuclear device are relatively remote. Building nuclear weapons is a complex and resource intensive business; if it were not, more countries would already possess them. That leaves the option of stealing a weapon. But pilfering a nuclear weapon is not simply a case of planning a sophisticated smash-and-grab operation. Nuclear weapons have multi-layered security systems, both technological and human. For example, access to nuclear facilities and weapons follows strict chains of command. Warheads are usually stored in several different pieces that require a cross-expertise and technical sophistication to assemble. In addition, they employ security features called Permissive Action Links (PAL) that use either external enabling devices or advanced encryption to secure the weapon. Older security systems include anti-tamper devices capable of exploding the device without a nuclear chain reaction. Not to mention that effectively delivering a nuclear device comes with its own hefty challenges. Thus, there are many serious obstacles to terrorists actually obtaining and setting off a nuclear bomb.
Harms [Mexican Stability Add-On] Frontline 168
3. The Mexican agriculture industry proves that jobs in non-manufacturing sectors are collapsing due to NAFTA competition.
ZEPEDA, WISE AND GALLAGHER, 2009
[Eduardo, senior associate in the Trade, Equity, and Development
Program at the Carnegie Endowment; Timothy, director of the Research and Policy Program at the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University; and Kevin, associate professor in the Department of International Relations at Boston University; “Rethinking Trade Policy for Development: Lessons From Mexico Under NAFTA,” Dec, ]
In agriculture, on the other hand, employment losses have offset most of the gains in the maquiladora sector and in formal sector services employment. As Figure 5 shows, total employment is down from 8.1 million in the early 1990s to 5.8 million in the second quarter of 2008, a loss of more than 2.3 million jobs.36 With Mexico’s unilateral liberalization of most agricultural sectors ahead of their NAFTA transition schedules, imports of subsidized grains and oilseeds have outpaced rising exports to the United States of fruits, vegetables, and meats. While the United States increased its farm subsidies in the postNAFTA years, the Mexican government reduced its support, placing additional pressure on already-stressed farming conditions. Mexico’s trade balance in agricultural goods with the United States has remained negative since NAFTA.37 Employment increases in export crops have been limited because industrialized agriculture dominates these sectors, offering limited permanent employment. There has been a significant increase in seasonal work, drawing large numbers of internal temporary migrants. These small and seasonal employment increases have been too limited to absorb losses from traditional agricultural sectors. Many of these losses came among small-scale farmers producing staple foods, most notably corn, where import competition undercut producers and real prices fell nearly 50 percent after Mexico accelerated liberalization ahead of NAFTA’s schedule for
sensitive products.
Harms [Mexican Stability Add-On] - Extension #1 169
1. Extend our VILLAREAL evidence. The data on NAFTA’s impact on Mexico’s economy is not conclusive because there are many other factors and evidence that have an effect. This means the plan cannot overcome other issues that are more important than NAFTA.
2. The Mexican economy is more affected by other events than NAFTA.
VILLAREAL, 2010
[M. Angeles, Specialist in International Trade and Finance for Congressional Research Service, “NAFTA and the Mexican Economy,” 6/03, ]
Not all changes in economic growth or trade and investment patterns in Mexico since 1994 can be attributed to NAFTA. The economy has also been affected by other factors such as Mexico’s previous market-opening measures in Mexico, financial crises, exchange rates, oil prices, and business cycles. Trade-related job gains and losses since NAFTA probably accelerated trends that were ongoing prior to NAFTA and are not totally attributable to the trade agreement. Isolating the economic effects of NAFTA from other economic or political factors is difficult. Mexico has experienced at least two major events outside of NAFTA that had significant economic consequences. Unilateral trade liberalization measures prior to NAFTA and the currency crisis of 1995 both affected economic growth, per capita GDP, and real wages in Mexico.
3. NAFTA is not strong enough to overcome alternate causalities to Mexican economic collapse.
ZEPEDA, WISE AND GALLAGHER, 2009
[Eduardo, senior associate in the Trade, Equity, and Development
Program at the Carnegie Endowment; Timothy, director of the Research and Policy Program at the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University; and Kevin, associate professor in the Department of International Relations at Boston University; “Rethinking Trade Policy for Development: Lessons From Mexico Under NAFTA,” Dec, ]
The NAFTA treaty and its implementation cannot be held entirely responsible for Mexico’s economic performance. The 1995 crisis clearly lowered Mexico’s medium-term growth performance. Competition from China put a brake on Mexico’s export growth and other related policy measures also had a more decisive impact on Mexico’s economy than NAFTA (for good and ill). For example, Mexico’s gradual devaluation of the peso during most of 1994 and sharp depreciation during the 1994–1995 crisis contributed more to export growth than the liberalization measures included in the NAFTA text.3 Still, NAFTA was a key component of Mexico’s trade-led economic strategy. Access to U.S. markets opened by NAFTA helped to increase exports and investment after the 1995 crisis. Most important, NAFTA locked into place a set of economic policies that collectively produced such disappointing results. These are the policies that are now in need of review.
Harms [Mexican Stability Add-On] - Extension #2 170
1. Extend our ASIA TIMES evidence. Developing a nuclear weapon is extremely difficult, and no terrorist group has the ability to successfully get access to nuclear material. Even if instability in Mexico would allow smugglers to work with terrorists, the terrorists do not have anything to smuggle.
2. Not even al Qaeda can make or use a nuclear weapon.
MUELLER, 2009
[John, Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University, American Foreign Policy and the Politics of Fear Threat inflation since 9/11, Ed. A. Trevor Thrall and Jane K. Cramer, p. 197]
Moreover, no terrorist group, including al-Qaeda, has shown anything resembling the technical expertise necessary to fabricate or deal with a bomb. And contacts — "academic," it is claimed — between Pakistani scientists and al-Qaeda were abruptly broken off after 9/11 (Albright and Higgins 2003: 54-55; Suskind 2006: 69-70, 20122). In testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on January 11, 2007, FBI Director Robert Mueller, who had been highly alarmist about the terrorist potential in previous testimony, was stressing that his chief concern within the United States had become homegrown groups, and that, while remaining concerned that things could change in the future, "few if any terrorist groups" were likely to possess the required expertise to produce nuclear weapons — or, for that matter, biological or chemical ones. If dealing with enemies like that is our generation's (or century's) "central battle," it would seem we are likely to come out quite well.
Harms [Mexican Stability Add-On] - Extension #3 171
1. Extend our ZEPEDA, WISE AND GALLAGHER evidence. Even if NAFTA helps some parts of the Mexican economy, it is a disaster for other parts. At best, NAFTA doesn’t help Mexico.
2. Any employment gains from NAFTA are offset by industries that are hurt by international competition.
ZEPEDA, WISE AND GALLAGHER, 2009
[Eduardo, senior associate in the Trade, Equity, and Development
Program at the Carnegie Endowment; Timothy, director of the Research and Policy Program at the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University; and Kevin, associate professor in the Department of International Relations at Boston University; “Rethinking Trade Policy for Development: Lessons From Mexico Under NAFTA,” Dec, ]
With slow growth and overall investment weak, it should come as no surprise that employment growth has been poor. Still, it is striking that NAFTA could bring Mexico such large increases in trade and foreign investment but generate so few jobs. Overall, limited employment gains in manufacturing and services have been offset by large employment losses in agriculture. With roughly one million Mexicans entering the labor force each year, the NAFTA model has failed to deliver what Mexico needs the most.
1NC Solvency Frontline 172
1. “Buy America” laws are critical to increase jobs and economic effectiveness for future stimulus efforts.
ALLIANCE FOR AMERICAN MANUFACTURING, 2010
[“Buy America Works” Feb, ]
For more than 70 years, the United States has had domestic sourcing or “Buy America” laws on the books to ensure that American-made goods and materials have preference over imported products with respect to government procurement and infrastructure projects. Including domestic sourcing requirements in job creating legislation would be the most effective way to ensure taxpayer dollars are used to create and maintain jobs and manufacturing capacity to the maximum extent possible, thereby vastly improving the stimulative effect of government spending. Under current law, domestic sourcing requirements apply to general government procurement, materials for highway and transit infrastructure investments, projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act), and elsewhere. “Buy America” is a proven job creation tool that is broadly supported by Congress, the American people, and hundreds of local governments throughout the United States. Domestic sourcing laws comply with our international trade obligations and are utilized by numerous foreign governments. For all of these reasons, “Buy America” provisions should continue to be utilized in infrastructure and other spending bills so that our manufacturing base can thrive and so that more Americans can earn a paycheck and contribute to the overall welfare of the nation.
2NC Solvency - Extension #1 173
1. Extend our ALLIANCE FOR AMERICAN MANUFACTURING evidence. “Buy America” laws are necessary for any transportation infrastructure project to be successful because it is the only way to guarantee quality products and American jobs. If the American manufacturing base withers, then any future stimulus will fail.
2. “Buy America” is the only way to protect the manufacturing industry, which is the most important component of economic recovery.
ALLIANCE FOR AMERICAN MANUFACTURING, 2010
[“Buy America Works” Feb, ]
The deterioration of our industrial base, caused in large measure by a drastic shift of employment to overseas factories, is cause for alarm as lawmakers search for answers that will result in more than just a “jobless recovery.” To put it simply, the manufacturing sector has been disproportionately slammed by this recession. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, manufacturing employment has fallen by 2.1 million jobs since December of 2007. Even worse, the steady and increasing decline in manufacturing in the United States has been ongoing for a much longer period. According to an article by Richard McCormack in the January/February 2010 issue of The American Prospect, “Manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million in October 2009, a loss of 5.5 million or 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs since October 2000. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941. In October 2009, more people were officially unemployed (15.7 million) than were working in manufacturing.” Moreover, the nation is in a fragile and jobless recovery after the fastest and most severe economic contraction since the Great Depression. In 2008, the country lost 2.6 million jobs; the largest loss in over sixty years. At the start of 2009, approximately 750,000 jobs vanished in a single month and unemployment reached 10.2 percent and has remained at 10 percent for the last three months with no appreciable signs of decreasing in the short term. Substantial federal, state, and private investment in our highway, transit, sewer, and clean energy infrastructure, must be made if the United States is to revive our economy and create good manufacturing jobs. Given the dire problems the economy has experienced and continues to experience, the inclusion of domestic sourcing requirements in an upcoming job creation bill is the smart thing to do. It would ensure that the materials used in a myriad of infrastructure projects are produced by workers and companies in the United States to the maximum extent possible. It would also minimize taxpayer funds going to pay for materials produced overseas, re-employ manufacturing workers here at home, and help bring back production capacity in sectors of our economy that have been hard hit by the brutal downturn, including the steel industry.
2NC Solvency - Extension #1 174
3. Current legislation will close loopholes in “Buy America.”
BROWN, 2012
[Sherrod, U.S. Senator, Press Release, “Senate Passes Brown Amendment To Strengthen “Buy America,” Support Ohio-Made Steel,” 3/13, ]
Brown’s legislation would require the Department of Transportation to improve transparency and reporting of proposed Buy America waivers, without unnecessary project delays, and ensure an annual accounting of federal funds used to purchase foreign-produced iron and steel. It also closes a loophole that permits the evasion of “Buy America” in some public works projects. The legislation also explicitly requires that Buy America preferences be carried out in a manner consistent with the United States’ international trade agreements. “Today’s Senate action is a positive step in closing the loopholes in existing law and ensuring that “Buy America” standards are upheld in transportation projects. We are thankful for Senator Brown’s leadership in ensuring that U.S. taxpayer dollars buy American-made steel, helping to protect ArcelorMittal’s operations, our 1, 700 hardworking Cleveland employees, and the local and regional economies that the steel industry supports,” said Eric Hauge, Vice President and General Manager, ArcelorMittal Cleveland.
Economy Disadvantage Negative 175
Background Information: Economy Disadvantage 1
Economy Disadvantage 1NC 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #1 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #2 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #3 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #4 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #5 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #6 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #7 1
Plan-specific Link: Port Security 1
Plan-specific Link: NAFTA Superhighway 1
Plan-specific Link: Rail Investment 1
Plan-specific Link: Public Service Employment 1
2NC Impact –Mexican Stability 1
Background Information: Economy Disadvantage 176
Economy Disadvantage 1NC 177
A) Uniqueness: The federal government is spending responsibly now because Obama has been a conservatively spending President.
MARKET WATCH, 2012
[No author credited; “Obama spending binge never happened,
Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s,” 5/22, ]
Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years. But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s. Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has. Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics: • In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget. • In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. • In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion. • In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August. • Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook. The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal 2009, before Obama took office. Since then, spending growth has been relatively flat. Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%. There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear. Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget. What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock. The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations. By no means did Obama try to reverse that spending. Indeed, his budget proposals called for even more spending in subsequent years. But the Congress (mostly Republicans but many Democrats, too) stopped him. If Obama had been a king who could impose his will, perhaps what the Republicans are saying about an Obama spending binge would be accurate. Yet the actual record doesn’t show a reckless increase in spending. Far from it. Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill.
Economy Disadvantage 1NC 178
B) Link: Transportation infrastructure costs billions in new spending, and it isn’t perceived as a priority now.
ECONOMIST, 2011
[No author credited, “Life in the slow lane”, 2004/28, ]
America’s dependence on its cars is reinforced by a shortage of alternative forms of transport. Europe’s large economies and Japan routinely spend more than America on rail investments, in absolute not just relative terms, despite much smaller populations and land areas. America spends more building airports than Europe but its underdeveloped rail network shunts more short-haul traffic onto planes, leaving many of its airports perpetually overburdened. Plans to upgrade air-traffic-control technology to a modern satellite-guided system have faced repeated delays. The current plan is now threatened by proposed cuts to the budget of the Federal Aviation Administration. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that America needs to spend $20 billion more a year just to maintain its infrastructure at the present, inadequate, levels. Up to $80 billion a year in additional spending could be spent on projects which would show positive economic returns. Other reports go further. In 2005 Congress established the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. In 2008 the commission reckoned that America needed at least $255 billion per year in transport spending over the next half-century to keep the system in good repair and make the needed upgrades. Current spending falls 60% short of that amount. If they had a little money… If Washington is spending less than it should, falling tax revenues are partly to blame. Revenue from taxes on petrol and diesel flow into trust funds that are the primary source of federal money for roads and mass transit. That flow has diminished to a drip. America’s petrol tax is low by international standards, and has not gone up since 1993 (see chart 3). While the real value of the tax has eroded, the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure has gone up. As a result, the highway trust fund no longer supports even current spending. Congress has repeatedly been forced to top up the trust fund, with $30 billion since 2008. Other rich nations avoid these problems. The cost of car ownership in Germany is 50% higher than it is in America, thanks to higher taxes on cars and petrol and higher fees on drivers’ licences. The result is a more sustainably funded transport system. In 2006 German road fees brought in 2.6 times the money spent building and maintaining roads. American road taxes collected at the federal, state and local level covered just 72% of the money spent on highways that year, according to the Brookings Institution, a think-tank. The federal government is responsible for only a quarter of total transport spending, but the way it allocates funding shapes the way things are done at the state and local levels. Unfortunately, it tends not to reward the prudent, thanks to formulas that govern over 70% of federal investment. Petrol-tax revenues, for instance, are returned to the states according to the miles of highway they contain, the distances their residents drive, and the fuel they burn. The system is awash with perverse incentives. A state using road-pricing to limit travel and congestion would be punished for its efforts with reduced funding, whereas one that built highways it could not afford to maintain would receive a larger allocation.
Economy Disadvantage 1NC 179
C) Impact: Breaking the government’s restraint on spending causes the economy to collapse.
BLOOMBERG NEWS, 2012
[Brian Faler, staff writer, “U.S. Risks Fiscal Crisis Without Budget Changes, CBO Says,” 6/05, ]
The growing debt “would increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget,” the agency said in its annual report on the long-term outlook for the federal budget. “Such a crisis would confront policy makers with extremely difficult choices. To restore investors’ confidence, policy makers would need to enact spending cuts or tax increases more drastic and painful than those that would have been necessary had the adjustments come sooner.” The gap between projected taxes and spending is so large, the report said, that if lawmakers merely wanted to prevent the debt-to-GDP ratio from increasing over the next 25 years, they’d have to immediately and permanently cut $700 billion from the $3.6 trillion U.S. budget. Fiscal Cliff A so-called fiscal cliff is coming at the end of 2012 when a number of major tax-and-spending changes will take effect unless Congress acts. The George W. Bush-era income tax cuts will expire as will a temporary cut in the Social Security payroll tax. About $1 trillion in automatic spending cuts will be poised to start, expanded jobless benefits will expire and the government will approach the legal limit on federal borrowing. Lawmakers are waiting for the outcome of the November election before deciding what to do about the fiscal changes, in hopes that voters will give them a stronger hand in negotiations. “CBO’s report is a warning that we must get our fiscal house in order,” said Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the second-ranking House Democrat. “However, Republican leaders’ insistence on finding savings only from cuts to essential services for the most vulnerable Americans will not get us any closer to the real, comprehensive deficit reduction solution we need.” Job Creation House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said the report “underscores the obvious: the president’s policies are not working.” Republicans passed a budget “that responsibly averts the looming debt crisis” and will “advance solutions that foster a better environment for economic growth and job creation,” said Ryan of Wisconsin. Lawmakers will face difficult tradeoffs in deciding how to phase in any deficit reduction, CBO said, in part because of the still-weak economy. “Abruptly implementing spending cuts or tax increases would give families, businesses and state and local governments little time to plan and adjust,” according to the agency. “Immediate spending cuts or tax increases would represent an added drag on the weak economic expansion.” Yet “cutting spending or increasing taxes slowly
[Evidence continues next page, no text deleted]
Economy Disadvantage 1NC 180
[Bloomberg News evidence continues, no text deleted]
would lead to a greater accumulation of government debt and might raise doubts about whether longer-term deficit reduction would ultimately take effect,” CBO said. Financial Markets For now, the financial markets are giving lawmakers time to sort out the fiscal issues. Low interest rates have allowed President Barack Obama’s administration to finance almost four years of a budget deficit topping $1 trillion without igniting price increases. While the amount of marketable Treasuries outstanding has more than doubled to $10.4 trillion from $4.4 trillion in mid-2007, debt expenses equaled 3 percent of the economy in 2001, less than when the U.S. ran a surplus in 1999. Still, CBO said interest costs will climb dramatically without cuts. It projected they will reach 10 percent of GDP by 2037. As debt mounts, interest costs will be a growing share of government spending, making it harder for policy makers to respond to unanticipated expenses such as wars or financial crises, CBO said. “To keep deficits and debt from climbing to unsustainable levels,” policy makers will need to increase revenue substantially, cut spending significantly, or “adopt some combination of those two approaches,” CBO said. “The aging of the U.S. population and the rising costs of health care mean that the combination of budget policies that worked in the past cannot be maintained in the future.”
And, economic collapse causes global war.
TILFORD, 2008
[Earl, Ph.D. in history from George Washington University, served for 32 years as a military officer and analyst with the Air Force and Army, “Critical mass: economic leadership or dictatorship”, 2010/06, ]
Could it happen again? Bourgeois democracy requires a vibrant capitalist system. Without it, the role of the individual shrinks as government expands. At the very least, the dimensions of the U.S. government economic intervention will foster a growth in bureaucracy to administer the multi-faceted programs necessary for implementation. Bureaucracies, once established, inevitably become self-serving and self-perpetuating. Will this lead to “socialism” as some conservative economic prognosticators suggest? Perhaps. But so is the possibility of dictatorship. If the American economy collapses, especially in wartime, there remains that possibility. And if that happens the American democratic era may be over. If the world economies collapse, totalitarianism will almost certainly return to Russia, which already is well along that path in any event. Fragile democracies in South America and Eastern Europe could crumble. A global economic collapse will also increase the chance of global conflict. As economic systems shut down, so will the distribution systems for resources like petroleum and food. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that nations perceiving themselves in peril will, if they have the military capability, use force, just as Japan and Nazi Germany did in the mid-to-late 1930s. Every nation in the world needs access to food and water. Industrial nations—the world powers of North America, Europe, and Asia—need access to energy. When the world economy runs smoothly, reciprocal trade meets these needs. If the world economy collapses, the use of military force becomes a more likely alternative. And given the increasingly rapid rate at which world affairs move; the world could devolve to that point very quickly.
2NC Extension – A/t: #1 181
1. Extend our MARKETWATCH evidence. New studies have come out proving that the federal government is spending at a slower rate than at any time since World War 2. Our link works on two levels: investor confidence, and actually putting new money into the system through increased spending. The plan violates current spending policy.
2. Experts and business insiders expect an economic recovery based on controlled spending.
YAHOO FINANCE, 2012
[Jeff Macke, “There Really Is an Economic Recovery Says Paulsen,” 5/09, ]
Where other people see a stagnant, fetid economy emitting more smell than productivity, Jim Paulsen of Wells Capital Management sees the beginnings of a wellspring of growth. Paulsen's unfashionable optimism makes him an easy mark for the cynics but his impressive track record on Breakout has earned the right to be heard. In the attached video Paulsen makes the case that the negative reaction to last week's uniformly underwhelming economic data didn't jibe with what's been going on in the bigger picture. "Step back and look at where we are year to date," he insists. "Four months into April we have created from the household about 270,000 jobs a month." The widely held view that last Friday's jobs report only showed a drop of 0.1% in unemployment, down to 8.1% because discouraged citizens simply stopped trying to find jobs is a particular sore point. Paulsen insists the workforce is simply growing more slowly because of America's aging demographics. There are certainly unemployed Americans dropping of the grid and ceasing to look for work but, in Paulsen's thinking, the organic growth of the U.S. labor force is more along the lines of 120 — 150k jobs a month. By that math the rule of thumb that the economy needs to add 250k jobs every month just to break even is outdated, making the employment situation look worse than it is.However you justify it, 2008.1% is a national disgrace. Paulsen agrees but adds "we got the high unemployment rate not because the recovery is so bad; we a high unemployment rate because the recession was so horrible." By the end of the year the strategist sees the number at 7 to 7.5%. As for the depressed housing market, Paulsen says, "the data is showing its best activity since before the crash." He also cites the impressive run rate in auto sales, consumer confidence levels, and corporate profits that "continue to be spectacular." There's a case to be made against every single one of his points. The jobs recovery is pathetic even with Paulsen's data. A recession of such depth "should" recover explosively, not be used as an explanation for why data remains horrible. The dot-com bubble's impact surrounded Silicon Valley and imprudent traders; a weak housing market (and, no, it's not improving) grips literally every American. Paulsen addresses and dismisses most of the above, sticking to his more constructive view. Waiting for a full recovery or economic armageddon serves no one. The trick of investing is keeping score while a situation unfolds. It's the difference between "true belief" and "good investing." So what's Paulsen's "tell" regarding the economy? Forced to give viewers just "one thing" to keep an eye on in order to best gauge America's economic progress, Paulsen returns to jobs. Create 270,000 jobs a month and we have ourselves a recovery, at least in his eyes. For whatever it may be worth, his eyes have proven to be pretty keen over the last few years.
2NC Extension – A/t: #2 182
1. Don’t believe the rhetoric: Obama is cutting spending at historic rates.
WASHINGTON POST, 2012
[Jamelle Bouie, “The myth of Obama's spending binge”, 2005/23, ]
But contrary to conventional wisdom and conservative rhetoric, Obama didn’t start the fire and, in fact, has done more than recent presidents to contain the blaze. I briefly mentioned this in yesterday’s post on the new Crossroads GPS commercial, but the simple fact is that Obama has run a shockingly cost-sensitive administration. Writing for MarketWatch, a project of the Wall Street Journal, Rex Nutting found that government spending has slowed dramatically under the Obama administration. From fiscal year 2010 to the present, government spending — including the stimulus bill — has risen at a 1.4 percent annualized pace, slower than at any time since the 1950s. For those who value fiscal responsibility, Obama is better than any of the past four presidents: Spending has nearly flattened under the president, despite clear signs that the economy needs more to boost its prospects. Indeed, I think most liberals would have preferred profligacy from the administration; even if some of the spending was wasteful, it would have helped short-term economic prospects. The simple fact is that there is no data to support the Obama “spending binge” of Republican rhetoric. At most, you could argue that Obama has locked in higher rates of future spending, with the Affordable Care Act, and has done little to slow the growth of Medicare. But even that’s suspect; Obamacare is unpopular, in part, because it cuts $500 billion from Medicare and tries to impose cost-controls on the health-care system writ large. Overall, the ACA would reduce the deficit by $100 billion in the next 10 years, and $1 trillion in the 10 years after that. In other words, Obama’s signature accomplishment — blamed for our debt and our sluggish economy — will do more to reduce deficits than any bill passed since the Clinton administration.
2NC Extension – A/t: #3 183
1. Extend our BLOOMBERG NEWS evidence. Without maintaining cuts on spending in the short-term, economic dominoes will fall that will collapse the economy. Their evidence is old and disproven by the last 4 years of continued recession; if the economy really could bounce back, we would have recovered by now.
2. New spending will raise the debt to unprecedented levels that their evidence doesn’t assume, causing consumer confidence to plummet and the rest of the economy to fall apart.
LOS ANGELES TIMES, 2012
[Lisa Mascaro, staff writer, “Rising U.S. debt could trigger a downturn, agency warns,” 6/06, ]
Amid election year barbs over taxes and spending comes a jolt: A new report says that a U.S. debt crisis could hit soon and imperil the economy if Washington fails to staunch the red ink. The nation’s publicly held debt will climb to dangerously high levels — more than 70 percent of the gross domestic product — by the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday. That’s a level not seen since World War II. Lower tax revenue and increased federal spending — some the result of the recent recession, some accumulated before President Barack Obama took office — have led to record-high annual federal deficits and soaring debt. The bleak fiscal outlook throws into stark terms the politically difficult choices facing lawmakers and the next president: Allowing the debt level to continue unchecked would lower the nation’s economic output and increase the possibility of a fiscal crisis in the years to come, the budget office warned. But taking sudden action to ease the debt load — by imposing new taxes or making deep cuts in federal spending or both — could slam the brakes on economic growth, pitching the nation into a recession in the first half 2013. Even if the economy expanded in the second half, the growth for the year would probably average just 0.5 percent. The report touched off a new round of finger-pointing in Washington and on the presidential campaign trail, as well as plaintive calls for bipartisanship. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential front-runner, laid blame at the White House. The report “confirms that President Obama has placed us on a path to fiscal ruin,” said Lanhee Chen, the Romney campaign’s policy director. “This is a president who promised to cut the deficit in half but proceeded to run four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits and accumulate nearly as much publicly held debt as all prior presidents combined,” Chen said. Total debt, of which publicly held debt is a major part, has increased about 50 percent since Obama took office, according to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Public Debt. White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president wants a balanced approach to resolving the fiscal problems, one that consists of new revenues and spending cuts. He blamed Republicans for resisting new taxes. “This is arithmetic, not calculus,” Carney said. “There is either an option that says dealing with our deficits and debt should — the responsibility for that — should be borne entirely, almost, by the middle class and seniors and folks who depend on programs like Medicaid, or it should be borne evenly, in a balanced way, which is what the president believes.” Yet with the outcome of the November election expected to hinge in part on the approach the two parties take toward economic policy and job creation, the two sides appeared no closer to bridging the political divide. The nation’s debt load has historically hovered at 38 percent of GDP, the nation’s total output of goods and services, but inched up to 40 percent at the end of 2008 before Obama took office. The public portion of the debt load is expected to rise to 73 percent of GDP by Sept. 30 and, if the Bush tax cuts and other policies remain in place, soar to 200 percent in 2037, according to the report. The public debt does not include transfers among federal accounts and is lower than the nation’s total $15.4-trillion debt load, which is already about equal to the nation’s GDP. Congress and the White House have tried, and failed, several times over the last year to strike a so-called grand bargain that would cut spending, raise new tax revenue and put the nation on a better financial course.
2NC Extension – A/t: #3 184
3. The economy is no longer resilient because consumer spending varies too greatly.
ECONOMIST, 2008
[No author credited, ““United States: The end of the affair; Spending and the economy”, 2011/22, ]
An important reason why the American economy has been so resilient and recessions so mild since 1982 is the energy of consumers. Their spending has been remarkably stable, not only because drops in employment and income have been less severe than of old, but also because they have been willing and able to borrow. The long rise in asset prices--first of stocks, then of houses--raised consumers' net worth and made saving seem less necessary. And borrowing became easier, thanks to financial innovation and lenders' relaxed underwriting, which was itself based on the supposedly reliable collateral of ever-more-valuable houses. On average, consumers from 1950 to 1985 saved 9% of their disposable income. That saving rate then steadily declined, to around zero earlier this year (see chart). At the same time, consumer and mortgage debts rose to 127% of disposable income, from 77% in 1990. Those forces have now reversed. The stockmarket has fallen to the levels of a decade ago. House values have fallen 18% since their peak in 2006. Banks and other lenders have tightened lending standards on all types of consumer loans. As a consequence, consumer spending fell at a 3.1% annual rate in the third quarter (in part because tax rebates boosted spending in the second), the steepest since the second quarter of 1980 when Jimmy Carter briefly imposed credit controls. More such declines are likely to follow. Richard Berner of Morgan Stanley projects that in the 12 months up to the second quarter of next year real consumer spending will fall by 1.6%--a post-war record. "The golden age of spending for the American consumer has ended and a new age of thrift likely has begun," he says.
2NC Extension – A/t: #4 185
1. Extend our TILFORD evidence. Our impact is specific to the United States economy collapsing and does not depend on other economies. Even if there is not a global economic downturn, the loss of U.S. leadership and influence triggered by a collapse is enough to cause war.
2. The United States is key to the global economy because it dominates global trade.
CAPLOE, 2009
[David, CEO of the Singapore-incorporated American Centre for Applied Liberal Arts and Humanities in Asia., “Focus still on America to lead global recovery”, 2004/07, The Strait Times, lexis]
IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by United States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The world has become accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a lot of economic growth worldwide,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the engine.' While superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the global economy has in fact been 'America-centred' for more than 60 years. Countries - China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they sell to countries that sell to the US. This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented benefits, but the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and later, many in the Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same time, this deep inter-connection between the US and the rest of the world also explains how the collapse of a relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime' housing, logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. To put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that there is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six decades. If the US does not drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US policies to deal with the current crisis are critical not just domestically, but also to the entire world. Consequently, it is a matter of global concern that the Obama administration seems to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing major banks to avoid declaring massive losses openly and transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in reality dead. As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US banks is the main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit freeze, thus ravaging the American and global economies.
2NC Extension – A/t: #5 186
1. Extend our BLOOMBERG NEWS evidence. Increased spending causes investors to slow and consumer confidence to decline, which are the most important factors in the economy. Even if government spending has some benefits, these are overwhelmed by the problems it causes.
2. Spending hurts the government’s ability to generate revenue, which prevents it from helping the economy.
WHITE, 2011
[Lawrence, economics professor at George Mason University , “From Pleasant Deficit Spending To Unpleasant Sovereign Debt Crises from The Clash of Economic Ideas,” Clash of Economic Ideas, p. 397)
Some members of the U.S. public, an agency of the federal government, and at least one bond rating firm became concerned. New federal spending programs (financial and auto industry bailouts, pork-filled ―stimulus, healthcare) and ballooning debt helped to trigger the “Tea Party” protests of 2009 and 2010 against what was seen as fiscal irresponsibility. The Congressional Budget Office warned in its July 2010 report that a “growing level of federal debt would also increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government‘s ability to manage its budget, and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates. What happened in Greece, Ireland and Portugal might happen in the United States. A hint of higher future borrowing costs was suggested in August 2011 when the Standard and Poor’s bond-rating agency took the unprecedented step of downgrading U.S. Treasury debt below its longstanding AAA rating.
2NC Extension – A/t: #6 187
1. Their evidence is only in the context of short-term jobs, but does not speak to the larger impact of government debt on investors and international creditors. More spending will collapse the economy through high debt and downgraded credit ratings.
ROE, 2011
[Phil, member of the Education and Workforce Committee and Representative from Tennessee, “Cut, cap and balance: A fight toward fiscal responsibility,” 5/18, ]
On Monday, the United States reached the legal limit of its borrowing authority – further evidence that out-of-control spending is a matter of national security. Serious reforms and government spending cuts need to be made to avoid severe economic disruptions – both in the short and long-term. The national debt and deficits are rising at an unconscionable rate. The national debt now exceeds $14 trillion, and the government is still piling up debt at the rate of $200 million an hour, $30 billion a week, $120 billion a month and $1.6 trillion a year. It’s clear we don’t have a revenue problem – we have a spending problem. Raising the debt ceiling without these serious reforms will only burden our future generations with outrageous debt. Worse, the president and Senate Democrats are saying they want a “clean” debt ceiling increase, which means that they want to continue spending and borrowing more money with no strings attached. My view is we must not raise the debt ceiling by $1 without simultaneously making deep cuts in spending and taking real steps towards a balanced budget. It is imperative to the future of the country that we fight for an immediate shift toward fiscal responsibility. That is why I, along with my colleagues in the Republican Study Committee (RSC), wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner asking him to “Cut, Cap and Balance.” Specifically, we advocated for discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year; enacting statutory, enforceable total-spending caps to reduce federal spending to 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); and a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal tax increases and including a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA). This proposal will put us on a path to prosperity, and I will work to see provisions like this are included in any final agreement. I believe it is prudent to limit the extension of borrowing authority as much as possible, in order to demand accountability from Senate Democrats and the Obama Administration. Every day, we see more and more evidence of the need to confront the problem now. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) report released in April adds urgency to the need for meaningful actions — both short and long-term — to confront the nation's debt head-on. Additionally, Moody's Analytics released a report several weeks ago forecasting a downgrade in our country’s bond rating. It’s clear that if we fail to stop the spending spree, our nation will face economic collapse in the long-term.
2NC Extension – A/t: #6 188
2. Increasing government debts causes investor panic due to concerns about inflation.
BOHN, 2010
[Henning, Professor at University of California Santa Barbara, “The Economic Consequences of Rising U.S. Government Debt: Privileges at Risk” Departmental Working Papers, ]
The rapidly growing federal government debt has become a concern for policy makers and the public. Yet the U.S. government has seemingly unbounded access to credit at low interest rates. Historically, Treasury yields have been below the growth rate of the economy. The paper examines the ramifications of debt financing at low interest rates. Given the short maturity of U.S. public debt – over $2.5 trillion maturing in 2010 – investor expectations are critical. Excessive debts justify reasonable doubts about solvency and monetary stability and thus undermine a financing strategy built on the perception that U.S. debt is safe. The rapidly growing U.S. government debt has become a concern for policy makers and the public. The ratio of U.S. public debt to GDP has increased from 36.2% in 2007 to 53.0% in 2009. Under current policies, the debt-GDP ratio is likely to reach 70% by 2011 and 90% by 2020. What are the consequences of this rising U.S. government debt? The paper will argue that a proper analysis of U.S. debt must account for the U.S. government’s ability to issue debt at interest rates that are on average below the growth rate of the U.S. economy. Evidence suggests that the low interest rates are largely due to perceptions of safety, with a secondary role for liquidity effects. Given the short maturity of U.S. public debt – over $2.5 trillion maturing in 2010 – investor expectations are critical. To refinance its debt, the government must ensure that bond buyers remain firmly convinced of the government’s solvency. Excessive debts justify reasonable doubts about solvency and about inflation. Hence they undermine a financial strategy built on a perception of safety.
2NC Extension – A/t: #7 189
1. Extend our TILFORD evidence. Economic collapses causes a loss of U.S. influence throughout the world, which destabilizes every region and leads to the outbreak of multiple conflicts. Their evidence is about the past, which doesn’t assume the dominant role of the United States.
2. Even if economic collapse is not an immediate cause, it leads to government policies that make war more likely.
AUSLIN AND LACHMAN, 2009
[Michael, resident scholar and Desmond, resident fellow at American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels,” 3/06, ]
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang.
2NC Extension – A/t: #7 190
3. Past collapses are not the same as what would happen after the plan. Current global instability and weapons of mass destruction mean global war is guaranteed after the next collapse.
[This evidence has been gender paraphrased]
MOOTRY, 2008
[Primus, B.A. Northern Illinois University “Americans likely to face more difficult times” 10/08, ]
These are difficult times. The direct and indirect costs associated with the war on Iraq have nearly wrecked our economy. The recent $700 billion bailout, bank failures, and the failure of many small and large businesses across the nation will take years — perhaps decades — to surmount. Along with these rampant business failures, we have seen unemployment rates skyrocket, record numbers of home foreclosures, an explosion of uninsured Americans, and other economic woes that together have politicians now openly willing to mention the "D" word: Depression. These are difficult days. We have seen our international reputation sink to all time lows. We have seen great natural disasters such as hurricanes Ike and Katrina leaving hundreds of thousands of citizens stripped of all they own or permanently dislocated. In all my years, I have never seen a time such as this. To make matters worse, we are witnessing a resurgence of animosities between the United States and Russia, as well as the rapid growth of India and China. As to the growth of these two huge countries, the problem for us is that they are demanding more and more oil — millions of barrels more each week — and there is not much we can say or do about it. In the meantime, if America does not get the oil it needs, our entire economy will grind to a halt. In short, the challenges we face are complex and enormous. Incidentally, one of the factors that makes this time unlike any other in history is the potential for worldwide nuclear conflict. There has never been a time in the long history of man when, through his own technologies — and his arrogance — he can destroy the planet. Given the tensions around the world, a mere spark could lead to global conflagration.
Plan-specific Link: Port Security 191
Opponents will spin the plan as too expensive. This is proven by previous debates.
SEATTLE PRESS-INTELLIGENCER, 2006
[Kristen Millares Bolt, staff writer, “Congress drops financing for increased port security”, 2006/06, ]
Nearly $650 million to increase scrutiny of containers shipping into Seattle and every other U.S. port was stripped out of a national security funding package moving through Congress this week in a move critics say makes the country more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Opponents of the $648 million for port security said it was too expensive and needed to be cut to satisfy President Bush's request that the supplemental budget for things such as the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina reconstruction be brought under control.
Port security is seen as too expensive in the current economic climate.
ASSOCIATED PRESS, 2011
[Russ Bynum, “US Ports Spend Big on Post-9/11 Security,” 8/12, ]
In the 10 years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the federal government has spent $2.5 billion on a sweeping security overhaul at U.S. seaports from Seattle to New Orleans to Eastport, Maine, paying for everything from perimeter fencing to motion sensors and training for security officers. Federal agencies with a direct role in safeguarding seaports, namely the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection, have added whopping sums such as $420 million for a unified ID card system for 1.6 million truck drivers, longshoremen and other port workers nationwide. The big challenge has been keeping a closer watch on imported cargo without imposing a costly slowdown on foreign trade. There's also a huge cost to the nation's 185 public seaports themselves, often passed along in tariffs and fees to the shippers. The Savannah port, for example, tacks on a $5.75 security fee for every cargo container it handles. "It clearly is unfortunate and an extreme cost financially on international commerce," said Curtis Foltz, executive director of the Georgia Ports Authority, who can see the lines of trucks pulling their cargo through radiation scanners from his office window. "But there's no real alternative today." U.S. ports worry Congress will make deep cuts in port security funding in the fiscal 2012 budget. An appropriations bill that recently passed the House included $1 billion in cuts to the Department of Homeland Security, largely by slashing its grant programs. The American Association of Port Authorities says U.S. ports stand to lose half or more of the funding they're counting on to fulfill security improvement plans that look five years ahead. "With the debt-ceiling crisis, we're just getting hammered," said Susan Monteverde, the group's vice president for government affairs.
Plan-specific Link: Port Security 192
Ports aren’t a fiscal priority because they are far more expensive than airports.
SECURITY INFOWATCH, 2005
[Press-Telegram, “Congressional Leaders Decry Level Of Port Security Funding,” 1/13, ]
Congressional intelligence leaders touring the Port of Los Angeles Tuesday decried the lack of federal funding for the protection of America's seaports. Port officials gave Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a behind-the-scenes look at surveillance systems and container inspections before a discussion with longshore, rail and maritime leaders. Harman, the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, co-sponsored a 2003 congressional bill that would have taken a slice of U.S. Customs revenue -- about $15 billion in 2003 -- to pay for port security upgrades. Harman said she is ready to try again with the bill and that she would like to see 30 percent of customs revenue diverted to security. "We cannot continue to spend 10 times more on airport security than we do on seaport security," she said. Collins, chairwoman of the Senate Government Affairs Committee, worked with Harman on the recent federal intelligence overhaul. She said there was little doubt that the ports of L.A. and Long Beach would be attractive targets for terrorists, given the volume of cargo moving through here and the huge population base nearby. Yet she had no explanation for Congress' paltry port security funding levels. "It's much more expensive to secure a seaport than an airport." Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn called for more funding, but said the ports are becoming safer each day. "We've increased the number of port officers by 30 percent, but we need a joint container-inspection facility," he said. "We need to do more inspecting of cargo. The half-million jobs connected to the ports need to be protected." His sister, harbor-area Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn, said she hopes Harman's and Collins' visit reinforces the need for federal money. "The ports haven't had the level of funding, of focus, of priority with the federal government that we think they should have," she said.
Plan-specific Link: NAFTA Superhighway 193
The NAFTA Superhighway is really expensive, doesn’t give revenue to US businesses, and exacerbates border security spending.
MCGOULDRICK, 2006
[Jason, Yahoo Voices Network, “NAFTA Superhighway Threatens Mid-America, A Look at the Issues Surrounding the NAFTA Superhighway”, 2011/17, ]
A new term has come to my attention within the last few weeks. A $125 billion dollar project called the "NAFTA Superhighway" is being proposed for construction in the United States. This 10 lane expanse of asphalt which could stretch 4,000 miles through the center of the U.S, will speed transportation of goods and commerce and, hopefully, expand the economy. The NAFTA Superhighway will start in Laredo, Texas, and have a fork near Kansas City, with one prong going to Vancouver and the other going to Montreal. Going each way on the highway will be 3 passenger car lanes, two truck lanes, and a rail line. There will also be fiber optic cables and fuel pipelines that run right alongside. The highway would allow businesses to bypass expensive U.S. ports and ship to neighboring countries who will deliver the goods via the NAFTA Superhighway. Sounds good, right? Why not have one going from New York to California? We would finally have a highway system that tops Germany's fancy Autobahn, wouldn't we? Well, maybe another time. Imports by truck from Mexico and Canada have been rising over the past 5 years (see table below). Today, many people already fear that Mexican immigrants are taking jobs away from U.S. citizens. What would those same individuals do if the government decided to make it cheaper to use foreign ports instead of those on U.S. coasts? They would say we're taking thousands of jobs away from American port workers because it's as much as 50% cheaper to hire a port in Veracruz to do the same job as a port in California. If this sounds familiar it's because it is just an extension of the illegal immigrant debate raging in America. When we think about illegal immigration you must consider border security. Sure, the American public won't handover port security to the United Arab Emirates, but they will give it to Mexican and Canadian ports? Not likely. We've already seen enough reporting on our inability to manage imports coming into the U.S. Our focus should not be on speeding up import and exports, right now. (Images of Lucy and Ethel trying to keep up with the factory conveyor belt come to mind.) How much and what are we going to let slip by security? The only custom's stop on the highway is in Kansas City and is Mexican owned. That would be over 850 miles within U.S. borders. Is it too much to ask that we allow the Federal Government to master border security as it is before we attempt to increase border traffic? Surely, our NAFTA partners are reasonable enough to understand our reservations. By the way, guess who collects the toll charges. The charges go to a Spanish construction company named Cintra, who is said to be the real force behind the push for the NAFTA Superhighway. Perhaps, what's most alarming is the fact that many of the decisions about the highway are being made without the oversight of congress. As for the funding of the project, Representative Ron Paul of TX has said, "Since this money was just one item in an enormous transportation appropriations bill, however, most members of Congress were not aware of it." In effect, our government's weakness (congressional pork) is being used against the American public. Rep. Paul also happens to believe that Cintra and other "business elites" are using the highway as a stepping stone towards a North American Union, "…complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union" he said. Congressman Paul has a point. I have no reservations against Spain, Mexico, or Canada, but the way this project is being pushed is deceitful and dishonorable. A foreign business should not be able to alter another sovereign nation's security or economy in such a drastic way and merely go unchallenged.
Plan-specific Link: Rail Investment 194
Federal rail programs have many hidden operating fees that guarantee endless spending.
O’TOOLE, 2007
[Randal, Cato Institute Senior Fellow, “Light Rail Doesn't Work,” 8/22, ]
I have always loved trains, and if light-rail transit worked, I would be the first to support it. So it is with some dismay that I review the sorry record of transit in Canadian and U.S. cities that have built light-rail lines. For the most part, light rail has increased congestion, harmed transit riders, and wasted taxpayers' money. Even so, there seems to be a consensus among politicians of all stripes in Ottawa that light rail is necessary, and the only debate left is how to implement it. But let's look at what light rail can and cannot do. 1. Light rail can spend lots of tax dollars. Rail construction is extremely costly, so it is a great way for politicians to reward favoured contractors. Siemens, the company that is suing Ottawa over the cancelled north-south light-rail line, is obviously more interested in getting lucrative contracts than in improving your transportation network. If you are a taxpayer, hold onto your wallet: between cost overruns, high maintenance costs, and endless proposals for new rail lines, your costs will never end.
Revenues cannot account for new spending. Any money spent by the plan will be federally allocated new budgeting.
BRADLEY, RIDGE AND WALKER, 2011
[Bill Bradley served in the U.S. Senate from 1979 to 1997; Tom Ridge, Former Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security Secretary; David Walker, Former U.S. Comptroller General and Founder and CEO of the Comeback America Initiative; “Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation,” July, ]
In recent years, the U.S. surface transportation system added nearly $175 billion annually to the national deficit, including deferred maintenance. The United States is one of only a handful of countries in the world where revenues raised to support the federal transportation system do not cover costs. Revenues represent just 62 percent of federal surface transportation expenditures, while all other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the group of developed economies, more than cover 100 percent of their transportation expenditures through user taxes—and sometimes several times over.1 Also, the practice of deferred maintenance unnecessarily contributes to this burden by increasing the cost of system upkeep to as much as $800,000 per lane mile over the life of the road.2
Plan-specific Link: Rail Investment 195
Err Negative on the link: Rail programs intentionally misrepresent costs to high inevitable new spending.
O’TOOLE, 2010
[Randal, Cato Institute Senior Fellow; “Urban Transit,” June, transportation/urban-transit]
Rail transit projects are notorious for cost overruns. In a 2002 study, Danish planning professor Bent Flyvbjerg found that, after adjusting for inflation, the average North American rail project cost more than 40 percent more than the original approved cost, while highway projects were 8 percent over-budget, on average.14 Two studies of more recent rail projects found that their costs were also 40 percent over-budget, on average.15 Here are some recent examples of over-budget rail projects: In 1998, Phoenix proposed to build a 13-mile light-rail line for $390 million, or $30 million per mile.16 Completed in 2008, the final cost of the 19.6-mile line was $1.41 billion, or $72 million per mile.17 In 2000, Charlotte, North Carolina, estimated that a light-rail line would cost $331 million.18 The final cost turned out to be $427 million.19 In 2004, the first 12-mile leg of the Dulles rail project in Virginia was projected to cost $1.5 billion.20 Today the projected cost has increased to almost $3.0 billion.21 In 2004, Denver's Regional Transit District persuaded voters to support a $4.7 billion rail transit system. The latest estimate is that this system will cost 68 percent more at $7.9 billion.22 While cost projections are not an exact science, Flyvbjerg believes that persistent underestimates of rail construction costs result from "strategic misrepresentation, that is, lying."23 Planners deliberately lowball estimates in order to gain project approval. Once the project is approved, they develop more realistic estimates, add expensive bells and whistles, and respond to political pressures to lengthen the originally proposed project.
Plan-specific Link: Public Service Employment 196
The plan would cost $1 trillion.
TCHERNEVA, 2009
[Pavlina, Assistant Professor of Economics at Franklin and Marshall College, Research Scholar at The Levy Economics Institute, and Senior Research Associate at the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, “Obama’s job creation promise: a Modest Proposal to Guarantee That He Meets and Exceeds Expectations,” ]
With direct job creation, we can be bolder in our goals and expectations. Suppose that all of the unemployed, including many discouraged individuals as well as homemakers who were previously outside the labor force, decide to join the public job guarantee program. Now suppose that we create the outrageous number of 20 million public sector jobs that pay living wages. The entire wage bill will still be only $500 billion. If the amount doubles to account for the cost of materials, management, and administration, we still end up with a budget comparable to the one House Democrats are contemplating—except that now, $1 trillion will have created 20 million new jobs! These jobs could include staffing state and municipal government programs and offices; improving our schools and hospitals; creating new, green infrastructure; and repairing old infrastructure. In other words, a job guarantee is entirely consistent with all of the objectives of President Obama’s plan.
Plan costs a ton of money and all of their evidence underestimates the cost because it doesn’t assume overhead and hidden unemployment.
MEHRLING, 2000
[Perry, professor at Columbia University, “Modern Money: Fiat or Credit?” Spring, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 22, No. 3]
Some of these gross estimates are clearly too low in that the only costs which are included are the direct labor costs of the Employer of Last Resort workers. Wray, for example, derived his estimates by multiplying the ELR wage by the number of workers involved, thus assuming that there are no further costs involved such as material costs, costs of capital equipment, and costs of supervisory labor. These costs are likely to be substantial and raise the cost estimates significantly (perhaps on the order of doubling them). It should also be nature of the jobs which are provided under ELR has to be consistent with the payment of the basic wage. Further, by excluding the costs of materials and of supervisory labor, the effects of ELR employment on demand in the rest of the economy is overlooked. A further cause of underestimation of costs arises in so far as recorded unemployment underestimates overall unemployment, and the prospects of ELR jobs would draw people into the labor force. Hence the number of jobs to be created would exceed the current measured level of unemployment. W. F. Mitchell (2001), for example, estimated the extent of hidden unemployment in Australia. He found that in the first months of 2001 when recorded unemployment was 6.7 percent, hidden unemployment was 2.6 percent (of the labor force), yielding an adjusted unemployment rate of 9.3 percent. The extent of hidden unemployment varies over time, to some degree in parallel to movements in recorded unemployment, and the extent of hidden unemployment was reported to vary from 2.3 percent (of the labor force) in 1989 to 4.5 percent (in 1983 and 1993). These figures would suggest that, for Australia, ELR employment may be of the order of 50 percent greater than recorded unemployment.
Plan-specific Link: Public Service Employment 197
Full employment is unsustainable and incredibly costly.
SAWYER, 2003
[Malcolm, Professor of Economics, Leeds University, managing editor of International Review of Applied Economics, Journal of Economic Issues, “Employer of last resort: could it deliver full employment and price stability?” Dec, ]
Unemployment, viewed as an "industrial reserve army" which "during the periods of stagnation and average prosperity weighs down the active army of workers [and] during periods of over-production and feverish activity ... puts a curb on their pretensions" (Marx [1867] 1976), serves to discipline workers. Kalecki argued that even though it was realized that a high level of employment required a high level of aggregate demand, and the government now had the techniques to secure a high level of demand, nevertheless substantial political obstacles to the achievement of full employment remained (1943). In sum, Kalecki argued that full employment is unlikely to be sustainable because of the loss of "discipline in the factories" and "political stability." He continued by arguing that capitalism could only secure full employment with "fundamental reforms." More recently, the models of authors such as C. Shapiro and J. E. Stiglitz (1984) and S. Bowles and R. Boyer (1988) suggest that the achievement of full employment is precluded because of the effects on worker effort and thereby on labor productivity. Specifically, Shapiro and Stiglitz have postulated that effort and labor productivity would fall to zero under conditions of full employment as the cost of job loss falls to zero.
2NC/1NR Impact –Mexican Stability 198
U.S. economic collapse will also collapse the Mexican economy.
VILLAREAL, 2010
[M. Angeles, Specialist in International Trade and Finance for Congressional Research Service, “NAFTA and the Mexican Economy,” 6/03, ]
The Mexican economy is strongly tied to economic conditions in the United States, making it very sensitive to economic developments in the United States.7 Mexico is highly reliant on exports and most of Mexico’s exports go to the United States. In 2008, Mexico’s exports as a percent of GDP equaled 31%, up from 10% twenty years ago, and over 80% of Mexico’s exports went to the United States. The state of the Mexican economy is important to the United States because of the close trade and investment ties between the two countries, and because of other social and political issues that could be affected by economic conditions, particularly poverty and how it relates to migration issues.
Economy Disadvantage Affirmative 199
2AC Frontline – Economy Disadvantage 1
1AR Extension: #1 1
1AR Extension: #5 1
1AR Extension: #6 1
1AR Extension: #7 1
Plan-specific Link Answer: Rail Investment 1
2AC Frontline – Economy Disadvantage 200
1. Non-unique: Economic experts and investors already perceive new federal spending is coming.
MCKENDRY, 2012
[Ian, CEO of Boeing, “Fiscal Uncertainty Biggest Drag On Econ,” 6/20, ]
Leaders of the largest U.S. companies say uncertainty surrounding the upcoming "fiscal cliff" has them lowering their sales forecasts and holding off on investments and hiring plans. The Business Roundtable, whose membership includes CEOs of U.S. companies that employ over 14 million employees, released the results of a survey Wednesday showing that respondents overall were less optimistic about the economy over the next six months. "While expectations are for a continued slow expansion, the results reflect member CEOs continuing concern over obstacles to a stronger economic recovery, chief among those concerns is growing uncertainty, whether the administration and Congress can resolve the so-called fiscal cliff issues," James McNerney, CEO of Boeing and chairman of the BRT told reporters during a conference call following the release of the second quarter BRT CEO survey. "I think the regulatory tax and budget environment is not clear and I do know of some companies who are holding back for some clarity," he added.
2. Non-unique: Claims about fiscal restraint are factually incorrect. The Obama administration is spending at historic levels, and that will only increase.
SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS NEWS, 2012
[Rich Lowry, National Review columnist, “Obama claim of fiscal restraint laughable”, 2005/31, ]
The Obama White House, in contrast, wants to wish away the historic federal spending that is one of its signature accomplishments. White House press secretary Jay Carney, whose job it is to dodge questions and elide facts without betraying any embarrassment, urged reporters the other day to steer clear of “the BS that you hear about spending and fiscal constraint with regard to this administration.” Not one to be outclassed by his press secretary, President Barack Obama kept up the edifying livestock theme by calling Mitt Romney's attacks on his deficit spending “a cow pie of distortion.” The White House has a deeply conflicted relationship to its own record. It is saddled with a bad case of spender's denial, a rare psychological disorder afflicting committed Keynesians facing re-election at a time of record debt. On the one hand, spending is the lifeblood of “Forward.” It saved us from another Great Depression. It is forging a glorious new future of green energy. On the other hand, the deficits and the debt that come with all this spending are alarming and unpopular. So Obama calls himself the most fiscally conservative president in more than half a century. When the president isn't extolling his transformative expenditures, he has a Walter Mitty life as the second coming of Dwight Eisenhower. He needs to consult an accountant and a therapist, and not necessarily in that order. If you torture the numbers just the right way — the Office of Management and Budget meets the Spanish Inquisition — you can
[Evidence continues next page, no text deleted]
2AC Frontline – Economy Disadvantage 201
[SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS NEWS evidence continues, no text deleted]
come up with a 0.4 percent rate of spending growth during the Obama administration. To get there, you have to ignore part of the stimulus (on grounds that Obama didn't have complete control of the budget in 2009) and play games with the bailouts (crediting Obama with spending cuts when they are paid back). Andrew Taylor of The Associated Press writes that “Obama bears the chief responsibility for an 11 percent, $59 billion increase in non-defense spending in 2009. Then there's a 9 percent, $109 billion increase in combined defense and non-defense appropriated outlays in 2010, a year for which Obama is wholly responsible.” Spending growth slowed after that, under the influence of the very same congressional Republicans that Obama excoriates for not allowing him to spend more. There's no doubt that the president inherited a fiscal nightmare. Spending spiked as the economy tanked. His response has been to spend yet more every year. Spending was $2.98 trillion in 2008, and the president's budget calls for it to hit $3.72 trillion in 2013. As a percentage of GDP, spending has been at post-World War II highs throughout his term. The laughable claim to fiscal restraint is meant to recapture some of Obama's former ideological indistinctness. Back in 2008, he could say — with no direct evidence to contradict him — that he wanted a net cut in federal spending, in his guise as a post-partisan pragmatist. That was several $1 trillion deficits ago. Now, the president can say whatever he wants, but his budgets are public record. He should embrace those budgets in all their Keynesian majesty. They are one of his most consequential contributions to our national life, and a true expression of his philosophical core and that of his party. In his denials, the president almost acts as if $5.5 trillion in new debt is something to be ashamed of.
3. No Internal Link – the economy is resilient and can quickly recover from shocks.
WASHINGTON TIMES, 2008
[Donald Lambro, Chief political correspondent, "Always darkest before dawn", 2007/28, lexis]
The doom-and-gloomers are still with us, of course, and they will go to their graves forecasting that life as we know it is coming to an end and that we are in for years of economic depression and recession. Last week, the New York Times ran a Page One story maintaining that Americans were saving less than ever, and that their debt burden had risen by an average of $117, 19951 per household. And the London Telegraph says there are even harder times ahead, comparing today's economy to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Wall Street economist David Malpass thinks that kind of fearmongering is filled with manipulated statistics that ignore long-term wealth creation in our country, as well as globally. Increasingly, people are investing "for the long run - for capital gains (not counted in savings) rather than current income - in preparation for retirement," he told his clients last week. Instead of a coming recession, "we think the U.S. is in gradual recovery after a sharp two-quarter slowdown, with consumer resilience more likely than the decades-old expectation of a consumer slump," Mr. Malpass said. "Fed data shows clearly that household savings of all types - liquid, financial and tangible - are still close to the record levels set in September. IMF data shows U.S. households holding more net financial savings than the rest of the world combined. Consumption has repeatedly outperformed expectations in recent quarters and year," he said. The American economy has been pounded by a lot of factors, including the housing collapse (a needed correction to bring home prices down to earth), the mortgage scandal and the meteoric rise in oil and gas prices. But this $14 trillion economy, though slowing down, continues to grow by about 1 percent on an annualized basis, confounding the pessimists who said we were plunging into a recession, defined by negative growth over two quarters. That has not happened - yet. Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I do not think we are heading into a recession. On the contrary, I'm more bullish than ever on our economy's long-term prospects.
2AC Frontline – Economy Disadvantage 202
4. No Internal Link – the United States is not key to the global economy because other countries have become more independent.
CARYL, 2010
[Christian, Editor at Foreign Policy and Newsweek and a Senior Fellow of the CSIS at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Crisis? What Crisis?” 4/5, ]
We went through a terrifying moment back in the fall of 2008. The financial system in the United States was imploding. It was impossible to predict how the effects would ripple through the rest of the world, but one outcome seemed inevitable: Developing economies were going to take a terrible hit. There was just no way they could escape the maelstrom without seeing millions of their citizens impoverished. Many emerging-market countries did experience sharp drops in GDP. Their capital markets tanked. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), sounded downright apocalyptic: "All this will affect dramatically unemployment, and beyond unemployment for many countries it will be at the roots of social unrest, some threat to democracy, and maybe for some cases it can also end in war." The Economist recently noted, "The Institute of International Finance (IIF), a think-tank in Washington, DC, forecast that net private capital flows into poor countries in 2009 would be 72% lower than at their peak in 2007, an unprecedented shrinkage." Virtually everyone expected to see the countries that had benefited so dramatically from growth in the years leading up to the crisis to suffer disproportionately in its wake. An entirely rational assumption -- except it hasn't turned out that way at all. To be sure, there were far too many poor people in the world before the crisis, and that still remains the case. Some 3 billion people still live on less than $2.50 a day. But the global economic crisis hasn't added appreciably to their ranks. Just take China, India, and Indonesia, Asia's three biggest emerging markets. Although growth in all three slowed, it never went into reverse. China's robust growth through the crisis has been much publicized -- but Indonesia's, much less conspicuously. Those countries, as well as Brazil and Russia, have rebounded dramatically. The Institute of International Finance -- the same people who gave that dramatically skepticism-inducing estimate earlier -- now says that net private capital flows to developing countries could reach $672 billion this year (double the 2009 amount). That's less than the high point of 2007, to be sure. But it still seems remarkable in light of the dire predictions. In short, the countries that have worked the hardest to join the global marketplace are showing remarkable resilience. It wasn't always this way. Recall what happened back in 1997 and 1998, when the Thai government's devaluation of its currency triggered the Asian financial crisis. Rioting across Indonesia brought down the Suharto
[Evidence continues on next page, no text deleted]
2AC Frontline – Economy Disadvantage 203
[CARYL evidence continues, no text deleted]
government. The administration of Filipino President Joseph Estrada collapsed. The turbulence echoed throughout the region and into the wider world, culminating in the Russian government default and August 1998 ruble devaluation. Brazil and Argentina trembled. The IMF was everywhere, dispensing advice and dictating conditions. It was the emerging markets that bore the brunt of that crisis. So what's different this time around? The answers differ from place to place, but there are some common denominators. Many of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) learned vital lessons from the trauma of the late 1990s, hence the IMF's relatively low-key profile this time around. (The fund has been most active in Africa, where they still need the help -- unless you count Greece, of course.) Many emerging economies entered the 2008-2009 crisis with healthy balance sheets. In most cases governments reacted quickly and flexibly, rolling out stimulus programs or even expanding poverty-reduction programs. Increasingly, the same countries that have embraced globalization and markets are starting to build social safety nets. And there's another factor: Trade is becoming more evenly distributed throughout the world. China is now a bigger market for Asian exporters than the United States. Some economists are talking about "emerging market decoupling." Jonathan Anderson, an emerging-markets economist at the Swiss bank UBS, showed in one recent report how car sales in emerging markets have actually been rising during this latest bout of turmoil -- powerful evidence that emerging economies no longer have to sneeze when America catches a cold. Aphitchaya Nguanbanchong, a consultant for the British-based aid organization Oxfam, has studied the crisis's effects on Southeast Asian economies. "The research so far shows that the result of the crisis isn't as bad as we were expecting," she says. Indonesia is a case in point: "People in this region and at the policy level learned a lot from the past crisis." Healthy domestic demand cushioned the shock when the crisis hit export-oriented industries; the government weighed in immediately with hefty stimulus measures. Nguanbanchong says that she has been surprised by the extent to which families throughout the region have kept spending money on education even as incomes have declined for some. And that, she says, reinforces a major lesson that emerging-market governments can take away from the crisis: "Governments should focus more on social policy, on health, education, and services. They shouldn't be intervening so much directly in the economy itself." This ought to be a big story. But you won't have much luck finding it in the newspapers -- perhaps because it runs so contrary to our habitual thinking about the world economy. The U.N. Development Programme and the Asian Development Bank recently published a report that attempts to assess what effect the crisis will have on the world's progress toward the U.N. Millennium Development Goals, benchmarks that are supposed to be achieved by 2015. At first glance the report's predictions are daunting: It states that 21 million people in the developing world are "at risk" of slipping into extreme poverty and warns that the goals are unlikely to be met. Many experts wonder, of course, whether the V-shaped crisis we've witnessed so far is going to turn into a W, with another sharp downturn still to come. Some argue that the Great Recession's real damage has yet to be felt. Yet the report also contains some interesting indications that this might not be the case. "The global economic crisis has been widely predicted to affect international migration and remittances adversely," it notes. "But as the crisis unfolds, it is becoming clear that the patterns of migration and remittances may be more complex than was previously imagined." In other words, these interconnections are proving to be much more resilient than anyone might have predicted earlier. As the report notes, receipts of remittances have so far actually increased in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, and Sri Lanka.
2AC Frontline – Economy Disadvantage 204
5. Turn: More spending is good for the economy because it leads to more private investment and growth.
WASHINGTON POST, 2011
[Neil Irwin, “Bernanke: Economy can withstand recent setbacks”, 2006/07, ]
The recent slowdown in the U.S. economy is being driven by temporary factors, and growth is likely to accelerate later in the year, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said Tuesday. The Fed chairman gave no indication that signs of economic weakness over the past few weeks, including a disappointing report on the job market Friday, will lead the central bank to consider new steps to try to boost growth, such as a third round of injecting billions into the economy by buying Treasury bonds. Rather than suggest the Fed might ease its monetary policy further — a controversial program announced in November is set to expire this month — Bernanke in effect argued that the things holding back the U.S. economy will not be fixed by the central bank printing even more money. “The U.S. economy is recovering from both the worst financial crisis and the most severe housing bust since the Great Depression, and it faces additional head winds ranging from the effects of the Japanese disaster to global pressures in commodity markets,” Bernanke said at the International Monetary Conference in Atlanta. “In this context, monetary policy cannot be a panacea.” William C. Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, gave a separate speech Tuesday evening that articulated a related idea — that the United States needs fundamental, structural changes to make the economy poised for stronger growth. He was a strong internal advocate of earlier rounds of bond purchases, or quantitative easing, but in Tuesday’s speech did not advocate for expanding that strategy. “We, as a nation, have to take steps that facilitate the needed structural adjustment of U.S. economic activity that will position us to thrive in the next chapter of global economic transformation,” Dudley said at the Foreign Policy Association Corporate Dinner in New York. “We need to make sure that the next business cycle will be more sustainable than the last, which was built on an unstable foundation of asset price gains, easy credit and outsized financial-sector profits.” Both speeches reflect a growing sense within the Federal Reserve that the central bank has done about all it can to try to support the economy. The Fed’s main policy tool of monetary policy can help economic growth by making more money available to households and businesses to borrow at cheaper interest rates; by keeping prices for other assets, such as the stock market, high; and by decreasing the value of the dollar on international currency markets. By those measures, the economy should be doing great. Banks and corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in extra cash, interest rates are low for all sorts of borrowers and stock prices have risen steadily for nine months. The Fed’s strategy of keeping its target interest rate near zero and buying $600 billion in bonds, expiring in June, has worked in some narrow sense but hasn’t been enough to create jobs in any large numbers. That being the case, Fed officials are unconvinced that the tools they have available, such as a third round of bond purchases, or QE3, would create meaningful economic improvement. That's not to say they are crowing about the economic situation. “U.S. economic growth so far this year looks to have been somewhat slower than expected,” Bernanke said in his comments. “A number of indicators also suggest some loss of momentum in the labor market in recent weeks.” But Bernanke said he views the causes as partly temporary, suggesting that momentum will accelerate as the year progresses. “With the effects of the Japanese disaster on manufacturing output likely to dissipate in the coming months, and with some moderation in gasoline prices in prospect, growth seems likely to pick up in the second half of the year.” The economic recovery is proceeding at a rate that is “frustratingly slow from the perspective of millions of unemployed and underemployed workers,” he said. Bernanke did offer a warning — that seemed to be aimed at some Republicans in Congress — that cutting federal spending too quickly could undermine growth. “If the nation is to have a healthy economic future, policymakers urgently need to put the federal government’s finances on a sustainable trajectory,” he said. “But, on the other hand, a sharp fiscal consolidation focused on the very near term could be self-defeating if it were to undercut the still-fragile recovery.”
2AC Frontline – Economy Disadvantage 205
6. Transportation infrastructure spending is the only way to overcome decreasing consumer demand and directly create jobs and growth.
NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION, 2010
[“The Case for an Infrastructure-Led Jobs and Growth Strategy”, 2/23, ]
As the Senate takes up a greatly scaled down $15 billion jobs bill stripped of all infrastructure spending, the nation should consider the compelling case for public infrastructure investment offered by Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and Ed Rendell (D-PA). Appearing on ABC’s "This Week" on Sunday, the bipartisan Co-Chairs of Building America's Future explained why rebuilding America’s infrastructure is the key to both job creation in the short and medium term and our prosperity in the longer term. Rather than go from one negligible jobs bill to the next, the administration and Congress should, as the governors suggest, map out a multi-year plan of infrastructure investment and make it the centerpiece of an ongoing economic recovery program. Here is why: With American consumers constrained by high household debt levels and with businesses needing to work off overcapacity in many sectors, we need a new, big source of economic growth that can replace personal consumption as the main driver of private investment and job creation. The most promising new source of growth in the near to medium term is America’s pent-up demand for public infrastructure improvements in everything from roads and bridges to broadband and air traffic control systems to a new energy grid. We need not only to repair large parts of our existing basic infrastructure but also to put in place the 21st-century infrastructure for a more energy-efficient and technologically advanced society. This project, entailing billions of dollars of new government spending over the next five to ten years, would generate comparable levels of private investment and provide millions of new jobs for American workers.
2AC Frontline – Economy Disadvantage 206
7. No Impact – Economic collapse does not lead to war.
MILLER, 2000
[Morris, Professor of Management at University of Ottawa “Poverty As A Cause Of Wars?” ]
Thus, these armed conflicts can hardly be said to be caused by poverty as a principal factor when the greed and envy of leaders and their hegemonic ambitions provide sufficient cause. The poor would appear to be more the victims than the perpetrators of armed conflict. It might be alleged that some dramatic event or rapid sequence of those types of events that lead to the exacerbation of poverty might be the catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership who might be tempted to seek a diversion by finding/fabricating an enemy and going to war. According to a study undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis. After studying 93 episodes of economic crisis in 22 countries in Latin America and Asia in the years since World War II they concluded that Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong... The severity of economic crisis - as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth - bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes. A more direct role was played by political variables such as ideological polarization, labor radicalism, guerilla insurgencies and an anti-Communist military... (In democratic states) such changes seldom lead to an outbreak of violence (while) in the cases of dictatorships and semi-democracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another.
1AR Extension: #1 207
1. The upcoming fiscal cliff will include a ton of new spending, which will prevent businesses from investing in the economy.
MCKENDRY, 2012
[Ian, CEO of Boeing, “Fiscal Uncertainty Biggest Drag On Econ,” 6/20, ]
"Moving forward in the year, we anticipate that the uncertainty associated with the so-called fiscal cliff will have some economic effects," Bernanke said. McNerney continued, saying "the cold-eyed view is that there will be paralysis" on Congress coming to an agreement on tax policy, adding he believes members would rather see Congress come up with an imperfect resolution sooner rather than a perfect situation later. McNerney reminded that when businesses make hiring and capital spending decisions they are investing long term and therefore need certainty before they make those investments. He said until then, businesses will remain conservative when it comes to hiring and spending decisions.
2. Rising unemployment proves the economy is stalling.
BLOOMBERG NEWS, 2012
[Christopher S. Rugaber, “US economy added 69K jobs in May, fewest in a year”, 2006/01 ]
The U.S. economy suddenly looks a lot weaker. U.S. employers created only 69,000 jobs in May, the fewest in a year, and the unemployment rate ticked up. The dismal jobs data will fan fears that the economy is sputtering. It could also damage President Barack Obama's re-election prospects. And it could lead the Federal Reserve to take further steps to help the economy. The Labor Department also said Friday that the economy created far fewer jobs in the previous two months than first thought. It revised those figures down to show 49,000 fewer jobs created. The unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent from 8.1 percent in April, the first increase in 11 months. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 160 points in the first half hour of trading. The yield on the benchmark on the 10-year Treasury note plunged to 1.46 percent, the lowest on record. It suggested that investors are flocking to the safety of U.S. government bonds. The price of gold, which was trading at about $1, 200550 an ounce before the report, shot up $30. Investors have seen gold as a safe place to put their money during turbulent economic times. Josh Feinman, global chief economist with DB Advisors, said Friday's report raises the likelihood that the Federal Reserve will do more -- perhaps start another round of bond purchases to further lower long-term interest rates. Still, he noted that the rate on 10-year Treasury notes is already at a record low 1.46 percent. "How much lower can long-term rates go?" Feinman said. The economy is averaging just 73,000 jobs a month over the past two months -- roughly a third of 226,000 jobs created per month in the January-March quarter. Slower growth in the United States comes at a perilous time for the global economy.
1AR Extension: #1 208
3. The global economy is slowing due to lagging U.S. growth and a European meltdown.
JASINOWSKI, 2012
[Jerry, President of the National Association of Manufacturers, "The Global Economic Slowdown", 2006/14, ]
The economic data gleaned over the past few weeks conveys a sense of foreboding about the health of the global economy. The likelihood of a global recession has increased significantly because now, in addition to the worsening euro crisis, we see a sharp slowdown in job creation, retail sales, manufacturing, and economic growth in the United States, China, India, and Brazil. Of all these worrisome trends, the big enchilada is the worsening economic crisis in Europe which has moved from concern about excessive sovereign debt to spreading recessionary conditions across the continent to a major liquidity crisis in the Spanish banks. Spain has over $280 billion in delinquent debts associated with real estate loans that have gone bad, leaving Spanish banks with marginal capital and liquidity to sustain economic development. When a nation's banking system craters, the overall economy soon follows. Some would argue that several big Spanish banks are effectively bankrupt. To further complicate the picture, unemployment in Spain is about 22 percent, and much higher for younger people. Consequently, capital has been fleeing Spain for havens in Germany and the United States. One result has been a spike in Spain's borrowing costs which have been above 6 percent for several weeks. The much-ballyhooed loan package for Spain announced last week was insufficient to calm European bond markets. In fact, Spanish bonds were downgraded again yesterday. The other great economic engines of the world are sputtering. The manufacturing PMI in China declined for the third straight month. Brazil showed virtually zero growth in the first quarter of 2012, and economic growth in India dropped from 8 percent to 5 percent. The United Kingdom has also turned to negative growth. Back in the United States, we have seen the manufacturing index in durable goods drop in May and first quarter GNP revised down to 1.9. The U.S. payrolls report for May showed only 69,000 new jobs for the month, against expectations of twice that, and the employment rate rose from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent. It's clear that U.S. exports and employment are being adversely affected by the recession in Europe and other parts of the world. The global slowdown is underlined by what we've seen in both equity and bond markets. Equity prices have been under substantial downward pressure. More evidence that the recovery is losing momentum is found in the fact that the 10 year bond yields fell to 1.45 percent in United States, 1.44 in the UK, and 1.43 in Germany. There has been a flight to safety as many global players fear that another recession is on the horizon, but in the present environment, safety is an elusive commodity. We can expect further quantitative and credit easing to take place in the UK, China, and the Eurozone, but our experience does not suggest it will help much. The crucial problem is not a shortage of money, but rather a monstrous overhang of public and private debt that undermines confidence and discourages consumption. There do not seem to be any easy short term solutions for deleveraging a global economy overextended in debt.
1AR Extension: #5 209
1. Deficit spending acts as a stimulus for economic growth.
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, 1994
[Edwin Darby, “The Case Against Cutting the Deficit,” 5/12, ]
A veteran Northwestern University economist, Eisner worries that the government is acting too aggressively to cut the federal deficit. His recent book, The Misunderstood Economy (Harvard Business School Press), makes a case for deficit spending when it promotes economic growth. Eisner is a past president of the American Economic Association and he has just received the annual award of the international economics honor society, Omicron Delta Epsilon. In the book, Eisner argues that deficit spending on the part of the federal government is a plus for the economy, not a threat, even though he leads off his opening chapter with a quote from James Madison: "A public debt is a public curse." And another one from Thomas Jefferson, wishing for a constitutional amendment "taking from the federal government the power of borrowing." By Chapter 5, Eisner cites the great British economist John Maynard Keynes to support the idea that deficits can benefit the economy. He also quotes Dwight Eisenhower supporting the full use of the federal government's "power" and credit to make sure the country never again suffers another Great Depression. Much of what is written and said about the damage done by federal budget deficits "is sheer nonsense," Eisner writes. The nonsense, he writes, starts with the idea that the federal government will one day go bankrupt if deficits continue to build up. It is nonsense because the government "can simply print the money needed." The book makes it evident that Eisner loves to teach. He tackles the idea that the interest the government pays on the national debt can eventually wreck the economy. More nonsense, he writes. Actually, the interest on the debt comes to less than 3 percent of gross domestic product, and most of the interest -- spendable money -- ends up in the pockets of the middle class via pension funds and other savings vehicles. As Eisner points out, government spending is financed by taxes and deficits. The good professor prefers deficits. When you and I and our employers pay taxes, all we have to show for it is a piece of paper, a form showing taxes paid. At best, deficit spending may reward us with spendable interest payments. All economic theory and all evidence indicate, Eisner writes, that people with more income and wealth spend more, to the benefit of the economy. Today Eisner is worried about twin trends that seem to run counter to the main thesis of his book. In Washington the talk is of reduced federal spending and balanced budgets and higher interest rates. All translate to less spending, public and private, and less support for the national economy.
1AR Extension: #5 210
2. Deficit spending helps the economy.
STIGLITZ, 2004
[Joseph, Professor of economics at Columbia University, “The Parties’ Flip-Flops on Deficit Spending: Economics or Politics?” The Economists’ Voice, Vol. 1 issue 1, ]
When Economists Agree Deficit Spending Works: To Correct Lack of Demand Indeed, this cynicism ignores a half-century of economic science — one result of which has been that there is an overwhelming consensus among economists about a few basic propositions. And one area of such consensus involves the key circumstances when deficits matter, and when they do not. Suppose the economy is operating below its potential — say, because of a lack of aggregate demand. In that case, an increase in aggregate demand can help the economy. And deficits normally increase demand. That's because the government is spending more money, or because low taxes encourage increased consumer spending — or both. Keynes made this point clear a long time ago — and he is still correct. No wonder, then, that the IMF’s imposition of fiscal stringency in East Asia and Latin America — when those countries already faced a downturn — was a disaster. The IMF policy had the predictable consequence of making the economic downturns worse, turning downturns into recessions, and recessions into depressions. The right prescription for the affected countries was not balancing the budget, but running a temporary deficit to stimulate the economy — as Keynes knew.
1AR Extension: #6 211
1. Transportation spending creates millions of jobs through direct employment and indirect investment.
NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION, 2010
[“The Case for an Infrastructure-Led Jobs and Growth Strategy”, 2/23, ]
Job Creation. Public infrastructure investment would directly create jobs, particularly high-quality jobs, and thus would help counter the 8.4 million jobs lost since the Great Recession began. One study estimates that each billion dollars of spending on infrastructure can generate up to 17,000 jobs directly and up to 23,000 jobs by means of induced indirect investment. If all public infrastructure investment created jobs at this rate, then $300 billion in new infrastructure spending would create more than five million jobs directly and millions more indirectly, helping to return the economy to something approaching full employment.
1AR Extension: #7 212
1. The best historical examples prove economic declines do not lead to war.
DEUDNEY, 1991
[Daniel, Hewlett Fellow in Science, Technology, and Society at the Center for Energy and
Environmental Studies at Princeton, “Environment and Security: Muddled Thinking,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April]
Poverty Wars. In a second scenario, declining living standards first cause internal turmoil. then war. If groups at all levels of affluence protect their standard of living by pushing deprivation on other groups class war and revolutionary upheavals could result. Faced with these pressures, liberal democracy and free market systems could increasingly be replaced by authoritarian systems capable of maintaining minimum order.9 If authoritarian regimes are more war-prone because they lack democratic control, and if revolutionary regimes are warprone because of their ideological fervor and isolation, then the world is likely to become more violent. The record of previous depressions supports the proposition that widespread economic stagnation and unmet economic expectations contribute to international conflict. Although initially compelling, this scenario has major flaws. One is that it is arguably based on unsound economic theory. Wealth is formed not so much by the availability of cheap natural resources as by capital formation through savings and more efficient production. Many resource-poor countries, like Japan, are very wealthy, while many countries with more extensive resources are poor. Environmental constraints require an end to economic growth based on growing use of raw materials, but not necessarily an end to growth in the production of goods and services. In addition, economic decline does not necessarily produce conflict.How societies respond to economic decline may largely depend upon the rate at which such declines occur. And as people get poorer, they may become less willing to spend scarce resources for military forces. As Bernard Brodie observed about the modein era, “The predisposing factors to military aggression are full bellies, not empty ones.”’” The experience of economic depressions over the last two centuries may be irrelevant, because such depressions were characterized by under-utilized production capacity and falling resource prices. In the 1930 increased military spending stimulated economies, but if economic growth is retarded by environmental constraints, military spending will exacerbate the problem. Power Wars. A third scenario is that environmental degradation might cause war by altering the relative power of states; that is, newly stronger states may be tempted to prey upon the newly weaker ones, or weakened states may attack and lock in their positions before their power ebbs firther. But such alterations might not lead to war as readily as the lessons of history suggest, because economic power and military power are not as tightly coupled as in the past. The economic power positions of Germany and Japan have changed greatly since World War 11, but these changes have not been accompanied by war or threat of war. In the contemporary world, whole industries rise, fall, and relocate, causing substantialfluctuations in the economic well-being of regions and peoples without producing wars.There is no reason to believe that changes in relative wealth and power caused by the uneven impact of environmental degradation would inevitably lead to war. Even if environmental degradation were to destroy the basic social and economic fabric of a country or region, the impact on international order may not be very great. Among the first casualties in such country would be the capacity to wage war. The poor and wretched of the earth may be able to deny an outside aggressor an easy conquest, but they are themselves a minimal threat to other states.Contemporary offensive military operations require complex organizational skills, specialized industrial products and surplus wealth.
Plan-specific Link Answer: Rail Investment 213
Government spending is inevitable: if there is no rail infrastructure, the government will have to pay for more roads.
LONGMAN, 2009
[Phillip, Senior Research Fellow with the New America Foundation’s Health Policy Program, former deputy assistant managing editor and senior writer at US News and World Report, winner of UCLA Gerald Loeb Award, and Knight-Bagheot Fellow at Columbia University; “Back on Tracks,” Washington Monthly, Jan/Feb, ]
The alternative is for the public to help pay for rail infrastructure. Actually, it's not much of a choice. Unlike private investors,the government must either invest in shoring up the railroads' overwhelmed infrastructure or pay in other ways. Failing to rebuild rail infrastructure will simply further move the burden of ever-increasing shipping demands on to the highways, the expansion and maintenance of which does not come free. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (hardly as hill for the rail industry) estimates that without public investment in rail capacity 450 million tons of freight will shift to highways, costing shippers$162 billion and highway users $238 billion (in travel time, operating, and accident costs), and adding $10 billion to highway costs over the next twenty years. "Inclusion of costs for bridges, interchanges, etc., could double this estimate," their report adds.
Federalism Disadvantage Negative 214
Background Information: Federalism 1
Federalism Disadvantage 1NC 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #1 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #2 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #3 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #4 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #5 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #6 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #7 1
Plan-specific Link: Rail Investment 1
Plan-specific Link: Port Security 1
2NC Impact: Terrorism 1
2NC Impact: Economy 1
Background Information: Federalism 215
Federalism Disadvantage 1NC 216
A. Uniqueness: The recent Supreme Court healthcare decision set the state for renewed federalism by allowing states to challenge federal funding requirements.
DAVENPORT, 2012
[David fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University's policy think tank; “Federalism's Silver Lining in the Healthcare Decision,” Forbes, 2006/29, ]
Today, the Court said the limit on the federal spending power had been improperly crossed by Congress in the healthcare reform bill. Rather than the “relatively mild inducement” the Court found when five percent of South Dakota’s highway funds were at risk, today’s Court said that losing all of a state’s Medicaid funding was more like “a gun to the head.” The Court noted that Medicaid spending accounts for over 20% of the average state’s total budget, whereas 5% of South Dakota’s highway funding was less than one half of one percent of its total budget at the time. So we now know there is some limit beyond which the federal government may not go in withholding state funding to incentivize (bribe?) a state to do Washington’s bidding. I can hardly wait for some states to follow this holding right back into court to challenge the federal takeover of K-12 education. Over the last decade, beginning with President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind legislation to President Obama’s Race to the Top grants, the federal government has gone from the back seat to the driver’s seat in K-12 education policy. What was only a decade ago cited as the classic example of a state or local policy matter, K-12 education is now dominated by federal testing and accountability measures, and now the beginnings of a national curriculum. Although it falls somewhere between South Dakota’s share of federal highway money and the average state’s federal Medicaid money, the Court today opened the door for such a challenge. Beyond the money, it is the kind of pervasive and dominating scheme that should be examined. So this is not just a theoretical victory, but perhaps the setting of a practical stage for more state challenges to federal power.
Federalism Disadvantage 1NC 217
B. Link: Transportation policy is a critical test of states’ rights against federal control. New federal investment will hurt state innovation and authority.
HOROWITZ, 2012
[Daniel, Deputy Political Director for the Madison Project; “Devolve Transportation Spending to States,” 1/19, ]
One of the numerous legislative deadlines that Congress will be forced to confront this session is the expiration of the 8th short-term extension of the 2005 surface transportation authorization law (SAFETEA-LU). With federal transportation spending growing beyond its revenue source, an imbalance between donor and recipient states, inefficient and superfluous construction projects popping up all over the country, and burdensome mass transit mandates on states, it is time to inject some federalism into transportation spending. Throughout the presidential campaign, many of the candidates have expressed broad views of state’s rights, while decrying the expansion of the federal government. In doing so, some of the candidates have expressed the conviction that states have the right to implement tyranny or pick winners and losers, as long as the federal government stays out of it. Romneycare and state subsidies for green energy are good examples. The reality is that states don’t have rights; they certainly don’t have the power to impose tyranny on citizens by forcing them to buy health insurance or regulating the water in their toilet bowels – to name a few. They do, however, reserve powers under our federalist system of governance to implement legitimate functions of government. A quintessential example of such a legitimate power is control over transportation and infrastructure spending.
C. Impact: 1) No solvency – A breakdown of federalism causes policy overstretch at the Federal level, preventing the plan from solving the Harms as well as preventing solutions to economic collapse, terrorism, and global instability.
NIVOLA, 2010
[Pietro, senior fellow and served as VP and director of Governance Studies for Brookings Institute; “Rebalancing American Federalism”,” The American Thinker, Mar/Apr, ]
Whatever else it is supposed to do, a federal system of government should offer policymakers a division of labor. Perhaps the first to fully appreciate that advantage was Alexis de Tocqueville. He admired the federated regime of the United States because it enabled its central government to focus on primary public obligations (“a small number of objects”, he stressed, “sufficiently prominent to attract its attention”), leaving what he called society’s countless “secondary affairs” to lower levels of administration.1 Such a system, in other words, could help the central authorities keep their priorities straight. Thinking along those lines warrants renewed emphasis today. America’s national government has had its hands full coping with a deep and lingering economic crisis and onerous security challenges around the world. It cannot, or at any rate ought not, keep piling on top of those daunting tasks a second-tier agenda that injudiciously dabbles in too many decisions and duties best consigned to local entities. Turning every imaginable issue into a Federal case, so to speak, diverts and polarizes political leaders at the national level, and erodes recognition of local responsibilities. A kind of attention deficit disorder besets anybody who attempts to do a little of everything rather than a few important things well. Although not a root cause of catastrophes like the submersion of a historic American city by a hurricane in 2005, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the great financial bust of 2008 or the successful resurgence of the Taliban in Central Asia, an overstretched and distracted government stands less chance of mitigating such tragedies.
Federalism Disadvantage 1NC 218
2) International Modeling - The foundations for federalism in Iraq already exist, and a stronger U.S. example will be modeled and create stability.
CHANDRASEKARAN, 2007
[Rajiv, former Baghdad bureau chief at the Washington Post; “Could American-Style Federalism Stabilize Iraq?” 10/26, ]
When it comes to fixing the mess in Iraq, there's an idea gaining currency in Washington. It's not new, but it is increasingly being discussed behind the scenes. It's not something the Bush administration wants to talk about in public. At least, not yet. But I've picked up hints in off-the-record conversations with well-connected officials. It's a plan that would allow for a significant reduction in troop levels over the next year. It's a plan that could encourage more Iraqis to fight extremists. What is it? Call it states' rights — in the model of our American Founding Fathers. And proponents say it may well be the best option to keep Iraq together. Back in 2003, the American occupation administrators who set up shop in the Green Zone wanted to fashion a new nation that would have a strong central government. They thought that handing authority to local leaders would result in the breakup of Iraq. But now, four-and-a-half years later, violence has hardened ethnic and sectarian identities. Genuine nationalism hasn't emerged. That's why local sectarian militias are more powerful than the army. The militiamen are committed to fight for their religious brethren. Soldiers in Iraq's army aren't sure what they're fighting for. Proponents of states' rights say accepting the reality of Iraq's sectarian differences presents the best hope of saving Iraq. The goal, they say, isn't to chop Iraq into three separate countries. Instead, it is to provide genuine authority and resources to Iraq's provinces. Think of how the Republican Party in the United States has traditionally viewed the issue of states' rights, and apply it to Iraq. Allow each province to have its own National Guard. To spend its share of the national budget. To effectively govern itself. Certain functions, like the printing of money, would still remain in the hands of the national government. But most day-to-day responsibilities would be given to local leaders. Consider the success we've had in combating al Qaida in Anbar province. Instead of asking Iraq's ragtag army to take on the terrorists, we're working with local Sunni tribesmen. They're fighting with loyalty and dedication. That's because they're fighting for their fellow Sunni leaders, not the Shiite-dominated government back in Baghdad. Sure, this strategy has no shortage of challenges. There would have to be a fair way to distribute Iraq's oil revenue, for instance. Local officials would have to learn how to run their own budgets. Iraq's constitution already enshrines federalism. But proponents say the United States needs to do more to encourage the Iraqis to embrace it. People have criticized the effort to impose American-style democracy on Iraq. But supporters of states' rights say it is one element of our democracy that we really do need to share with the Iraqis.
Federalism Disadvantage 1NC 219
And, an Iraqi civil war spills over throughout the world, and causes economic collapse and world war.
FERGUSON, Professor of History at Harvard University, 2006
[Niall, PhD Oxford and Senior Fellow at Oxford and Hoover Institution at Stanford,; “The Next War of the World” 9/11, ]
What makes the escalating civil war in Iraq so disturbing is that it has the potential to spill over into neighboring countries. The Iranian government is already taking more than a casual interest in the politics of post-Saddam Iraq. And yet Iran, with its Sunni and Kurdish minorities, is no more homogeneous than Iraq. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria cannot be expected to look on insouciantly if the Sunni minority in central Iraq begins to lose out to what may seem to be an Iranian-backed tyranny of the majority. The recent history of Lebanon offers a reminder that in the Middle East there is no such thing as a contained civil war. Neighbors are always likely to take an unhealthy interest in any country with fissiparous tendencies. The obvious conclusion is that a new "war of the world" may already be brewing in a region that, incredible though it may seem, has yet to sate its appetite for violence. And the ramifications of such a Middle Eastern conflagration would be truly global. Economically, the world would have to contend with oil at above $100 a barrel. Politically, those countries in western Europe with substantial Muslim populations might also find themselves affected as sectarian tensions radiated outward. Meanwhile, the ethnic war between Jews and Arabs in Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank shows no sign of abating. Is it credible that the United States will remain unscathed if the Middle East erupts? Although such an outcome may seem to be a low-probability, nightmare scenario, it is already more likely than the scenario of enduring peace in the region. If the history of the twentieth century is any guide, only economic stabilization and a credible reassertion of U.S. authority are likely to halt the drift toward chaos. Neither is a likely prospect. On the contrary, the speed with which responsibility for security in Iraq is being handed over to the predominantly Shiite and Kurdish security forces may accelerate the descent into internecine strife. Significantly, the audio statement released by Osama bin Laden in June excoriated not only the American-led "occupiers" of Iraq but also "certain sectors of the Iraqi people -- those who refused [neutrality] and stood to fight on the side of the crusaders." His allusions to "rejectionists," "traitors," and "agents of the Americans" were clearly intended to justify al Qaeda's policy of targeting Iraq's Shiites.
2NC Extension – A/t: #1 220
1. Extend our DAVENPORT evidence – the recent Supreme Court decision upholding healthcare set clear limits on federal intervention into state authority. This is a new precedent that their evidence does not assume.
2. We will win Issue Specific Uniqueness – even if they win that the federal government is involved in some policy areas, we will win that the states are in control of transportation and transportation is key to the overall signal of federalism.
2NC Extension – A/t: #2 221
1. There are several proposals in Congress to give transportation control back to the states. Prefer our evidence because it is more recent and more specific.
UTT, 2012
[Ronald, Ph.D, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation; ““Turn Back” Transportation to the States,” 2/07, ]
Under the turnback proposals that have been introduced in Congress since 1997, the federal government would incrementally shift to the states, over a period of five or six years, both the highway responsibilities and the financial resources to fulfill them. Most proposals would accomplish this by reducing the federal gas tax by annual increments—say four cents per year—and allowing the state to add that amount to the gas tax that the state collects on its own. The total tax paid by the motorist stays the same, but the allocation of that revenue shifts to the states year by year until the collection of all 18.3 cents per dollar of the federal fuel tax is shifted to the states and all federal collections cease. Currently, the most direct legislation to implement turnback is the Transportation Empowerment Act, introduced in the Senate as S. 1164 by Senator Jim DeMint (R–SC) and in the House as H.R. 3264 by Representative Tom Graves (R–GA). Under the act, states would still be responsible for interstate maintenance and improvement, as they are today, but would now be free to do it in a way that best suits their interests, whether through tolls, partnerships, privatization, competitive contracting, or some combination of means.
2. Even if they haven’t passed, bills to turn-back transportation to the states are gaining momentum and leading to real federalism victories.
UTT, 2012
[Ronald, Ph.D, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation; ““Turn Back” Transportation to the States,” 2/07, ]
The first “turn back” bill was introduced in Congress in 1997 by Senator Connie Mack (R–FL) and Representative John Kasich (R–OH). It earned about two dozen co-sponsors and received the explicit endorsement of more than 20 states—mostly donors. Since then, some version of a turnback bill has been introduced in every Congress, and while none has come close to passing, the defects in the program that have led to ongoing interest in the bills have come under scrutiny and concern. Subsequent reauthorization bills have attempted, with some modest success, to address the equity issue. More recently, however, the House and Senate versions of the next reauthorization bill propose to reverse the past trends toward an increasingly Washington-centric program significantly by giving the states more flexibility in deciding how the funds they receive from the federal trust fund can be spent. With momentum moving in turnback’s favor, the existence of these bills will keep the pressure on for a program of greater state responsibility and discretion.
2NC Extension – A/t: #3 222
1. Extend our HOROWITZ evidence. Transportation is the critical issue for states to assert authority and balance the federal government. Their KATZ evidence says states can enact policies with federal funds, but that has nothing to do with the balance of control. If state innovation is tied to federal purse-strings, then it is still the federal government in control.
2. Designating matching funds requires states adhere to strict federal guidelines, crushing state control and leading to manipulation and fraud.
EDWARDS, 2009
[Chris, director of tax policy studies at Cato Institute; “Fiscal Federalism,” Feb, ]
1. Grants spur wasteful spending. The basic incentive structure of aid programs encourages overspending by federal, state, and local politicians. The system allows politicians at each level to claim credit for spending on a program, while relying on another level of government to collect part of the tax bill. Federal politicians design aid regulations that prompt states to increase their own funding of programs. For example, Congress often includes "matching" provisions in programs, which means that the costs of expansion are split between federal and state taxpayers. Under a 50–50 arrangement, for every $2 million a state spends on a program, the federal government chips in $1 million. Matching reduces the "price" to state officials' added spending, thus prompting them to expand programs. Two-thirds of federal aid spending is on grant programs that have matching requirements. The open-ended federal match under Medicaid, for example, has prompted state governments to continuously expand health benefits and the number of eligible beneficiaries. Indeed, many states have designed complex schemes to artificially raise federal matching payments under Medicaid and to fleece federal taxpayers.
3. [Insert specific link from file]
2NC Extension – A/t: #4 223
1. Extend our NIVOLA evidence, it is more recent and shows how their author concludes. Allowing states to create their own solutions is necessary to prevent federal overstretch. If Congress has to worry about every road in every city, they won’t be able to focus on big problems like the economy or terrorism.
2. Allowing states to create their own solutions will solve the Harms better than the plan because solutions will be more efficient and cheaper.
UTT, 2012
[Ronald, Ph.D, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation; ““Turn Back” Transportation to the States,” 2/07, ]
Now free of the federal one-size-fits-all program, states could tailor their spending and investment strategies to their particular needs, not those of a Washington bureaucracy or the privileged constituencies appended to it like barnacles on an aging ship. States would also be free of the costly and time-consuming regulatory mandates that the federal program now imposes on their transportation programs. Finally, as a consequence of these improvements and the more efficient use of resources that turnback would yield, transportation service for the traveling public would improve at a much lower cost than the attainment of that same measure of improvement would have required under the old system. At the same time, and once an improved economy restores fuel tax revenues to their long-run trend, donor states that lose money under the current system would be made whole, while donee states would no longer benefit from undeserved subsidies.
3. Competition and local administration requirements mean balanced federalism creates more efficient policy implementation than top-down strategies.
NIVOLA, 2005
[Pietro, senior fellow and served as VP and director of Governance Studies for Brookings Institute; “Why Federalism Matters”,” Oct, ]
Does federalism necessarily deliver leaner, more efficient government? There is reason to think that it could. The states are constitutionally obligated to balance their budgets. To spend, these governments have to tax—and that unpleasant requirement supposedly disciplines profligate politicians. So does interstate competition. Presumably few jurisdictions will indulge in lavish social programs that are magnets for dependents from neighboring jurisdictions, and that could cause overtaxed residents and businesses to exit. The federated political structure of the United States does indeed appear to have some restraining effect, at least when compared to the unchecked welfare states of Europe. Whereas there, the beneficiaries of unemployment compensation, for instance, often seem entitled to limitless support, the American state-run model maxes out at six months, and ordinarily replaces only a portion of a jobless person's lost wages. Why? Part of the reason is that no state in our locallyadministered system can afford to let its benefits get too far out of line with those of competing states.
2NC Extension – A/t: #4 224
4. Federal intervention leads to sloppy state policymaking because they think Washington will always bail them out.
NIVOLA, 2005
[Pietro, senior fellow and served as VP and director of Governance Studies for Brookings Institute; “Why Federalism Matters”,” Oct, ]
The first is that some state and local governments may become sloppier about fulfilling their basic obligations. The Hurricane Katrina debacle revealed how ill-prepared the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana were for a potent tropical storm that could inundate the region. There were multiple explanations for this error, but one may well have been habitual dependence of state and local officials on direction, and deliverance, by Uncle Sam. In Louisiana, a state that was receiving more federal aid than any other for Army Corps of Engineers projects, the expectation seemed to be that shoring up the local defenses against floods was chiefly the responsibility of Congress and the Corps, and that if the defenses failed, bureaucrats in the Federal Emergency Management Agency would instantly ride to the rescue. That assumption proved fatal. Relentlessly pressured to spend money on other local projects, and unable to plan centrally for every possible calamity that might occur somewhere in this huge country, the federal government botched its role in the Katrina crisis every step of the way—the flood prevention, the response, and the recovery. The local authorities in this tragedy should have known better, and taken greater precautions.
5. Federal programs are more vulnerable to political manipulation, while local solutions allow for innovation and flexibility.
UTT, 2012
[Ronald, Ph.D, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation; ““Turn Back” Transportation to the States,” 2/07, ]
One reform proposal that could substantially change this is legislation to “turn back” the federal highway program to the states, where it once was lodged. Arguing that the program was created to build the interstate highway system—a goal that was met in the early 1980s—turnback advocates believe it is time to declare victory and shift the resources back to the states, recognizing that today’s surface transportation problems are largely local or regional in nature and that a Washington-based, centrally planned, command-and-control program has little to offer in the way of solutions. Also, as the record of the past few authorizations reveals, a Washington-based program is more vulnerable to a wheeling-and-dealing political process that has contributed to many of the existing diversions and regional inequities as elected officials pander to influential constituencies at the expense of the taxpaying motorist.
2NC Extension – A/t: #4 225
6. Federal aid on state issues creates layers of bureaucracy that prevent proper implementation of the plan, and stop state solutions that are more effective.
EDWARDS, 2009
[Chris, director of tax policy studies at Cato Institute; “Fiscal Federalism,” Feb, ]
The failings of federal aid have long been recognized, but the system has spawned a web of interlocking interests that block reform. Those interests include elected officials in the three levels of government, the hundreds of trade associations representing the recipients of aid, and a large portion of the 16 million state and local workers that depend on federal funding. The aid system thrives not because it creates good governance, but because it maximizes benefits to politicians. Politicians at each level of government can get involved in spending on a diverse range of programs, while blaming other levels of government for poor service quality and high tax burdens. The federal aid system has been called a "triumph of expenditure without responsibility." Yet the system desperately needs to be scaled back. With today's large federal budget deficit and the massive cost increases that face entitlement programs, there is little room in the federal budget for state and local activities. Policymakers need to revive federalism and begin to terminate grant programs. If the aid system was shut down, state governments and the private sector would step in and fund those activities that they thought were worthwhile. But by federalizing state and local activities, we are asking Congress to do the impossible — to efficiently plan for the competing needs of a diverse country of more than 300 million people.
7. Federal funding causes administrative overlap and regulations that cause runaway additional spending and decreases effectiveness.
ROTH, 2010
[Gabriel, research fellow at the Independent Institute; “Federal Highway Funding,” June, ]
A second problem is that federal grants usually come with an array of extraneous federal regulations that increase costs. Highway grants, for example, come with Davis-Bacon rules and Buy America provisions, which raise highway costs substantially. Davis-Bacon rules require that workers on federally funded projects be paid "prevailing wages" in an area, which typically means higher union wages. Davis-Bacon rules increase the costs of federally funded projects by an average of about 10 percent, which wastes billions of dollars per year. Ralph Stanley, the entrepreneur who created the private Dulles Greenway toll highway in Virginia, estimated that federal regulations increase highway construction costs by about 20 percent. Robert Farris, who was commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Transportation and also head of the Federal Highway Administration, suggested that federal regulations increase costs by 30 percent. Finally, federal intervention adds substantial administrative costs to highway building. Planning for federally financed highways requires the detailed involvement of both federal and state governments. By dividing responsibility for projects, this split system encourages waste at both levels of government. Total federal, state, and local expenditures on highway "administration and research" when the highway trust fund was established in 1956 were 6.8 percent of construction costs. By 2002, these costs had risen to 17 percent of expenditures. The rise in federal intervention appears to have pushed up these expenditures substantially.
2NC Extension – A/t: #5 226
1. Extend our CHANDRASEKARAN evidence. Iraq is in a unique position to model because of U.S. influence in the construction of their Constitution, as well as all political parties being interested in restructuring the government to increase regional authority.
2. Without strengthening federalism based on the U.S. model, Iraq will split into 3 ethnically-driven regions.
MIHALAKAS, 2012
[Nasos, former trade policy analyst with U.S. Government; “Time for Iraq to Activate its Federation Council!” 4/30, ]
The constitutions federalism even grants provinces the power to join together and form ‘regions’ which will be semi-autonomous. Although Iraqi Kurdistan is the only legally defined region within Iraq, with its own government and quasi-official militia, other provinces can do the same through a referendum (See: Art. 115 of the Iraqi Constitution). Therefore, Article 115 applies to provinces joining together and forming a region. In fact, instead of blocking the creation of large and powerful administrative regions in the country that could confront central government or even each other, the constitution actually encourages it. This is particularly worrying considering that separatism is already a very powerful trend in Iraq. In Iraq, it was very much expected that the governorates will begin the process of grouping together immediately after the parliamentary elections of 2005. Political tensions between the three communities, could lead to further ethnic/religious divisions and the eventual ‘partition’ of Iraq. According to Zaid Al-Ali, “the result will most likely be that Iraq will eventually come to resemble Belgium, whose federal structure of government contains three states: Flanders (Flemish-speaking), Wallonia (French-speaking), and Brussels itself.” Similarly, Iraq is likely to be divided in three parts, with a Kurdish region in the north, a Shia-dominated south and a Sunni region in the center. The only way to prevent this from happening is by strengthening ‘horizontal federalism’ within the Iraqi federal government. Under the Iraqi Constitution, there are to be two legislative houses, the Council of Representatives and the Federation Council. The Council of Representatives is directly elected by the people, “at a ratio of one representative per 100,000 Iraqi persons representing the entire Iraqi people.” The Council of Representatives has the power to enact all federal laws, including the approval and adjustment of the federal budget, conduct foreign policy and defense, and consent to a declaration of war or state of emergency. On the other hand, the Federation Council does not exist yet. The Federation Council is to be composed of representatives of regions and all governorates that have not joined a region. The Constitution does not enumerate the formation or functions of the Federation Council, but leaves those particulars to the Council of Representatives. (See: Article 62 of the Iraqi Constitution) There are plenty of available models for a second legislative chamber representing sub-national entities (like the German Bundesrat, or the South African National Council of Provinces), but of course the U.S. Senate could be the best model to protect the provinces and curb the federal government’s powers. A second legislative body, which represents all provinces equally, with a primary function of safeguarding the rights and privileges of the regions and provinces from excessive overreach by the federal government will go a long way in alleviating fears and concerns by the ethnic/religious minorities of Iraq – as well as strengthen federalism and prevent any further talk of secession of break-up.
2NC Extension – A/t: #5 227
3. Maintaining active federalism is critical to establish a global model for democracy and stability in regions with multiple ethnic groups.
BOGEN, 2003
[David, T. Carroll Brown Scholar and Professor Emeritus of Law; “Slaughter-House Five: Views of the Case” Hastings Law Journal, 20055 Hastings L.J. 333, ]
In short, Congress has sufficient power to deal directly or indirectly with every form of national problem. The decisions of the Court, however, demand that Congress demonstrate that the problem is a national one when its scope is not obvious. This demand, and the need to use less direct instruments such as the spending power, force Congress to confront the institutional issue as to which level of government can best deal with the problem. It also makes state sovereignty a practical reality, so that most problems will be understood as state responsibility. There are at least three advantages to maintaining federalism and not interpreting the privileges and immunities clause to confer a general congressional power to legislate on personal security and property rights: it maximizes popular satisfaction, it promotes experimentation, and it provides a model on the international level to reconcile national factions. The utilitarian argument for federalism is that it maximizes satisfaction. A rule that satisfies the majority in each of the fifty states will be a much larger number than a rule that satisfies the national majority but overrides local state majorities. The wrinkle is the weight to be assigned the desire of persons in one state to have their rule adopted in a neighboring state where there is no significant commercial effect on the first state from such an adoption. Congressional power should be sufficient to enable a national majority to overcome local majorities when that desire is at a high level, but the stumbling blocks that the Court has [*397] raised to preserve federalism may help preserve local preferences where the national interest is low. The states have always been famed as the laboratories of experimentation. 332 With respect to individual rights, the slow expansion of laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender orientation suggests that states may be even more progressive than the national government, a government whose laws often preempt local attempts to grapple with issues. It may well be that the huge amounts of financing necessary to run for national office create a polarization that does not well reflect a majority. Raising money is easier for the more ideological candidates on each side, and this promotes more strife and less cooperation in the national legislature. 333 Local campaigns are cheaper and need not be as ideologically divisive. That creates the possibility of legislatures more amenable to working together on problems and creating new solutions. Finally, American federalism has been a model throughout the world for bringing together diverse peoples under a larger governmental structure. 334 The utility of a national economic policy and a national foreign policy is apparent, but the tug of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds makes this difficult. The breakaway republic of Chechnya in Russia and the fear of separate status for Kurds in Turkey suggest the problems nations may have with significant internal groups with different interests. The lack of autonomy for Tibet gives the Republic of China on Taiwan pause about uniting with the Peoples Republic on the Mainland. If the warning of the anti-federalists comes true, that states cannot maintain their separate sovereignty under a national government, the United States will no longer be the beacon on the hill that gives hope for resolving this kind of international problem. A viable federalism is therefore important, not just for the internal purposes of maximizing popular satisfaction and fostering experimentation, but to demonstrate to a fractious world that dual sovereignty is a viable form of government.
2NC Extension – A/t: #6 228
1. Extend our CHANDRASEKARAN evidence, implementing federalism is the only way to avoid splitting the country into 3 sectarian regions that make war inevitable. It is in all major political figures’ interests to establish regional authority in a balanced manner, so the U.S. model of federalism will work.
2. Federalism can work in Iraq – it has been historically effective and is already a part of Iraq’s constitution.
GELB, 2012
[Leslie, former New York Times columnist and senior government official; “Leslie H. Gelb on How to Save Iraq,” 1/01, ]
The idea behind federalism is to keep Iraq united by decentralizing power on a regional basis. This would provide each ethno-religious group the authority to run its own regional affairs, while the central government tends to national interests. The first step would be to establish semiautonomous regions or states with power to make and administer their own laws and provide for internal security. Thereby, Kurds and Sunnis would be protected from Shiite-imposed rule. Cities with mixed religious populations could be governed as federal cities under international protection. The central government would conduct foreign affairs, create a national army to guard borders, and manage oil production and revenues. Revenues would be distributed according to each group’s percentage of the total population. Thus Sunni Arabs would be guaranteed 20 percent of revenues even though their region has far less than 20 percent of the country’s oil. Of course, whether and how to advance the federal formula would be left up to Iraqis. To those who see this as a radical approach: look at Iraq’s Constitution. It provides for such a federal structure, but requires some spelling out of details. The main sticking point at present is the Shiite insistence of running the whole country from Baghdad. Shiites are right about one thing—it is critical to keep Iraq whole. Otherwise it would become prey to neighbors like Iran or the scene of endless civil war. But the Shiites are dead wrong about being able to achieve unity by centralized “power sharing” in Baghdad. That’s been the approach since Americans took charge, and it hasn’t worked for two reasons: Shiites never really share power. And power remains concentrated in Baghdad. Federalism preserved the peace for Bosnia reached at Dayton. Serbs, Muslims, and Croats were allowed mostly to run their own affairs, and even, until a few years ago, keep their own armies. Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, and the United Arab Emirates have remained whole and peaceful by the same means. And don’t forget that our own United States could have been created only on this basis. The 13 original states joined the union only on the constitutional guarantee that they could run most of their own affairs. Washington didn’t take on its present powers until Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, 150 years later.
2NC Extension – A/t: #7 229
1. Their evidence is too old. It doesn’t assume the Surge or Obama’s timetable for withdrawal. You should disregard old evidence because it was written about a completely different situation.
2. We control the uniqueness - Iraq is on the verge of a complete breakdown due to incomplete federalism.
MIHALAKAS, 2012
[Nasos, former trade policy analyst with U.S. Government; “Time for Iraq to Activate its Federation Council!” 4/30, ]
The political power struggle in Baghdad has significantly escalated since the last U.S. troops withdrew in December 2011, with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki slowly abandoning the principle of a unity government that gives all stakeholders a share of power and instead trying to consolidate power in his own hands. The situation has deteriorated so much that in a recent interview with the Associated Press the president of Iraq’s self-rule Kurdish region (Massoud Barzani) demanded that Shiite leaders “agree on sharing power with their political opponents by September or else the Kurds could consider breaking away from Baghdad.” Tony Karon reports, that even the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose support was critical to getting Maliki reelected, has taken to referring to the Prime Minister as “the dictator.” The most egregious case of power-grab by Maliki, was the ‘politically motivated’ prosecution of Iraqi Sunni leader and Vice-President of the government Tarek al-Hashemi, who was forced to flee Baghdad to escape criminal charges his supporters see as designed to hobble the Sunni political leadership. According to Mr. Karon, Hashemi fled first to Erbil, capital of Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), whose terrain the Iraqi security forces are not authorized to enter, and is now in Turkey. Barzani’s ‘declaration of defiance’ against Maliki, is very much the result of Kurdistan’s long-held desire for independence as well as a consequence of Maliki’s recent attempt to consolidate power. Although unilateral secession by the Kurds (or the Sunnis) is somewhat unlikely, the escalation of political tensions by Maliki could lead to the eventual break-up of Iraq. Furthermore, according to the AP, Barzani also said he “wholeheartedly” supports Sunni desires to create their own self-rule regions in Iraq. Sunni lawmakers, whose Iraqiya political coalition won the most seats in 2010 parliamentary elections but were outmaneuvered by Maliki for the right to form the government, bitterly complain they have no say in Iraq’s power structure. Unless something is done to alleviate the concerns of Kurds and Sunnis about their place in the national government, Iraq might inevitable collapse. Salvation however might still lie within, courtesy of the federal elements of the Iraqi constitution.
2NC Extension – A/t: #7 230
3. Iraq has several characteristics that make ethnic civil war extremely likely in the short-term.
FERGUSON, Professor of History at Harvard University, 2006
[Niall, PhD Oxford and Senior Fellow at Oxford and Hoover Institution at Stanford,; “The Next War of the World” 9/11, ]
Events in Iraq suggest that there, too, what is unfolding is not a clash between the West and Islam but, increasingly, a clash within Islamic civilization itself. By some accounts, ethnic disintegration there is already well under way. In a June 6, 2006, cable to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, which was leaked to the press, Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, cataloged the evidence of mounting sectarian tension in and around the Green Zone in Baghdad. "Personal fears are reinforcing divisive or sectarian channels," Khalilzad wrote. "Ethnic and sectarian faultlines are becoming part of the daily media fare. One Shia employee told us she can no longer watch TV news with her mother, who is a Sunni, because her mother blamed all the government failings on the fact that the Shia are in charge." Even more worrisome, Khalilzad reported that U.S. embassy employees had "become adept in modifying [their] behavior to avoid Alasas, informants who keep an eye out for 'outsiders' in neighborhoods. The Alasa mentality is becoming entrenched as Iraqi security forces fail to gain public confidence." Such news should come as no surprise. Baghdad and the provinces around it -- Babil, Diyala, and Salahuddin -- are precisely the regions of Iraq where ethnic conflict could have been predicted to occur given the current conditions of economic volatility and imperial crisis. They are the most ethnically mixed parts of the country, where Sunnis and Shiites or Sunnis and Kurds live cheek by jowl. Under Saddam's secular tyranny, these communities coexisted more or less peacefully. Anecdotal evidence even suggests that there was some intermarriage. Since Saddam's fall, however, integration has been reversed. Around 92 percent of the votes in the December 2005 election were cast for sectarian parties. In such a fractious atmosphere, the odds seem dangerously stacked against the once-dominant Sunni Arab minority. Not only do current constitutional arrangements raise the prospect that Iraq's oil revenue will flow largely to Shiite and Kurdish provinces, but the Sunnis are badly underrepresented in the Iraqi security forces. According to the Brookings Institution, Sunnis make up less than ten percent of the enlisted forces.
4. Trends show violence in Iraq is increasing. This means a Turkish invasion to maintain stability should have already happened.
FERGUSON, Professor of History at Harvard University, 2006
[Niall, PhD Oxford and Senior Fellow at Oxford and Hoover Institution at Stanford,; “The Next War of the World” 9/11, ]
Although the atmosphere has cooled somewhat since the Askariya shrine bombing in February, the trend is clearly toward ethnic or sectarian conflict. The number of incidents of sectarian violence recorded in May 2006 was 250, compared with just 20 in the same month the year before and ten in May 2004. There has been a threefold increase in the homicide rate in Baghdad since February 2006, much of it the result of sectarian violence. The assassination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, in June was therefore less of a milestone than President George W. Bush had hoped. As insurgency has given way to civil war, Zarqawi had already ceased to be a key player.
Plan-specific Link: Rail Investment 231
Federal rail projects would force states to accept massive new spending responsibilities.
UTT, 2011
[Ronald, Ph.D, Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation; “Time to End Obama’s Costly High-Speed Rail Program,” 2/11, ]
Because all of these projects—slow-speed and high-speed—would require substantial state matching funds and perpetual state operating subsidies (since no passenger rail system in the U.S. and only a handful abroad earn a profit or break even), any state accepting the money would also be accepting a significant, long-term financial liability at a time when most states are hard-pressed to meet the core responsibilities of education, law enforcement, and public health. Consequently, supporting or opposing the President’s rail plan became an issue in several gubernatorial races, particularly in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida, where the winning candidates either opposed or questioned the value of the federal rail grant. In Wisconsin, incoming Governor Scott Walker (R) opposed the plan, and outgoing Governor James Doyle (D) suspended the project in response to the voters’ decision.
Federal money earmarked for rail programs causes state officials to agree to any federal restrictions in order to boost popularity in the short-term.
GREVE, 2012
[Michael, John G. Searle Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; “High-Speed “Federalism” Goes Off the Rails” 1/17, ]
The Washington Post reports that federal-state plans for a high-speed train connecting San Francisco with Los Angles and points in-between may never come off the ground. In the face of public resistance, the state may have to decline some $3.5 billion in federal “stimulus” funds dedicated to an initial segment of the line, connecting the thriving metropolises of Bakersfield and Merced. We may be witnessing an outbreak of fiscal and institutional sanity. Federal funding programs replicate, on a daily basis and an increasingly alarming scale, a debility that Alexander Hamilton identified as a constitutional problem. State officials, he wrote in Federalist 1, will seek to maximize to “the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the state establishments.” Officials’ time horizon extends over their expected tenure (at most, their lifetimes); thus, they would never support a Constitution that is calculated to produce long-term collective gains. They would have to be beaten, as mercifully they were. Federal grants programs systematically exploit state officials’ constricted time horizon for the expansion of government at all levels. So long as federal grants promise immediate electoral gains, state officials will discount even ruinous long-term costs to zero: “Take the money and run” (often, for higher office) is the rational course of action. From the smallest earmark to the Medicaid monster (which consumes over 20 percent of states’ budgets), our entire fiscal federalism operates on this principle.
Plan-specific Link: Rail investment 232
Federal rail funds require states to fund risky initiatives in other states; this overburdens some states and prevents local policy innovation.
[HSR = High Speed Rail]
DEHAVEN, 2010
[Tad, budget analyst on federal and state budget issues for the Cato Institute; “High-Speed Federalism Fight” 11/26, ]
LaHood’s message was targeted specifically to incoming governors John Kasich in Ohio and Scott Walker in Wisconsin, who argued that High Speed Rail doesn’t make any economic or practical sense for their states. LaHood said that states rejecting federal HSR subsidies won’t be able to reroute the money to other uses, such as roads. Instead, LaHood said the rejected money will redistributed “in a professional way in places where the money can be well spent” — i.e., other states. And sure enough, other governors were quick to belly up to the Department of Transportation’s bar in order to grab Ohio and Wisconsin’s share. From the Columbus-Dispatch: New York Gov.-elect Andrew Cuomo has said he would be happy to take Ohio’s money. Last week, California Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein wrote LaHood saying that California stands ready to take some, too, noting that several states that elected GOP governors this month have said they no longer want to use the rail money for that purpose. “It has come to our attention that several states plan to cancel their high-speed rail projects. We ask that you withdraw the federal grants to these states and award the funds to states that have made a strong financial commitment to these very important infrastructure projects,” Boxer and Feinstein said in their letter to LaHood. This is a textbook example of why the Department of Transportation should be eliminated and responsibility for transportation infrastructure returned to state and local governments. If California wishes to pursue a high-speed rail boondoggle, it should do so with its own state taxpayers’ money. Instead, Ohio and Wisconsin taxpayers now face the prospect of being taxed to fund high-speed rail projects in other states. If California’s beleaguered taxpayers were asked to bear the full cost of financing HSR in their state, they would likely reject it. High-speed rail proponents know this, which is why they agitate to foist a big chunk of the burden onto federal taxpayers. The proponents pretend that HSR is in “the national interest,” but as a Cato essay on high-speed rail explains, “high-speed rail would not likely capture more than about 1 percent of the nation’s market for passenger travel.”
Plan-specific Link: Port Security 233
Federal homeland security policy ignores state and local concerns, causing inefficiencies and a breakdown of government effectiveness.
MORTON, 2008
[John, Distinguished Fellow and the Homeland Security Lead for the Project on National Security Reform; “State/Local Issue Team Problem Analysis Structure Working Group Project on National Security Reform,” 10/30, ]
The practical effect of national security and homeland security bifurcation is the creation of parallel policy, doctrine and operational environments—sometimes intersecting, sometimes not. Irrespective, effective management of domestic prevention, protection/mitigation, response and recovery activities requires unity of effort among all levels of government, civilian and military entities and elements of the private sector. Multiple approaches used to address a crisis—in advance or after occurrence—hamper unity of effort and produce ambiguity about the nature of the crisis event itself, i.e., whether it is a national security or homeland security issue and correspondingly which structural mechanisms should manage it. National security policy development has been historically the exclusive domain of the Federal government and has never formally engaged state and local levels. Irrespective of the debates about the efficacy of separating homeland security and national security, even under the current environment, states have a vital and critical policy development and operational role in America’s national security. Structures and/or processes do not harness non-federal governmental capabilities to address exigent national security situations within the borders to supplement and in certain cases perform primary missions to support Federal national security priorities. However, national security and homeland security policies do not always define the roles, responsibilities and authorities of the Federal government, sovereign state and local governments, the private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Divided authorities at the Federal level and the persistence of Federal stovepipes affect sense-making. The Federal government does not truly provide an integrative mechanism—other than by defaulting to the president—for effective and efficient facilitation of collaboration and coordination. The question “Who owns the problem?” extends beyond the interagency dimension to the intergovernmental. In theory, sovereign Federal/state/local authorities having common interests collaborate, coordinate and if necessary integrate effort. However, the structural interagency and intergovernmental mechanisms—such as they exist—are still inadequate to facilitate and resource efficient and effective collaboration, coordination and integration even when perceived common interests are present. The lack of unity of effort, the absence of shared expectations and inconsistent definition of outcomes are some of the more generalized symptoms of this core problem. Specific examples translate into the following issue areas: • Ineffective and inefficient alignment of the interagency and intergovernmental homeland security structure • Ineffective and inefficient alignment of congressional oversight with executive branch homeland security functions • Lack of clarity as to the Secretary of Homeland Security’s role in domestic incident management and improper alignment of certain departmental functions • Inadequate non-federal stakeholder engagement in policy development • Improper structuring of homeland security resourcing • Stovepiped constraints on information sharing.
Plan-specific Link: Port Security 234
States are developing their own terrorism prevention strategies that are working. New federal guidelines cause confusion and overlap that hurt state authority.
[DHS = Department of Homeland Security]
MORTON, 2008
[John, Distinguished Fellow and the Homeland Security Lead for the Project on National Security Reform; “State/Local Issue Team Problem Analysis Structure Working Group Project on National Security Reform,” 10/30, ]
To return to DHS, while the Department’s failure to integrate its own “interagency” activities has compromised its ability to integrate homeland security activities across the Federal government, it has also compromised its ability to serve as the lead Federal agency for homeland security support and facilitation for state and local integration of their own corresponding homeland security activities. As a consequence, this effect reinforces Federal stovepipes that undermine ICS at the bottom-up, mission level for local and state authorities which otherwise are beginning to integrate very well. This condition is particularly detrimental with respect to the prevention and protection missions and the public safety community. At the local and state levels, the steady-state relationships now forming between law enforcement and other homeland security stakeholders by themselves are beginning to translate to vastly improved linkages with the response and recovery emergency management community which in a crisis will make for dramatic efficiencies and effectiveness in unified command.
Federal security grants hamstring state authority and reinforce mistrust between local governments.
[ICS = Incident Command System; NIMS = National Incident Management System]
MORTON, 2008
[John, Distinguished Fellow and the Homeland Security Lead for the Project on National Security Reform; “State/Local Issue Team Problem Analysis Structure Working Group Project on National Security Reform,” 10/30, ]
This interagency failure has its intergovernmental effect which degrades the ability of state and local jurisdictions to institute ICS. State and local authorities have become especially resentful of what they see as a hypocritical Federal policy which makes their continued eligibility for homeland security grants conditional on their NIMS compliance, when Federal agencies themselves aren’t fully NIMS compliant. Despite the Federal government’s professed spirit of partnership, mutual mistrust and scorn result. From the state and local perspective, the Federal government saddles states and localities with unfunded mandates, while it fails to practice what it preaches. From the Federal perspective, state and local governments look for handouts to underwrite responsibilities which are their own. The Federal attempt to discipline the relationship with such grant strictures as the 80/20 rule, which requires states to forward 80 percent of grant allocations to local authorities, works against state-wide planning for regional collaboration and pits states against localities, in effect replicating fractured Federal/state relationships.
Plan-specific Link: Port Security 235
Disregarding state and local authority in developing port security measures causes a mishmash of agency input, dooming the mission and hurting governmental relations.
MORTON, 2008
[John, Distinguished Fellow and the Homeland Security Lead for the Project on National Security Reform; “State/Local Issue Team Problem Analysis Structure Working Group Project on National Security Reform,” 10/30, ]
Port security/cargo security has since metastasized into intermodal security that begins with overseas container stuffing to break-bulk distribution at U.S. warehouses. It is perhaps the most complex homeland security prevention and protection issue, with international, intergovernmental and interagency, public-private dimensions. The mission boundaries have expanded to infinity. Everybody agrees that more has to be done, but nobody agrees on who should pay or how to share costs. According to one former senior HSC official, the failure of DHS or some form of interagency NSC/HSC/NEC-led process to drive successful national cargo security strategy development lay in the rank immaturity of the department and homeland security policy development processes generally. Observes Randall Yim who, as Director of the Homeland Security Institute, managed Admiral Loy’s national cargo security strategy development: A critical task will be assuring that the various benefits of security, speed and efficiency align more directly with those asked to pay. This task inherently involves interagency coordination and cooperation. A difficulty has been identifying and designating an entity or office with sufficient authority (both political clout and budgetary persuasion) to make and enforce decisions between and among the competing interests and agency perspectives, particularly when the “outrage” factor causes agencies to become more risk averse or because of “self-preservation” instincts desire to spread “risk” by deferring critical decisions to other involved entities. The issue is not merely stating and understanding that interagency coordination is critical; someone or some entity must be empowered to make it happen. Otherwise, necessary coordination is slotted into the “too hard to do”; “too many moving parts”, or “somebody else’s responsibility” categories.38 B. Planning Uneven Institution of Integrated Planning: In part because current national security and homeland security policy has not been developed with formal, systematic and up-front input from domestic non-federal partners, the Federal government has not been able to institute in the steady-state preparedness environment fully integrated planning at any governmental level. Moreover, implementation of integrated planning has been uneven across the homeland security missions of prevention, protection/mitigation, response and recovery.
Plan-specific Link: Port Security 236
Federal security grants come with strict requirements that force states to adopt a one-size-fits-all model. Rather than implementing security measures, states will opt-out and create more insecurity.
MORTON, 2008
[John, Distinguished Fellow and the Homeland Security Lead for the Project on National Security Reform; “State/Local Issue Team Problem Analysis Structure Working Group Project on National Security Reform,” 10/30, ]
Compliance requirements compound a state’s problem. When state and local authorities apply for homeland security grants, they have to meet required conditions, whether it’s NIMS compliance or homeland security planning requirements. Once they become dependent on Federal funding, compliance is the only political option. Since many of the programs receive grant funding for a limited time, or are under-funded from the beginning, they morph into a financial burden—unfunded mandates. Homeland security grant programs actually provide so little funding that the impact on state and local budgets is minimal. The legislative and executive branches’ insistence on fiduciary accountability through stringent compliance measures and reporting requirements yields an unintended consequence. State and local authorities lacking the administrative capacity, tax base and revenue streams are opting out of the homeland security grant system. “The current homeland security grant program is narrowly focused, preempts state and local prerogatives, is insensitive to the operational activities of state and local governments, and has associated costs which further limit distribution of funds to communities.” Facing ever-tightening budgets, state and local elected officials will resource their conventional emergency management and public safety organizations to respond to the routine events, as opposed to the unconventional, homeland security events out of the norm. “There is little evidence to support the idea that citizens want more ‘homeland security,’ particularly if they have to pay extra for it.”
Plan-specific Link: Port Security 237
Allowing states to experiment with their own security measures will result in a more collaborative federalism, solving the case.
MORTON, 2008
[John, Distinguished Fellow and the Homeland Security Lead for the Project on National Security Reform; “State/Local Issue Team Problem Analysis Structure Working Group Project on National Security Reform,” 10/30, ]
Primary responsibility and authority for homeland security may have to devolve from the Federal to the state level. The Federal government has not structured itself effectively and efficiently to resource and support state and local authorities to execute integrated, national (to include the private sector and NGO communities), all-hazards, homeland security prevention, protection/mitigation, response and recovery, consistent with the NRF/NIMS/ESF doctrinal basis for coordinated planning and execution. At the Federal level, an integrated, national preparedness and operational framework may facilitate, but does not compel interagency coordination and collaboration. Absent is a truly national model of governance. The Federal government does not “own” the infrastructure or emergency preparedness system on which it is vitally dependent to achieve national objectives. Thus, hierarchical “controls” do not work. Options include two key elements: • Partnership and network-based models of collaboration which are sustainable for resilience, e.g., technical and financial assistance, as opposed to unfunded mandates, preemptions or a default to use of the military • Performance standards and goals, e.g., the EPA’s use of negotiated rulemaking, voluntary state agreements like the Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SSTP) and cooperative standard-setting regimes like those established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), as opposed to detailed prescriptive requirements, like the Target Capabilities List (TCL) and Universal Task List (UTL). As a reflection of reality, the Federal role in a national preparedness and operational framework is facilitation of state support of community-level collaboration/coordination in steady-state preparedness. The outcome is de-centralized community resilience.
2NC Impact: Terrorism 238
Massive federal involvement in state affairs leads to less capability to deal with terrorism.
NIVOLA, 2005
[Pietro, senior fellow and served as VP and director of Governance Studies for Brookings Institute; “Why Federalism Matters”,” Oct, ]
Apart from creating confusion and complacency in local communities, a second sort of disorder begot by a national government too immersed in their day-to-day minutia is that it may become less mindful of its own paramount priorities. Consider an obvious one: the security threat presented by Islamic extremism. This should have been the U.S. government's first concern, starting from at least the early 1990s. The prelude to September 11, 2001 was eventful and ominous. Fanatics with ties to Osama bin Laden had bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. Muslim militants had tried to hijack an airliner and crash it into the Eiffel Tower in 1994. U.S. military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, were blown up, killing nearly a score of American servicemen in 1996. Courtesy of Al Qaeda, truck bombings at the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998 caused thousands of casualties. Al Qaeda operatives attacked the USS Cole in 2000. And so it went, year after year. What is remarkable was not that the jihadists successfully struck the Twin Towers again in the fall of 2001 but that the United States and its allies threw no forceful counterpunches during the preceding decade, and that practically nothing was done to prepare the American people for the epic struggle they would have to wage. Instead, the Clinton administration and both parties in Congress mostly remained engrossed in domestic issues, no matter how picayune [trivial] or petty. Neither of the presidential candidates in the 2000 election seemed attentive to the fact that the country and the world were menaced by terrorism. On the day of reckoning, when word reached President George W. Bush that United Airlines flight 175 had slammed into a New York skyscraper, he was busy visiting a second-grade classroom at an elementary school in Sarasota, Florida. The government's missteps leading up to September 11th, in short, had to do with more than bureaucratic lapses of the kind identified in the 9/11 Commission's detailed litany. The failure was also rooted in a kind of systemic attention deficit disorder. Diverting too much time and energy to what de Tocqueville had termed "secondary affairs," the nation's public servants from top to bottom grew distracted and overextended.
2NC Impact: Economy 239
Federal intervention in state affairs prevents growth. Only a strong federalist revival solves.
KATZ, 2012
[Bruce, vice president at the Brookings Institution and founding Director of the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program; “Remaking Federalism to Remake the American Economy,” 2/16, ]
To achieve these twin goals, the U.S. needs to restructure the economy from one focused inward and characterized by excessive consumption and debt, to one globally engaged and driven by production and innovation. It must do so while contending with a new cadre of global competitors that aim to best the United States in the next industrial revolution and while leveraging the distinctive assets and advantages of different parts of the country, particularly the major cities and metropolitan areas that are the engines of national prosperity. This is the tallest of economic orders and it is well beyond the scope of exclusive federal solutions, the traditional focus of presidential candidates in both political parties. Rather, the next President must look beyond Washington and enlist states and metropolitan areas as active co-partners in the restructuring of the national economy. Remaking the economy, in essence, requires a remaking of federalism so that governments at all levels “collaborate to compete” and work closely with each other and the private and civic sectors to burnish American competitiveness in the new global economic order. The time for remaking federalism could not be more propitious. With Washington mired in partisan gridlock, the states and metropolitan areas are once again playing their traditional roles as “laboratories of democracy” and centers of economic and policy innovation. An enormous opportunity exists for the next president to mobilize these federalist partners in a focused campaign for national economic renewal.
State-led transportation policy creates economic engines that will create growth.
KATZ, 2012
[Bruce, vice president at the Brookings Institution and founding Director of the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program; “Remaking Federalism to Remake the American Economy,” 2/16, ]
With federal transportation policy in limbo, metros like Jacksonville and Savannah and states like Michigan are modernizing their air, rail and sea freight hubs to position themselves for an expansion in global trade. What unites these disparate efforts are intentionality and purpose. After decades of pursuing fanciful illusions (becoming “the next Silicon Valley”) or engaging in copycat strategies, states and metros are deliberately building on their special assets, attributes and advantages, using business planning techniques honed in the private sector. The bubbling of state and metro innovation is pervasive and viral—crossing political, regional, jurisdictional and sectoral lines. It offers an affirmative and practical counterpoint to a Washington that has increasingly become hyper-partisan and overly ideological and gives the next President an opportunity to engage states and metropolitan areas as true, working partners in the quest to restructure the economy.
2NC Impact: Economy 240
States are prepared to take the lead in transforming the economy.
KATZ, 2012
[Bruce, vice president at the Brookings Institution and founding Director of the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program; “Remaking Federalism to Remake the American Economy,” 2/16, ]
With the national and global economy in a period of disruptive change, now is a good time to challenge states and metropolitan areas to invent the next growth model. Several states and metros might, for example, pioneer a new way of supporting advanced manufacturing. Others might do the same with exports and foreign direct investment or with upgrading the skills of key advanced industry workers. With federal direction, this could be a golden period of state and metropolitan innovation in shaping a more productive, sustainable and inclusive economy.
Federalism Disadvantage Affirmative 241
2AC Frontline – Federalism Disadvantage 1
1AR Extension: #1 1
1AR Extension: #3 1
1AR Extension: #4 1
1AR Extension: #5 1
2AC Frontline – Federalism Disadvantage 242
1. Non-unique: The federal government is already massively overfunding state issues.
EDWARDS, 2009
[Chris, director of tax policy studies at Cato Institute; “Fiscal Federalism,” Feb, ]
Unfortunately, policymakers and courts have mainly discarded federalism in recent decades. Congress has undertaken many activities that were traditionally reserved to the states and the private sector. Grants-in-aid are a primary mechanism that the federal government has used to extend its power into state and local affairs. Grants are subsidy programs that are combined with federal regulatory controls to micromanage state and local activities. The federal government spends about $500 billion annually on aid to the states, making it the third largest item in the budget after Social Security and national defense. The number of different aid programs has soared from 463 in 1990 to 814 by 2006.2
2. Specifically, there is no chance the federal government will stop being involved in transportation infrastructure.
LECKRONE, 2012
[J. Wesley, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Widener University; “The 112 Congress, Federalism and Transportation Policy,” 1/05, ]
Reauthorizations of federal transportation policy are a series of macro political and subgovernment struggles. At the subgovernmental level state and local officials are primarily divided along spatial lines. Southern, rural and low population density states often support more funding for highways and roads while Northeastern and urban areas support funding for a broader mix of mass transit and alternative transportation in addition to roads. Further, funding formulas, the ratio of gas tax contributions versus receipts from Washington and the determination of who gets control over federal funds all serve to divide state and local elected and bureaucratic officials. These divisions are all secondary to ensuring that the federal government authorizes and appropriates increasing amounts of money with each reauthorization. State and local officials unite for the macro political battle of funding the overall transportation program and then engage in the smaller skirmishes to secure benefits for their specific constituencies. Republican leadership in Congress will face an uphill battle to cut transportation funding in their efforts to control the deficit. A united intergovernmental lobby led by the National Governors Association, joined with the Chamber of Commerce and construction unions is nearly unbeatable. Pressure on members of Congress from government officials, businesses and workers in their constituencies will make it very difficult to oppose transportation funding given the current high unemployment rate, crumbling infrastructure and traffic congestion. In the final analysis Republicans may have some effect on other issues related to federalism, just not the one issue that unites state and local officials of all ideologies and regions: increased federal transportation funding.
2AC Frontline – Federalism Disadvantage 243
3. No Link - Federal funding does not weaken federalism because states can still innovate.
KATZ, 2012
[Bruce, vice president at the Brookings Institution and founding Director of the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program; “Remaking Federalism to Remake the American Economy,” 2/16, ]
Race to the Top is a clear example of how the carrot of federal spending can reinvent how states carry out a critical role of government. Tennessee, New York, Florida and Ohio won competitive grants in the range of $400 million to $700 million, awards that are a mere fraction of these state’s annual education budgets, which range from $5.2 billion to $19.4 billion. This provides a new twist on the conventional notion of state innovation. As Marcia Howard, executive director of Federal Funds Information for States stated, “Rather than states being the laboratories of democracy [by] themselves, some of them will become the federal government’s laboratories of democracy.”
4. Federalism does not solve the Harms because any evidence of states being “laboratories of innovation” is overstated and usually comes from successful federal policies.
NIVOLA, 2005
[Pietro, senior fellow and served as VP and director of Governance Studies for Brookings Institute; “Why Federalism Matters”,” Oct, ]
Yes, there have been important policy innovations that had their origins, as Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, in a few courageous states. California has long been the pacesetter in the regulation of air quality. Texas provided a model for recent federal efforts to boost the performance of public schools (the No Child Left Behind Law). Wisconsin pioneered, among other novelties, the income tax and a safety net for the unemployed years before these ideas became national law. Yet, while myopic Washington insiders often pay too little attention to initiatives occurring outside the Beltway, aficionados of state government often devote too much. The significance of experimentation at the state and local level should be neither overlooked nor overstated. Take the now-legendary example of welfare reform. Thanks to liberal use of federal administrative waivers in the early 1990s, the states took the lead in revising the nation's system of public assistance. They were widely credited with setting the stage for the historic national legislation of 1996—and also for securing a dramatic decline in caseloads. How much of the decline, however, could be attributed to the actions of the states, both before and after the 1996 law, is actually a matter of considerable debate. Most of the caseload reduction had less to do with inventive state policies than with a strong economy and expanded federal aid (most notably, the Earned Income Tax Credit) to low-income persons who entered the workforce. In sum, although state experiments were undoubtedly instructive and consequential, other fundamentals were more so. One suspects that what holds for the welfare story also applies to some other local inventions—for example, smart growth strategies, school reform, or the deregulation of electric utilities—the impact of which state politicians sometimes exaggerate.
2AC Frontline – Federalism Disadvantage 244
5. No Modeling - U.S. unilateral foreign policy and the development of more attractive European models mean no country will model U.S. federalism.
MORAVCSIK, 2005
[Andrew, Professor of Politics and Director, European Union Program at Princeton University; “Dream On America” Newsweek International, 1/31, ]
Once upon a time, the U.S. Constitution was a revolutionary document, full of epochal innovations, free elections, judicial review, checks and balances, federalism and, perhaps most important, a Bill of Rights. In the 19th and 20th centuries, countries around the world copied the document, not least in Latin America. So did Germany and Japan after World War II. Today? When nations write a new constitution, as dozens have in the past two decades, they seldom look to the American model. When the soviets withdrew from Central Europe, U.S. constitutional experts rushed in. They got a polite hearing, and were sent home. Jiri Pehe, adviser to former president Vaclav Havel, recalls the Czechs' firm decision to adopt a European-style parliamentary system with strict limits on campaigning. "For Europeans, money talks too much in American democracy. It's very prone to certain kinds of corruption, or at least influence from powerful lobbies," he says. "Europeans would not want to follow that route." They also sought to limit the dominance of television, unlike in American campaigns where, Pehe says, "TV debates and photogenic looks govern election victories." So it is elsewhere. After American planes and bombs freed the country, Kosovo opted for a European constitution. Drafting a post-apartheid constitution, South Africa rejected American-style federalism in favor of a German model, which leaders deemed appropriate for the social-welfare state they hoped to construct. Now fledgling African democracies look to South Africa as their inspiration, says John Stremlau, a former U.S. State Department official who currently heads the international relations department at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg: "We can't rely on the Americans." The new democracies are looking for a constitution written in modern times and reflecting their progressive concerns about racial and social equality, he explains. "To borrow Lincoln's phrase, South Africa is now Africa's 'last great hope'." Much in American law and society troubles the world these days. Nearly all countries reject the United States' right to bear arms as a quirky and dangerous anachronism. They abhor the death penalty and demand broader privacy protections. Above all, once most foreign systems reach a reasonable level of affluence, they follow the Europeans in treating the provision of adequate social welfare is a basic right. All this, says Bruce Ackerman at Yale University Law School, contributes to the growing sense that American law, once the world standard, has become "provincial." The United States' refusal to apply the Geneva Conventions to certain terrorist suspects, to ratify global human-rights treaties such as the innocuous Convention on the Rights of the Child or to endorse the International Criminal Court (coupled with the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo) only reinforces the conviction that America's Constitution and legal system are out of step with the rest of the world.
2AC Frontline – Federalism Disadvantage 245
6. No Impact - Federalism is impossible to implement in Iraq due to deep-rooted political disagreements.
ELAND, 2005
[Ivan, Professor of World Peace Academy; “The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing The Iraqi Government?” Mar, International Journal on World Peace, Vol. 22 Is. 1]
Trying a federated middle ground in Iraq would probably not work. It failed in Czechoslovakia. The social cohesion of a federation would probably be endangered by varying economic situations among the subgroupings. Also, the creation of a successful federation is much more likely with a preexisting congenial and tolerant political culture and with the common vision and mutual trust required for shared institutions, all of which are missing in Iraq. Furthermore, according to Professor Clement Dodd, formerly at the University of London, "Federations made from the top down, where there is change from a unitary state, are less stable than those that are made from the bottom upwards: there is likely to be more enthusiasm for the new configuration in the latter than in the former case." In other words, liberal federated government is better created by the bubbling up of desire from the people rather than by a foreign power's imposition from above on a reluctant populace-as in the case of Iraq.
7. Impact Turn - Federalism in Iraq will lead to secession and war due to invasions from outside countries.
WALEN, 2003
[Alec, teacher of philosophy of law at the University of Baltimore; “Federalism For Postwar Iraq: How Federalism May Make Democracy Work,” 4/10, ]
Unfortunately for the Democratic Principles Working Group, federalism in Iraq seems to carry a huge cost: devolving power to the provinces threatens to lead to the disintegration of Iraq as a country. Each province could grow to feel that it has its own distinct identity, and that it would be better off governing itself without any restrictions from the center. The dangers of fragmentation are quite real. Fragmentation would likely result in a series of bloody of civil wars, made especially grave as groups struggle to control Iraq's vast oil reserves. In addition, the secession of the Kurds in particular would likely draw Turkey into the fray. Turkey has a large Kurdish population of its own, and it does not want to see an independent Kurdistan on its borders, tempting its own Kurds to try to secede in order to create a greater Kurdistan. Given these dangers, it is no surprise that the State Department has not embraced the DPWG's Final Report. Indeed, the State Department has of late been pushing a plan that actually looks to keep the bulk of the current Iraqi administration, minus the leading figures, in place. This seems to leave Iraq between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, the democratic movement's plan seems to threaten the stability of Iraq. On the other hand, the State Department's plan would not amount to meaningful regime change. And regime change that merely takes out some leading figures, that does not create fundamental democratic reforms, would not be worth the costs of the war, a war waged under the name "Iraqi Freedom."
1AR Extension: #1 246
Federal intervention is inevitable, especially if states create different policies.
SAMUELSON, 2006
[Richard, 2009-2010 Garwood Visiting Fellow at Princeton University's James Madison Program, and an Assistant Professor of History at California State University, San Bernardino; “Can Federalism Solve America's Culture War?” 4/26, ]
Whatever happens in the states, Washington will still weigh in. Last year, the House of Representatives passed a law making it illegal to take a minor across state lines to have an abortion without her parents' consent. The more variation there is from state to state, the more opportunities Congress will have to intervene. Suppose Utah declares that life begins at conception, and Nevada declares that it begins at birth. May a resident of Utah have an abortion in Nevada? According to Utah, she has crossed state lines to commit murder. According to Nevada she has done nothing wrong. National law will have to be biased in one way or the other. It might energize more citizens, rather than less, about the issues.
1AR Extension: #3 247
Transportation isn’t key to federalism, there are other issues that matter more.
RYAN, 2012
[Erin, Associate Professor, Lewis & Clark Law School; “The Once and Future Challenges of American Federalism: The Tug of War Within?” 1/12, ]
The political consequences of federalism dilemmas are apparent throughout the policy spectrum. They are visible in the litigation over health care reform efforts that has now reached the United States Supreme Court and in similar battles over environmental governance and climate policy, banking and financial services regulation, immigration policy, and gay marriage. Consequences are also visible in the emergence of popular constitutional political movements, such as the “Tea Party” and even the “Tenthers.” The latter are named for the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that affirms our system of dual sovereignty, which divides sovereign authority between local and national government at the state and federal levels. After decades of playing a merely supporting role in U.S. federalism theory, the Tenth Amendment has emerged as a passionate site of political contest, rallying advocates for state right-to-die legislation, home schooling, and sectarian education, and among opponents of Medicaid and Medicare, federal gun laws, tax collection, drivers’ license requirements, and the deployment of National Guard troops abroad.
1AR Extension: #4 248
Federalism is not important in America because society is too integrated.
NIVOLA, 2005
[Pietro, senior fellow and served as VP and director of Governance Studies for Brookings Institute; “Why Federalism Matters”,” Oct, ]
In much of America's own history, federalism did not ease this country's sectional tensions. On the contrary, a long sequence of compromises with the southern states in the first half of the nineteenth century failed to prevent the Civil War. Then, through the first half of the twentieth century, additional concessions to states' rights did little to dismantle the South's repulsive institution of racial apartheid. Southern separatism was subdued by a military defeat, not diplomatic give-and-take, and only further assertions of central power—starting with the Supreme Court's school desegregation decision in 1954—began altering the region's corrosive racial policies. If we fast-forward to present day America, the thesis that federalism is what holds the country together seems no less questionable, though for a different reason. For all the hype about the country's "culture wars," the fact is that socially and culturally, the contemporary United States has become a remarkably integrated society, particularly when compared to other large nations such as India, Indonesia, and Nigeria, or even some smaller European states. Thanks largely to massive interregional migrations, economic dynamism, and ease of assimilation, contrasts between America's deep South and the rest of the country seem minor today compared to, say, the continuing cultural chasm between the north and south of Italy. In America, where examples of religiously or ethnically distinct jurisdictions are mild ones, like Utah and Hawaii, it seems hard to argue that the nation's fifty states represent keen territorial diversity, and that they are the secret to this country's cohesion. Put more generally, the sub-national entities of an increasingly mobile and assimilative society such as ours tend to demand less independence than they once did, and how much of it they get may not make as much difference for national unity.
1AR Extension: #5 249
Every major Iraqi leader rejects the U.S. federalism model.
AL JAZEERA, 2007
[No author credited; “Iraqi PM rejects US division plan” 9/29, ]
Nuri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, has rejected a US senate resolution calling for the creation of separate Sunni, Shia and Kurdish federal regions. Al-Maliki said: "They should stand by Iraq to solidify its unity and its sovereignty. They shouldn't be proposing its division. That could be a disaster not just for Iraq but for the region." Al-Maliki also called on the Iraqi parliament to meet and respond formally to the non-binding resolution, which was passed on Wednesday. Many Sunnis and Shias oppose greater federalism which they see as a step towards dividing Iraq. 'Iraqi affair' Speaking on a return flight to Baghdad after appearing at the UN General Assembly in New York, al-Maliki said: "It is an Iraqi affair dealing with Iraqis. Iraqis are eager for Iraq's unity... Dividing Iraq is a problem and a decision like that would be a catastrophe." During Friday prayers in Karbala, a spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the Shia spiritual leader, dismissed the proposal. Sheik Abdul Mahdi al Karbalaei said: "The division plan is against Iraqi's interests and against peaceful living in one united Iraq. Any neighbouring country supporting this project will pay the price of instability in the region." On Thursday, Liwa Semeism, a spokesman for Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia cleric, said: "We demand the Iraqi government to stand against such project and to condemn it officially.
Military Trade-off Disadvantage Negative 250
Background Information: Military Trade-off 1
Military Trade-off Disadvantage 1NC 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #1 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #2 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #3 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #4 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #5 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #6 1
2NC Extension – A/t: #7 1
2NC Impact: Free Trade 1
Background Information: Military Trade-off 251
Military Trade-off Disadvantage 1NC 252
A. Uniqueness: Congress will reach a compromise to avoid new spending or defense cuts in the status quo, but any agreement will be fragile.
BLOOMBERG NEWS, 2012
[Brendan McGarry, staff writer, “McCain Says Revenue Increase Possible to Stop Defense Cut,” 6/21, ]
Senator John McCain, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said a revenue increase may be possible to avoid the threat of automatic cuts known as sequestration. A previous proposal to reduce spending and raise revenue “could serve as a blueprint for further action,” McCain of Arizona said today at a Bloomberg Government defense conference in Washington. The threat of automatic defense cuts “is so devastating that the secretary of defense will not even contemplate the plans necessary to implement sequestration,” said McCain, who cited elimination of tax breaks for ethanol as part of a potential compromise. Automatic, across-the-board cuts of $1.2 trillion to both domestic and national-security programs will take place over a decade, beginning in January, if Congress and President Barack Obama don’t agree this year to make adjustments. The cuts were imposed after talks failed last year on a bipartisan plan to curb the nation’s soaring debt. Efforts to forge a compromise have been frustrated by Republican lawmakers opposed to any revenue increase and Democrats who have said revenue must be part of the package. The likeliest outcome is that Congress will avoid facing the fiscal challenge and pass a continuing resolution that would only postpone cuts, according to Dov Zakheim, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a former Pentagon comptroller.
B. Link: New transportation spending will require massive cuts to the defense budget, and Obama has made it clear he will only accept a direct military tradeoff.
EAGLEN, 2012
[Mackenzie, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute’s Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies, “Obama’s defense strategy says one thing while the defense budget does another,” 2/16, ]
President Obama sent an annual budget request to Capitol Hill today that does little to reduce the deficit but dramatically cuts military spending anyway. Even though last year’s debt ceiling deal was supposedly agreed to in order to reduce America’s crushing debt burden, Obama is apparently planning to use half of the cuts in war spending to “help finance a major six-year, 20050 percent increase in transportation spending.” Defense cuts in the name of debt reduction are really for increased domestic spending. This is not a surprise. Last summer, President Obama made his priorities clear: social spending trumps national security. “A lot of the spending cuts that we’re making should be around areas like defense spending as opposed to food stamps,” he told NPR. He went on to say last summer during his Twitter town hall that “the nice thing about the defense budget is it’s so big … that you can make relatively modest changes to defense that end up giving you a lot of head room to fund things like basic research or student loans or things like that.”
Military Trade-off Disadvantage 1NC 253
C) Internal Link: The military is already on the brink of failure, and any new budget cut will make effective U.S. leadership impossible.
DONNELLY AND SCHMITT, 2011
[Thomas, Resident Fellow and Co-Director of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at American Enterprise Institute; Gary, Resident Scholar, Co-Director of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies and Director of the Program on American Citizenship at American Enterprise Institute, “Warning: Hollow Force Ahead!,” 7/21, ]
The U.S. military is on an almost-inevitable--and unsustainable--path toward a 21st-century form of "hollowness" that will leave it less prepared for unforeseen crises and contingencies in the future. The long-term geopolitical trends reflect protracted and persistent irregular wars in the Middle East, nuclear proliferation in unstable regions, and a rising China that continues to modernize its military with the aim of undermining American dominance in the Asia-Pacific theater. In contrast, the military has struggled to recapitalize our own forces, has fought two major wars with only incremental increases in manpower, is beset with rising personnel costs, and faces the prospect of rising operational and maintenance costs as it operates aging and worn-out systems. The Defense Department and Congress have worked hard to ensure that troops sent into harm's way are well prepared and equipped; however, the military's superb performance on the battlefield masks the true state of overall readiness. There is not a service--Reserves and National Guard included--which has not reported serious readiness shortfalls in the past few years. As an example, over half the Navy's deployed aircraft is not ready for combat. It is also important to consider the state of non-deployed U.S. forces, the country's strategic reserve. Here the contrasts are increasingly stark. For example, the recent congressional testimony of Marine Lt. Gen. Frank Panter provides insight into the large-scale problem that all services face: "We continue to globally source equipment for Afghanistan and to meet other equipment requirements as we rapidly respond to emerging threats in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe." In other words, the Marines are stripping equipment from units across the world to sustain those in the fight. Panter added: "The supply rating of units at home station hovers around 65 percent." The Marines also discovered that their basic tables of organization and equipment were too small--that is, they didn't have enough equipment to begin with before a decade of combat operations had ensued. The result, combined with the fact that those in ground combat units are the most frequently deployed Marines and soldiers, is "a reduced ability of equipment to outfit and train our non-deployed units." As the Corps scrapes the global barrel to outfit units now fighting, those units recovering or preparing for deployment are unable to conduct sustainment training and must accept a risky, just-enough approach to high-end training immediately before going to war. The long-term effect of just-in-time readiness is therefore a growing bill just for "reset"--that is, the cost of restoring the Marines' gear to its pre-war condition that puts aside the costs of it for the future. Indeed, the Marines now estimate their reset costs at $10.6 billion, of which about $5 billion remains unfunded. While no comprehensive analysis for long-term readiness has been undertaken, the rough overall pattern is apparent: the future of American national security is being mortgaged to fight today's wars and reduce the deficit by an insignificant amount. As a result, America's armed forces, which have been stretched thin for nearly a decade, will likely be asked in the years ahead to do the same or more with even less if defense spending is cut once again.
Military Trade-off Disadvantage 1NC 254
D) Impact: A decline in U.S. global power causes a vacuum where terrorism, economic collapse, disease and nuclear war become uncontrollable.
FERGUSON, Professor of History at Harvard University, 2004
[Niall, PhD Oxford and Senior Fellow at Oxford and Hoover Institution at Stanford, “A World without Power” July/August, ]
For more than two decades, globalization—the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital—has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization—which a new Dark Age would produce—would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe’s Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists’ infiltration of the E.U. would become irreversible, increasing transatlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home were preferable to the risks of default abroad.
The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy—from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai—would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony—its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier—its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity—a global vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.
2NC Extension – A/t: #1 255
1. Extend our BLOOMBERG NEWS evidence; the government will reach a compromise now to avoid new spending or defense cuts, but this assumes that no unexpected spending like the plan happens in the short-term.
2. A bipartisan group of legislators are already working on compromises to prevent new defense budget cuts.
THE HILL, 2012
[Carlo Munoz, staff writer, “GOP senators propose House-Senate work groups on sequester,” 7/01, ]
Senate Republicans are floating the idea of establishing House-Senate working groups as a way to forge a compromise plan to avoid massive defense budget cuts in the coming year. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said that forming the bipartisan working groups would be a critical piece in getting lawmakers in both chambers on the same page, regarding the automatic defense cuts under sequestration. "I see that as the [main] step forward right now," Ayotte said on Tuesday of the planned House-Senate working groups. On Friday, House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said the idea of the working groups has also been informally discussed among Democrats in both chambers, including by Senate Armed Services Committee chief Carl Levin (D-Mich.). "Nothing [has] formalized yet, [but] obviously I talk occasionally to Senator Levin and others about it," he told The Hill. The groups, he added, "would be a good idea" to try and break the partisan stalemate over what can be done to avoid sequestration. Ayotte's office has discussed the idea with Levin and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the Senate Defense committee's ranking member, in recent weeks, according to a Senate Republican aide. But the Senate aide told The Hill on Wednesday that Ayotte's office was still in the midst of gauging support for the measure and had yet to lay out any concrete plans for the working groups. A group of 15 to 30 senators has been drafting sequestration alternatives behind closed doors for the past month, but those talks have largely remained on the Democrat-controlled Senate side. Bringing in House members via the working groups could hasten those informal Senate talks into a tangible, bipartisan solution that can be brought to the White House.
2NC Extension – A/t: #2 256
1. Extend our DONNELLY AND SCHMITT evidence. The military is already stretched thin, and new cuts are not sustainable. Any efficiency gains would be long-term, but the military would be unable to succeed in its missions now.
2. The military has already delayed any next-generation development, and new cuts will push any technological innovation further down the line.
DONNELLY AND SCHMITT, 2011
[Thomas, Resident Fellow and Co-Director of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at American Enterprise Institute; Gary, Resident Scholar, Co-Director of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies and Director of the Program on American Citizenship at American Enterprise Institute, “Warning: Hollow Force Ahead!,” 7/21, ]
Fact: The Pentagon has nearly skipped a generation of modernization programs while, at the same time, failing to "transform" U.S. forces for the future. The defense budget growth of the past decade was largely on consumables related to current operations. All of the defense cuts over the past two years mortgaged the future to pay for the present. Today America's military flies the same basic planes (e.g., F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fighters; B-52, B-1 and B-2 bombers and a variety of support aircraft), sails the same basic ships (e.g., Trident ballistic missile and Los Angeles-class attack submarines, Aegis-equipped destroyers and cruisers, Nimitz-class aircraft carriers), and employs the same basic ground systems (e.g., Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Black Hawk and Apache helicopters) that it did at the end of the Cold War. The White House and Congress prematurely terminated, or never brought to production, follow-on systems such as the F-22 fighter, the Seawolf-class sub, or the Comanche helicopter. As a result, tens of billions have been invested on development with little fielded reward. The F-35 fighter remains the sole major pillar of post-Cold War procurement--yet even that has been whittled away and now stands in danger. In his final day at the Pentagon, Secretary Gates said that purchases of F-35 fighters "might be cut back as part of the Pentagon's new budget review." Indeed, he had already placed the Marine Corps' variant of the F-35 on a two-year "probation." At the same time, while the Air Force has reduced its total F-35 procurement plans to about 1, 200700 aircraft, it has also identified a fighter shortfall of about 800 aircraft. The Air Force thus finds itself forced to extend the life of its existing F-15 and F-16 fleets. The Navy is in the same boat, and is extending its buy of F-18s fighters. Even these efforts to maintain an aging legacy fleet and buy additional fourth-generation tactical fighters are at risk due to budget cuts already underway. No doubt, supposedly transformational systems like remotely-piloted vehicles have made immense contributions to the irregular warfare efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That said, the original vision of a new regime of high-technology conventional systems to offset Chinese military modernization has yet to be realized. The so-called "Next Generation Bomber," the symbol of the defense transformation program, was originally planned for 2018 production, but then that date slipped with the 2010 budget cuts. Indeed, the project was directed to "close up shop" and has been subsumed in a broader long-range strike effort and a new program office created within the Air Force. This dilemma--shortfalls of modernization and failures of transformation--plagues all of the military services. The looming budget cuts will diminish the number of current procurements like the F-35 fighter, while also delaying the day when more revolutionary capabilities will be developed and fielded.
2NC Extension – A/t: #2 257
3. Cutting defense spending makes it impossible to achieve any foreign policy goal by emboldening enemies and making allies less willing to contribute political will.
KAGAN, 2009
[Robert, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “No Time to Be Cutting the Defense Budget,” 2/03, ]
A reduction in defense spending this year would unnerve American allies and undercut efforts to gain greater cooperation. There is already a sense around the world, fed by irresponsible pundits here at home, that the United States is in terminal decline. Many fear that the economic crisis will cause the United States to pull back from overseas commitments. The announcement of a defense cutback would be taken by the world as evidence that the American retreat has begun. This would make it harder to press allies to do more. The Obama administration rightly plans to encourage European allies to increase defense capabilities so they can more equitably share the burden of global commitments. This will be a tough sell if the United States is cutting its own defense budget. In Afghanistan, there are already concerns that the United States may be "short of breath." In Pakistan, the military may be tempted to wait out what its members perceive as America's flagging commitment to the region. A reduction in defense funding would feed these perceptions and make it harder for Obama's newly appointed special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, to press for necessary changes in both countries. · What worries allies cheers and emboldens potential adversaries. The Obama administration is right to reach out and begin direct talks with leaders in Tehran. But the already-slim chances of success will grow slimmer if Iranian leaders believe that the United States may soon begin pulling back from their part of the world. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's spokesman has already declared that the United States has lost its power -- just because President Obama said he is willing to talk. Imagine how that perception would be reinforced if Obama starts cutting funding for an already inadequately funded force.
2NC Extension – A/t: #2 258
4. The only reason we are not constantly attacked is our strong approach to military spending. New cuts will tell our enemies that we are cannot defend ourselves.
ROACH, 2012
[Morgan Lorraine, research associate at The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies; “U.S. Defense Cuts Hobble Allies, Embolden Enemies,” 1/23, ]
President Obama’s new defense strategy is sending the wrong message to America’s foes. The new cut-rate approach to national security provides opportunities for Iran and others to exploit an under-funded and under-equipped military. During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama made no secret of his plans to reduce defense spending. And so it was no surprise when, in April 2011, President Obama ordered the Pentagon to slash its budget by $400 billion. This, of course, came in addition to the $400 billion in cuts he had already imposed. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta subsequently unveiled a defense “strategic review” that conveniently explained that America’s shift in domestic and overseas priorities requires a different approach to defense spending — one that, coincidentally, can accommodate a defense budget that is $400 billion “leaner.” The prospect of a leaner (i.e., less capable) American military doubtless cheers our foreign adversaries. The leaders of Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and others rant and rave against a U.S. they revile as the “Great Satan” and an “Imperial Yankee,” hell-bent on colonizing their homelands. Yet they have been restrained from challenging us with anything much stronger than words due to our military strength, which assures our forces can prevail anywhere on the world stage.
5. Defense cuts will embolden enemies, making conflict more likely.
SLATTERY, 2012
[Brian, Research Assistant, Defense Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “Defense Cuts Ignore Threats, Increase Risks,” 2/23, ]
President Obama’s cuts to defense put America’s national security at risk, argues Heritage’s James Carafano. As the U.S. draws out of two foreign wars, the President assumes that America will no longer require a capable global force. However, these cuts do not account for growing threats throughout the world. U.S adversaries will only grow emboldened as America draws down its defenses. Proponents of defense cuts argue that America’s forces are overfunded and bloated; therefore, they can accept a degree of reductions. However, the President’s recent budget request will reduce not just top-line spending but also military readiness. Obama’s strategic guidance calls for a shift to the Asia–Pacific region, yet his budget request cuts funding for both fighter jets and naval ships.
2NC Extension – A/t: #3 259
1. Extend our EAGLEN evidence; Obama has made it his priority to push for cuts in the defense budget to allow for transportation spending. Any new transportation spending would lead him to propose more cuts to the military.
2. Medicare and Social Security are untouchable, so any new transportation spending will come from the Department of Defense.
BLOOMBERG NEWS, 2012
[Heidi Przybyla and Kathleen Hunter, staff writers, “Obama Budget Doubles Infrastructure Funds While Cutting Programs,” 2/13, ]
Obama proposed increasing spending on road and bridge infrastructure to create jobs. In addition to gasoline tax revenue, transportation spending would come from a $38.5 billion-a-year transfer from the fund that now goes to war spending. Budget proposals for discretionary spending must adhere to August’s Budget Control Act, which imposed spending caps that the administration estimates will generate about $1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. Bearing Brunt Because Social Security (USBOSOCS) and Medicare benefits and many of the other mandatory programs that account for more than half of the federal budget are exempt from cuts, domestic agencies and the Defense Department (USBODEFN) would bear the brunt of reductions.
3. Unplanned transportation spending will cause a direct and immediate cut to military spending.
KNUDSEN, 2011
[Patrick Louis, the senior budget expert at The Heritage Foundation, “Spending Bills Setting Up Reckless Defense Cuts,” 11/14, ]
The Senate has larded its 12 appropriations bills with a total of $8.6 billion in “disaster relief” funds. House appropriators, to their credit, proposed no disaster spending. (See the Heritage Foundation Appropriations Tracker.) Nevertheless, on November 3, the House passed a procedural motion, with the support of 79 Republicans, urging minibus negotiators to insist on “the highest level of funding” for Federal Highway Administration disaster relief funding, which represents $1.9 billion of the disaster funds in the Senate bills. The motion is not binding, but it is likely to influence House appropriators to accept at least some of the Senate’s added spending. That would be the first opening of the disaster spigot, which would then likely widen with subsequent spending measures. Even more problematic, however, is how the path set by these first three appropriations bills could further risk military readiness with an irresponsible freeze in the defense spending bill. House versions of the 12 regular appropriations bills total $1.04 trillion, about $3 billion below the official BCA budget authority cap for FY 2012. The distribution of funds in the House measures includes $530 billion for the defense bill, an increase of 3.3 percent over FY 2011. The Senate provides a higher total for its non-defense spending but freezes the defense bill at the 2011 level of $513 billion. Therefore, depending on the sequence in which the appropriations are considered, each non-defense budget measure that passes at or near the higher Senate level increases the pressure on subsequent bills, including defense, to absorb deeper cuts to stay under the total BCA cap.
2NC Extension – A/t: #3 260
4. Even without a direct tradeoff, more spending on domestic programs creates political will for cutting defense programs and increasing isolationism which cause every scenario for nuclear war.
FRIEDBERG AND SCHOENFELD, 2008
[Aaron, professor of politics and international relations at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School; Gabriel, senior editor of Commentary, is a visiting scholar at the Witherspoon Institute, “The Dangers of a Diminished America,” Wall Street Journal, 2010/21, ]
With the global financial system in serious trouble, is America's geostrategic dominance likely to diminish? If so, what would that mean? One immediate implication of the crisis that began on Wall Street and spread across the world is that the primary instruments of U.S. foreign policy will be crimped. The next president will face an entirely new and adverse fiscal position. Estimates of this year's federal budget deficit already show that it has jumped $237 billion from last year, to $407 billion. With families and businesses hurting, there will be calls for various and expensive domestic relief programs. In the face of this onrushing river of red ink, both Barack Obama and John McCain have been reluctant to lay out what portions of their programmatic wish list they might defer or delete. Only Joe Biden has suggested a possible reduction -- foreign aid. This would be one of the few popular cuts, but in budgetary terms it is a mere grain of sand. Still, Sen. Biden's comment hints at where we may be headed: toward a major reduction in America's world role, and perhaps even a new era of financially-induced isolationism. Pressures to cut defense spending, and to dodge the cost of waging two wars, already intense before this crisis, are likely to mount. Despite the success of the surge, the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Precipitous withdrawal -- attractive to a sizable swath of the electorate before the financial implosion -- might well become even more popular with annual war bills running in the hundreds of billions. Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger as jobs disappear in the coming slowdown. Even before our current woes, calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support among many Democrats and some Republicans. In a prolonged recession, gale-force winds of protectionism will blow. Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability.
2NC Extension – A/t: #4 261
1. Extend our DONNELLY AND SCHMITT evidence; the U.S. military is on the brink of collapse but is still capable of projecting power to meet all of today’s challenges. Their evidence is old and assuming the Bush administration when unilateralism was unchecked.
2. The U.S. is still the global leader due to the political advantages it gains from military power, but that could change with future cuts.
ITUMA, 2012
[Mathew, Ph.D. student at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences in the Department of Conflict Analysis and Dispute Resolution at Nova Southeastern University, “The United States' Supremacy and her place in Global Politics and the Geopolitics of the International System,” 7/04, ]
While it is not clear for how long the U.S can rely on its military resources to maintain its influence on global politics given the dwindling economic opportunities at home and abroad, it is apparent that maintaining the lead as a single most powerful nation in the world has lately been challenging. Specifically, the entry of China into the arena of world politics and its emerging economic influence on international relations is worrisome. Pundits argue that the entry of China into the geopolitics of the world system is likely to challenge the status quo and cause a shift in the balance of power. Opponents of the unipolar world system also contend that the U.S has in the past over-relied on its military resources to defend its position and may benefit from expanding its strategies beyond militarism in order to maintain its leading role in the unipolarized world system. One of the major reasons that supports their case as to why the U.S. might benefit from supplementing its military resources with other strategies such as “truly” free trade and globalization is because of the increased transparency and development in tracking technology enhanced by the internet revolution. In this case, the “strings” of the U.S. economic aid and military get shorter or are limited or eliminated, thereby clearing its vision of the “good image” that is currently blurred by militarism in its intervention strategies. More importantly, increased transparency will not only legitimize its position and supremacy as the leading world power but will also leverage its balance of trade as it tries to maintain the status quo. I suspect that by combining military prowess with increased free and honest trade, the U.S. will most likely continue to dominate the world system but unless this happens, China is likely to continue nibbling at its feet and is likely to challenge the status quo. Way forward Once it creates a legitimatized “good image” through increased open trade relations, supported by the military resources, the U.S. transformation into a supra-super power starts to take shape in the fashion of true globalization through the domestication of its foreign policy into the international system. This, I argue, may be the single most effective strategy the U.S. may be able to maintain its supremacy and domination of the international geopolitics without over relying on its military resources to keep its leadership position. It is only through this model, in my view, that the U.S will be able to kick-off the building of a truly imperialist empire that transcends national boundaries without having to answer questions about the motives or morality. The increased open relations with nations will also strengthen global interdependency such that there will be respect and fair treatment between and among nations beyond geographical bonders. This means that the position of the U.S. will remain unchallenged because of the systems’ incapability to launch any threat to the supremacy given the nature of the interdependency arising from envisioned globalization, effectively positioning the U.S. at the center of the bigger world system, hence promoting an ideological hierarchy that perpetuates its continued transnational domination. The supremacy of the U.S and the management of international resources created through the interdependent webs of economic and military linkages with other nations, as I see it are likely to bring forth the idea of a global government. While the idea of a global government may a contested site of political discourse, it is evident that no nation will now or in the future be able to either fully dominate and keep absolute power over the international system. It is therefore based on this principle that my conception of a world government becomes tenable.
2NC Extension – A/t: #5 262
1. Extend our FERGUSON evidence; the absence of U.S. military leadership creates a vacuum where terrorists will operate freely and nuclear war is inevitable. Even if U.S. leadership is not perfect, there is no one else who can do it better.
2. Perception is important: in the short-term, decreasing military spending invites enemies to attack and allies to get more aggressive.
SLATTERY, 2012
[Brian, Research Assistant, Defense Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “Defense Cuts Ignore Threats, Increase Risks,” 2/23, ]
Those who favor slashing defense also argue that American forces can simply do less. They suggest that through a less aggressive foreign policy, the U.S. can minimize its involvement in global conflicts. This argument ignores an important fact: The enemy gets a vote. As America prematurely pulls out of Afghanistan, the Taliban may be emboldened, thinking they can simply outlast the U.S. in the region. America’s acceptance of a smaller force also sends a negative signal to its allies. As Iran and North Korea continue to develop nuclear weapons, a weaker U.S. missile defense may cause weary allies to produce their own arsenals as a deterrent. Obama’s intended goal of reducing nuclear arms worldwide would thus backfire.
3. Economic growth and stability require military power to defend them, and only the U.S. has that ability. A decline in hegemony will cause global chaos.
KAGAN, 2012
[Robert, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Why the World Needs America,” 2/11, ]
But international order is not an evolution; it is an imposition. It is the domination of one vision over others—in America's case, the domination of free-market and democratic principles, together with an international system that supports them. The present order will last only as long as those who favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to defend it. There was nothing inevitable about the world that was created after World War II. No divine providence or unfolding Hegelian dialectic required the triumph of democracy and capitalism, and there is no guarantee that their success will outlast the powerful nations that have fought for them. Democratic progress and liberal economics have been and can be reversed and undone. The ancient democracies of Greece and the republics of Rome and Venice all fell to more powerful forces or through their own failings. The evolving liberal economic order of Europe collapsed in the 1920s and 1930s. The better idea doesn't have to win just because it is a better idea. It requires great powers to champion it. If and when American power declines, the institutions and norms that American power has supported will decline, too. Or more likely, if history is a guide, they may collapse altogether as we make a transition to another kind of world order, or to disorder. We may discover then that the U.S. was essential to keeping the present world order together and that the alternative to American power was not peace and harmony but chaos and catastrophe—which is what the world looked like right before the American order came into being.
2NC Extension – A/t: #5 263
4. History proves our argument; systems with one global leader are more stable and have less violence than multipolar systems.
KAGAN, 2012
[Robert, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Why the World Needs America,” 2/11, ]
Finally, what about the long peace that has held among the great powers for the better part of six decades? Would it survive in a post-American world? Most commentators who welcome this scenario imagine that American predominance would be replaced by some kind of multipolar harmony. But multipolar systems have historically been neither particularly stable nor particularly peaceful. Rough parity among powerful nations is a source of uncertainty that leads to miscalculation. Conflicts erupt as a result of fluctuations in the delicate power equation. War among the great powers was a common, if not constant, occurrence in the long periods of multipolarity from the 16th to the 18th centuries, culminating in the series of enormously destructive Europe-wide wars that followed the French Revolution and ended with Napoleon's defeat in 1815. The 19th century was notable for two stretches of great-power peace of roughly four decades each, punctuated by major conflicts. The Crimean War (1853-1856) was a mini-world war involving well over a million Russian, French, British and Turkish troops, as well as forces from nine other nations; it produced almost a half-million dead combatants and many more wounded. In the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), the two nations together fielded close to two million troops, of whom nearly a half-million were killed or wounded. The peace that followed these conflicts was characterized by increasing tension and competition, numerous war scares and massive increases in armaments on both land and sea. Its climax was World War I, the most destructive and deadly conflict that mankind had known up to that point. As the political scientist Robert W. Tucker has observed, "Such stability and moderation as the balance brought rested ultimately on the threat or use of force. War remained the essential means for maintaining the balance of power." There is little reason to believe that a return to multipolarity in the 21st century would bring greater peace and stability than it has in the past. The era of American predominance has shown that there is no better recipe for great-power peace than certainty about who holds the upper hand.
2NC Extension – A/t: #5 264
5. Loss of U.S. leadership will lead to a global rollback of democracy, making conflict more likely.
KAGAN, 2012
[Robert, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Why the World Needs America,” 2/11, ]
If all of this sounds too good to be true, it is. The present world order was largely shaped by American power and reflects American interests and preferences. If the balance of power shifts in the direction of other nations, the world order will change to suit their interests and preferences. Nor can we assume that all the great powers in a post-American world would agree on the benefits of preserving the present order, or have the capacity to preserve it, even if they wanted to. Take the issue of democracy. For several decades, the balance of power in the world has favored democratic governments. In a genuinely post-American world, the balance would shift toward the great-power autocracies. Both Beijing and Moscow already protect dictators like Syria's Bashar al-Assad. If they gain greater relative influence in the future, we will see fewer democratic transitions and more autocrats hanging on to power. The balance in a new, multipolar world might be more favorable to democracy if some of the rising democracies—Brazil, India, Turkey, South Africa—picked up the slack from a declining U.S. Yet not all of them have the desire or the capacity to do it.
2NC Extension – A/t: #6 265
1. Extend our DONNELLY AND SCHMITT evidence; the military has been dealing with budget cuts for years and is finally on the brink of complete collapse. There is no excess that can be cut without hurting the entire force.
2. Aging weapons and the effects of past cuts have put the military on the brink.
EAGLEN, 2012
[Mackenzie, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute’s Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies; “Defense cuts and America's outdated military,” 1/25, ]
On Thursday, the Pentagon will begin detailing its plans to cut $500 billion from the military's budget over the next decade. The reason, insists President Barack Obama, is that "since 9/11, our defense budget grew at an extraordinary pace." That's true in top-line numbers—but it's anything but true when examined strategically. Between budget cuts, cost overruns, overweight bureaucracy, ever-growing red tape, and changing requirements, the arsenal of democracy has become a bureaucratic nightmare. In spite of itself, our military cannot build new programs anymore. Old programs might win wars, but with much higher human and financial costs.
3. New cuts to defense budget will push the military over the brink and scuttle valuable weapons development.
HARTZLER, 2012
[Vicky, member of the House Armed Services Committee, “National defense – the federal government’s top priority,” 6/22, ]
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC), on which I serve, estimates sequestration cuts would mean an additional 100,000 fewer Soldiers and Marines. The Navy would likely mothball 60 ships, including two carrier battle groups, while we give up nearly a third of Army Maneuver Battalions and Air Force fighters, a quarter of our bombers, and sequestration would lead to the elimination of 250 fighter aircraft. HASC also believes hundreds of billions of additional dollars stripped away through sequestration would force our military to give up on developing new weapons systems while badly-needed repairs to existing weapons systems are put on hold. Military funding is unlike any other U.S. government spending as the United States Constitution clearly states that the primary obligation of Congress is to defend our country – to protect American citizens from threats in the United States and abroad. There is no doubt the U.S. must get spending under control, but the military, which has already experienced deep cuts to its budget, cannot be expected to carry out its assigned missions with new reductions. New hardships will only make it more difficult for our men and women in uniform to protect our homeland.
2NC Extension – A/t: #6 266
4. Cuts would leave valuable units understaffed in every component of the service, making power projection impossible.
CARAFANO AND FRASER, 2012
[James Jay, Deputy Director, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at Heritage Foundation; Alison, Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at Heritage Foundation, “Senate Initiative Would Block Blow to Military Readiness,” 2/07, ]
In a few years, for example, rushing ships to deter a crisis like blocking the Strait of Hormuz could leave the U.S. short in safeguarding other interests at sea. We would have a Navy and Coast Guard so stretched that they would not be able to protect U.S. sovereignty at sea, from patrolling fisheries to stopping seaborne smuggling. Our coasts could well become as porous as our borders. The U.S. will have to contemplate missions where the Air Force cannot guarantee it can control the skies. The Marines will not have enough ships to deploy their force. The Army will scramble to find the resources to meet all its tasks for training and supporting missions worldwide. The Pentagon has already drastically cut the number of dedicated and specially trained and equipped Army forces to deal with disasters here at home. Withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq will not help redress the growing imbalance between missions and capabilities. Those forces are being cut away as part of debt reduction.
5. And the damage is permanent. Even if funding is later restored, the loss in military readiness cannot be undone.
CARAFANO AND FRASER, 2012
[James Jay, Deputy Director, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at Heritage Foundation; Alison, Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at Heritage Foundation, “Senate Initiative Would Block Blow to Military Readiness,” 2/07, ]
The additional cuts mandated in FY 2013 by the Budget Control Act of 2011 will exacerbate the decline of American military power. The Administration has stated it will not include the reductions in its presidential budget submission for the Defense Department in 2013. As a result, if cuts are imposed automatically, they will directly and adversely affect the Pentagon’s effort to maintain trained and ready forces. Even if this funding is restored in subsequent years, the negative impact of these additional cuts will be enduring. Training days lost cannot be recovered. Deferred maintenance only adds to the challenge of fixing and maintaining equipment in a cost-effective manner. Delays in buying new equipment drive up costs. All these additional expenses will be layered on top of long-range budget plans that are already chronically underfunded for critical defense needs.
2NC Extension – A/t: #6 267
6. Any additional cuts will take money from training and already stretched budget categories.
CARAFANO, 2012
[James Jay, Deputy Director, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at Heritage Foundation; “Putting national security at risk,” Washington Times, 2/17, ]
Using austerity to force the armed forces to be more efficient doesn't hold much promise, either. It's easy to assume that the Pentagon has a lot of money floating around. The Defense Department said it spent about half a billion dollars to help oust Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, but it only requested authority to reprogram about $80 million in spending. Where did the rest come from? It didn't come from any slush fund. The Pentagon robbed training, maintenance and operations accounts to pay for President Obama's war, and that resulted in shortfalls that directly reduce military readiness. It is like shorting the mortgage payment to pay your credit cards.
7. The military has already cut everything it can afford.
CARAFANO, 2012
[James Jay, Deputy Director, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at Heritage Foundation; “Putting national security at risk,” Washington Times, 2/17, ]
For the Pentagon, the prospects of the carpet-bombing approach to spending cuts are doubly troubling. The armed forces are already slotted to absorb 50 percent of the cuts in government spending, even though defense accounts for less than 20 percent of the budget. The act would double those cuts. There are a host of arguments for just going ahead and cutting spending. For example, the military can get rid of excess bases. Unfortunately, the Pentagon already has done that. It shed all kinds of bases the world over after the Cold War. In fact, the last time it closed bases, in 2005, it cost the military more than $30 billion to do so. If the U.S. starts closing more bases around the world, it's going to need twice as many ships, planes and people and take twice as long to accomplish the same tasks. It would be like being on vacation in Florida and instead of using an ATM to get cash, running back to New York to take money out of your piggy bank.
2NC Extension – A/t: #7 268
1. Obama’s strategy requires military force, but pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan is only a temporary fix. More conflicts are inevitable which will require a stronger military.
DONNELLY AND SCHMITT, 2011
[Thomas, Resident Fellow and Co-Director of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at American Enterprise Institute; Gary, Resident Scholar, Co-Director of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies and Director of the Program on American Citizenship at American Enterprise Institute, “Warning: Hollow Force Ahead!,” 7/21, ]
Fact: As recent U.S. military commitments outside of Afghanistan and Iraq have shown, the pace of operations is likely to remain high. President Obama has maintained every foreign policy commitment set by his predecessors and added to the military‟s missions. The President surged forces twice in Afghanistan, started a new operation in Libya, sent troops to Japan and Haiti for disaster relief operations, and kept 1,200 National Guard troops at America's southwest border. The demand for military personnel may not decline. The future posture and operational tempo of U.S. forces abroad are far from certain. In Iraq, current administration policy and defense planning are premised on a complete withdrawal by the end of 2011. That could quickly change, however. The government in Baghdad has indicated openness to a continuing American military presence after 2011. Indeed, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently urged the Iraqis to consider allowing at least 10,000 U.S. troops to remain. In Afghanistan, Secretary Panetta has noted that, even after the "surge" drawdown scheduled to run through 2012, 20070,000 U.S. troops will remain. While Afghan security forces are scheduled to "take the lead" in security missions after 2014, it is likely that a significant U.S. military presence in the country will still be required. To be sure, it would not be responsible to base future U.S. planning in Afghanistan on the assumption of continued large-scale NATO assistance. At minimum, the United States should be prepared to retain brigade-sized forces in Kabul and in all the current NATO regional commands, including a larger presence in the Pashtun south and east, while continuing efforts to build Afghan military capability. For such objectives, an estimate of 40,000 troops in Afghanistan past 2014 is conservative. Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan would represent only a part of U.S. posture in the greater Middle East--a historically unstable region now in the throes of a further transition and facing the prospect of an accelerated regional nuclear arms race sparked by Iran. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have attempted to reposture and redeploy U.S. forces to the Pacific, though the efforts have been slowed due to wartime needs, limited construction funds, and political uncertainties. Importantly, recent history tells us to expect the unexpected. The last four U.S. presidents--two Republicans, two Democrats--have each sent America's military into harm's way for wars that were not anticipated. Even if the U.S. military quickly clarifies its operational picture, it still will face, in addition to the rapid rise in health and benefits costs, expected increases in military pay. According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis, costs for base military pay will likely rise by $5 billion more than planned in the next five years. "Two of the big places the money is, is in pay and benefits," lamented Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In sum, the size and disposition of today's forces do not account for likely realities and unforeseen contingencies, and the military's personnel accounts will continue to consume an increasing share of the Pentagon budget. Cuts to the military's top-line budget will exacerbate all these troubles.
2NC Extension – A/t: #7 269
2. Obama’s strategy of dialogue and negotiation will fail, and if the military is not strong when it does then war is guaranteed.
ROACH, 2012
[Morgan Lorraine, research associate at The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies; “U.S. Defense Cuts Hobble Allies, Embolden Enemies,” 1/23, ]
Yet despite this announced transition in engagement from Europe to the Asia- Pacific, very few resources are being sent to the latter region. Rather, cuts are being taken elsewhere, particularly in areas such as modernization. The administration’s defense cuts undermine America’s ability to respond to international threats and protect U.S. citizens and allies. Furthermore, they invite Iran and other aggressors to threaten U.S. interests. Soon enough, Mr. Obama’s policy of pursuing peace through diplomatic “engagement” while allowing our military strength to atrophy will lead us not to peace, but to increasing global insecurity and — ultimately — war.
2NC Impact: Free Trade 270
Without the U.S. to defend global economic trading institutions, new powers like India and China will inevitably disagree on trade schemes and this causes war.
KAGAN, 2012
[Robert, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Why the World Needs America,” 2/11, ]
What about the economic order of free markets and free trade? People assume that China and other rising powers that have benefited so much from the present system would have a stake in preserving it. They wouldn't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Unfortunately, they might not be able to help themselves. The creation and survival of a liberal economic order has depended, historically, on great powers that are both willing and able to support open trade and free markets, often with naval power. If a declining America is unable to maintain its long-standing hegemony on the high seas, would other nations take on the burdens and the expense of sustaining navies to fill in the gaps? Even if they did, would this produce an open global commons—or rising tension? China and India are building bigger navies, but the result so far has been greater competition, not greater security. As Mohan Malik has noted in this newspaper, their "maritime rivalry could spill into the open in a decade or two," when India deploys an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean and China deploys one in the Indian Ocean. The move from American-dominated oceans to collective policing by several great powers could be a recipe for competition and conflict rather than for a liberal economic order.
Military Trade-off Disadvantage Affirmative 271
2AC Frontline – Military Trade-off Disadvantage 1
1AR Extension - #1 1
1AR Extension - #2 1
1AR Extension - #3 1
1AR Extension - #4 1
Plan-specific Impact Answer: Port Security 1
2AC Frontline – Military Trade-off Disadvantage 272
1. Non-unique: More defense cuts are already coming due to failure to agree to a budget.
EAGLEN, 2012
[Mackenzie, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute’s Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies, “Deal to stop sequestration will have more defense budget cuts and new tax increases,” 6/26, ]
Looking toward the looming “fiscal cliff” during the lame duck this winter, Democrats hold two powerful bargaining chips: the various tax cuts that expire at the end of this year and the threat of sequestration. Republicans only have a vote to raise the debt ceiling as leverage. And the timing of when the debt will need to be increased is in flux and could be pushed to 2013. It appears increasingly likely the final outcome will be a Congress that both raises taxes and cuts more military spending — all without seriously addressing the lion’s share of the federal budget on entitlement spending.
2. Turn: The Great Depression proves that severe cuts to military budgets force better decision-making and increase effectiveness.
SINGER, 2012
[Peter, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at The Brookings Institution, “Strategic reform can help offset budget impasse,” 6/24, ]
Similarly, the issue in acquisitions is not merely which weapons to cut, but rather can we change a system that continually drives us toward underperforming and overpriced programs? All the lessons of Economics 101 to the contrary, we regularly commit to major programs before we even have a single working prototype. Thus, we limit — rather than expand — competition such that every major area in the industry now is either a monopoly or an oligopoly. And despite the fact that more than half of Pentagon purchasing is now for services — not goods — we have yet to pay that part of the system anywhere near the equivalent amount of attention or enact serious reforms to catch up to this reality. These could all be changed if the same leaders who now lament the budget showed the will to act. When people talk about the certain “disaster” looming for national security, I look back to when the U.S. faced a truly dire financial situation. In the 1930s, there was an actual Great Depression, rather than a not-so Great Recession. And yet the leaders then were able to spur remarkable military innovation and reform, from the Navy with aircraft carriers, the Marines with amphibious warfare, the Army Air Corps (what became the Air Force) with strategic bombing, and the Army with the Leavenworth movement and mechanization. The current budget impasse likely will impose some painful choices on Congress and the Pentagon. The important thing, however, is to recognize that they are politically painful, not necessarily strategically costly. Lean times don’t have to spell catastrophe. Rather, it’s how they’re faced that determines the outcome.
2AC Frontline – Military Trade-off Disadvantage 273
3. No Link: Increased transportation spending would tradeoff with other transportation programs, not the military.
UTT, 2012
[Ronald, Ph.D. Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow, “How to Create an Effective Transportation Program in an Age of Fiscal Austerity,” 1/24, ]
If entitlement program spending proves difficult to cut or restrain, the deficit reduction focus will then largely fall upon the $670 billion in “non-defense discretionary” programs. All federal transportation programs—Amtrak, aviation, highways, transit, and the new high-speed rail commitments—are a part of this category, and they are currently running at about $75 billion per year, equal to 11 percent of the non-defense discretionary total. Thus the implications are obvious: If the next Congress cuts this component of discretionary spending by, say, 20 percent for a $134 billion annual savings, then all federal transportation programs would be vulnerable to a $15 billion cut. In turn, this would impact the baseline for all future spending, meaning that all future transportation spending could be $15 billion lower in every subsequent year as compared to baseline projections. Some in Congress have been arguing that the highway/transit component of transportation spending must live within its means. Since the highway trust fund is now spending more than it is receiving in dedicated federal fuel tax revenues, this suggests that cuts will have to be made until spending at least matches revenues and the program is deficit neutral or deficit reducing. To facilitate this goal, in early January the House Republicans amended the existing rule that guaranteed full funding of the infamous SAFETEA-LU, a piece of legislation passed in 2005 that set a record for earmarks and included the “bridges to nowhere.” Under the new rule, highway and transit funding would no longer have that guarantee and could be reduced by Congress, including if trust fund revenues fall below authorized spending levels. As such, highway spending will now be subject to similar budgetary treatment as other discretionary federal spending programs, including homeland security, public health, education, and national defense.
2AC Frontline – Military Trade-off Disadvantage 274
4. No Impact Uniqueness: Multiple unilateral actions have caused global backlash to U.S. leadership, making a decline in hegemony inevitable.
KHANNA, 2008
[Parag, senior research fellow in the American Strategy Program of the New America Foundation, “Waving Goodbye to Hegemony,” 1/27, ]
It is 2016, and the Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Barack Obama administration is nearing the end of its second term. America has pulled out of Iraq but has about 20,000 troops in the independent state of Kurdistan, as well as warships anchored at Bahrain and an Air Force presence in Qatar. Afghanistan is stable; Iran is nuclear. China has absorbed Taiwan and is steadily increasing its naval presence around the Pacific Rim and, from the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea. The European Union has expanded to well over 30 members and has secure oil and gas flows from North Africa, Russia and the Caspian Sea, as well as substantial nuclear energy. America’s standing in the world remains in steady decline. Why? Weren’t we supposed to reconnect with the United Nations and reaffirm to the world that America can, and should, lead it to collective security and prosperity? Indeed, improvements to America’s image may or may not occur, but either way, they mean little. Condoleezza Rice has said America has no “permanent enemies,” but it has no permanent friends either. Many saw the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as the symbols of a global American imperialism; in fact, they were signs of imperial overstretch. Every expenditure has weakened America’s armed forces, and each assertion of power has awakened resistance in the form of terrorist networks, insurgent groups and “asymmetric” weapons like suicide bombers. America’s unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order. That new global order has arrived, and there is precious little Clinton or McCain or Obama could do to resist its growth.
5. No impact: Military strength does not solve the world’s problems.
HACHIGAN AND SUTPHEN, 2008
[Nina and Monica, Stanford Center for International Security, The Next American Century, p. 168-9]
In practice, the strategy of primacy failed to deliver. While the fact of being the world’s only superpower has substantial benefits, a national security strategy based on suing and ratiaing primacy has not made America more secure. America’s military might has not been the answer to terrorism, disease, climate change, or proliferation. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have become more dangerous in the last seven years, not less. Worse than being ineffective with transnational threats and smaller powers, a strategy of maintaining primacy is counterproductive when it comes to pivotal powers. If America makes primacy the main goal of its national security strategy, then why shouldn’t the pivotal powers do the same? A goal of primacy signals that sheer strength is most critical to security. American cannot trumpet its desire to dominate the world military and then question why China is modernizing its military.
2AC Frontline – Military Trade-off Disadvantage 275
6. No Internal Link: The military items most likely to be cut are useless and excess weapons programs that do nothing in the context of current threats.
THE ATLANTIC, 2010
[Joshua Green, writer and editor for The Atlantic, “Cut the Military Budget,” 6/16, ]
Today, the United States spends more on its military than during the height of the Cold War. The Soviet Union no longer poses a threat, yet we continue to spend huge sums protecting countries in Europe and Asia. This defense subsidy allows Europeans to provide a level of social welfare far in excess of what the United States offers its citizens. If Germany, France, and Britain bore more of their own defense costs, US tax dollars could go elsewhere, or nowhere. Overpriced, underperforming weapons systems are a hardy Washington perennial also ripe for the cutting. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and the V-22 Osprey -- all identified as potential cost savings in the task force report [pdf] -- have been targeted by reformers for years. No less a hawk than Dick Cheney has pronounced the V-22 "a turkey.'' That we continue paying for these weapons makes even less sense now that terrorists, not communists, are the enemy. This sorry state of affairs persists mainly for two reasons. Presidents rarely confront it: Republicans like to spend money on the military, and Democrats are afraid not to. "For years,'' Frank said, "the major obstacle to a Democrat winning the presidency was being seen as soft on defense. That's why Mike Dukakis put on that helmet and got in a tank.'' The other reason is that Congress tends to think about boondoggle weapons systems in the context of jobs, not deficits. Killing a turkey is viewed as eliminating a major employer. (Last month, Frank voted over the objections of the defense secretary to fund a duplicate F-35 engine built in Lynn, but says he'd kill the fighter altogether if it came to a vote.) So we still buy useless weapons, over the protests of reformers and defense officials. That kind of backward thinking could start to change. Bringing the deficit under control is a zero-sum game. Eventually, we'll have to raise taxes and cut spending. As budget pressure grows, the nearly $1 trillion in military cuts proposed by the task force could look appealing. One way of getting this done is through the president's Deficit Reduction Commission, which will recommend a package of cuts to Congress in December for an up-or-down vote. The Sustainable Defense Task Force is lobbying the commission to do what Obama wouldn't: consider military cuts, and in the context of the entire federal budget. Members like Frank and Paul say they'll vote against any package that doesn't, and encourage congressional colleagues to do likewise.
7. This argument does not assume the modern world. Obama’s commitment to multilateralism means we would be less likely to use the military to defend America’s interests, and if we needed to then the withdrawal from Iraq would provide enough troops.
1AR Extension - #1 276
Even Republicans will not stop more defense cuts.
EAGLEN, 2012
[Mackenzie, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute’s Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies, “Deal to stop sequestration will have more defense budget cuts and new tax increases,” 6/26, ]
As with taxes, Democrats will be pushing on an open door when it comes to pressuring Republicans to give in to additional defense cuts. Already in the Senate, nearly a dozen Republicans have implicitly signed up for as much as $886 billion in defense cuts through their support of the Simpson-Bowles and Gang of Six plans. When it comes time for Congress and the president to strike a final deal this winter, the common expectation will be for defense to “pay its fair share.” Despite contributing more to deficit reduction than any other federal agency, the military will be called on again for further cuts — and Republicans, for the most part, will not take issue.
1AR Extension - #2 277
Budget cuts will force the military to be more efficient and develop better weapons systems.
HERMAN, 2012
[Arthur, visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, “The silver lining to defense budget cuts,” 1/18, ]
There's a lot to deplore about President Obama's proposed military drawdown, but here's a possible silver lining: It may finally force the Pentagon to stop buying weapons and equipment in the wasteful way it has since the 1960s. Changes in military acquisition could not only save hundreds of billions of dollars but could also allow our defense industry to relearn how to build the best possible weapons at the lowest possible cost.
Larger military budgets create massive inefficiencies and delays in developing new weapons systems. Cutting the budget spurs reform.
HERMAN, 2012
[Arthur, visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, “The silver lining to defense budget cuts,” 1/18, ]
This cumbersome system has been sustained by big defense budgets, so now is the perfect opportunity to create a new military-industrial complex more suited to the era of cyberspace, robotics, unmanned systems, and even more exotic high-tech areas like nanotechnology, where America's military future will be forged. The first step should be a rational rollback of the rules and supervisory authorities that make the current system dysfunctional. As in any industry, overregulation rewards the tried but not always true, discourages innovation and improvement, and limits competition by driving away anyone not inured to the rules of the game. The second step is to return to the robust commercial practices that built our leading defense companies in the first place. Instead of demanding theoretical perfection in every weapons system regardless of cost, Pentagon officials need to be willing to accept a product that gets the job done, with quick response to implement improvements. And instead of relying on cost-plus contracts that provide no incentive for saving money, defense firms should be encouraged to see keeping costs down as part of their own bottom line, as any other company would. Finally, decades spent in the Pentagon's procurement labyrinth have bred an atmosphere of mutual distrust in the defense-contracting world. (Litigation over the A-12 is still going on, more than two decades after it was canceled.) The spirit that animated the officials and private companies who built the B-29 and the atomic bomb in World War II was one of camaraderie and cooperation. That was something the systems-analysis obsession with numbers never grasped—the sense of dedication, not to mention inspiration, needed from those who build what this country needs to defend itself. That spirit is still alive in today's defense firms, waiting to let loose again. Smaller defense budgets must offer the opportunity to do it.
1AR Extension - #3 278
Transportation budgets do not tradeoff with defense budgets.
ELKIN AND GREENSTEIN, 1998
[Sam, Senior Research Associate at MEF Associates; Robert, founder and President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; “Highway Bill Likely to Cut into Funding for Other Non-Defense Discretionary Programs,” 5/04, ]
The highway bill now in a conference committee between the Senate and House threatens to precipitate large reductions in the next several years in the non-defense discretionary part of the federal budget. Programs in areas ranging from education and child care to environmental, agricultural, rural, veterans, and foreign aid programs, as well as scientific research, are likely to be affected adversely. The versions of the highway bill that both the House and Senate have passed would sharply increase highway spending to levels well in excess of what was agreed to during last year's budget negotiations between Congress and the President. Due to the binding caps the budget agreement placed on expenditures for discretionary (i.e., non-entitlement) programs, increased highway spending must automatically lead to reductions in other discretionary programs unless the increased highway spending is offset in some other manner.
1AR Extension - #4 279
Their authors are wrong: U.S. power is in decline, and new efforts to maintain hegemony will speed its collapse.
PAPE, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, 2009
[Robert, PhD University of Chicago, Chair of Committee on International Relations and co-Director of Program on International Security Policy at University of Chicago, “Empire Falls,” 1/22, Article.aspx?id=20484]
AMERICA IS in unprecedented decline. The self-inflicted wounds of the Iraq War, growing government debt, increasingly negative current-account balances and other internal economic weaknesses have cost the United States real power in today’s world of rapidly spreading knowledge and technology. If present trends continue, we will look back at the Bush administration years as the death knell for American hegemony. Since the cold war, the United States has maintained a vast array of overseas commitments, seeking to ensure peace and stability not just in its own neighborhood—the Americas—but also in Europe and Asia, along with the oil-rich Persian Gulf (as well as other parts of the world). Simply maintaining these commitments requires enormous resources, but in recent years American leaders have pursued far more ambitious goals than merely maintaining the status quo. The Bush administration has not just continued America’s traditional grand strategy, but pursued ambitious objectives in all three major regions at the same time—waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, seeking to denuclearize North Korea and expanding America’s military allies in Europe up to the borders of Russia itself. For nearly two decades, those convinced of U.S. dominance in the international system have encouraged American policy makers to act unilaterally and seize almost any opportunity to advance American interests no matter the costs to others, virtually discounting the possibility that Germany, France, Russia, China and other major powers could seriously oppose American military power. From public intellectuals like Charles Krauthammer and Niall Ferguson to neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Kagan, even to academicians like Dartmouth’s William Wohlforth and Stephen Brooks, all believe the principal feature of the post-cold-war world is the unchallengeable dominance of American power. The United States is not just the sole superpower in the unipolar-dominance school’s world, but is so relatively more powerful than any other country that it can reshape the international order according to American interests. This is simply no longer realistic.
Plan-specific Impact Answer: Port Security 280
A terrorist attack on a port would destroy the military’s ability to project power by hurting equipment transportation.
FRITELLI, 2005
[John, Specialist in Transportation and Resources, Science, and Industry Division for Congressional Research Service, “Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress,” 5/27; ]
In addition to its economic significance, the marine transportation system is vital for national security. The Departments of Defense and Transportation have designated 17 U.S. seaports as strategic because they are necessary for use by DOD in the event of a major military deployment. Thirteen of these ports are commercial seaports. During Desert Storm, 1990% of all military equipment and supplies were shipped from U.S. strategic ports. The deployment required over 312 vessels from 18 commercial and military ports in the United States. As the GAO has reported, “If the strategic ports (or the ships carrying military supplies) were attacked, not only could massive civilian casualties be sustained, but DOD could also lose precious cargo and time and be forced to rely heavily on its overburdened airlift capabilities.”
Presidential Elections Disadvantage Negative 281
Background Information: Presidential Elections 1
Presidential Elections Disadvantage 1NC 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #1 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #3 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #4 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #5 1
2NC Impact: Global Warming 1
Plan-specific Link: Public Service Employment 1
Plan-specific Link: Rail Investment 1
Plan-specific Link: NAFTA 1
Plan-specific Link: Port Security 1
Background Information: Presidential Elections 282
Presidential Elections Disadvantage 1NC 283
A. Uniqueness: Recent polls prove Obama will win the upcoming Presidential election.
GLOBE AND MAIL, 2012
[Konrad Yakabuski, “President Obama’s great week points to how he plans to get re-elected,” 6/29, ]
Two major polls released this week – by Quinnipiac University and the Wall Street Journal – showed Mr. Obama opening up his lead over Republican Mitt Romney in the so-called “battleground states” that will decide the election outcome. The result appears to have been largely driven by aggressive anti-Romney advertising in those states by Mr. Obama’s campaign and a Super PAC supporting him. The ads take direct aim at Mr. Romney’s business record running the private equity firm Bain Capital. If it wasn’t working, you can bet the Obama campaign would have dropped the ads. Instead, it launched a new series of advertising attacks on Mr. Romney this week, characterizing the ex-Massachusetts governor as the “outsourcer-in-chief.” On top of the good poll numbers, the Supreme Court this week handed Mr. Obama two important victories that added to his campaign momentum. The top court struck down most of Arizona’s controversial law aimed at illegal immigrants. It ruled in favour of the Obama administration, which argued the law interfered with the federal government’s lead role in immigration matters. The court upheld one provision of the law – the so-called “show me your papers” provision that requires state and local police to verify the immigration status of people they stop or arrest if they suspect they are in the country illegally. But the court also placed strict conditions on the implementation of that provision and it cleared the way for further legal challenges on the basis that the Arizona law will lead to racial profiling. Latino voters are likely to reward Mr. Obama for waging this fight. Indeed, the ruling helped Mr. Obama solidify his support among Hispanic voters, building on his recent move to halt deportations of law-abiding young adults brought to the United States illegally as children. That move is overwhelmingly popular. A Wall Street Journal poll this week showed that 68 per cent of all voters, including 87 per cent of Latino voters, support the policy.
Presidential Elections Disadvantage 1NC 284
B. Link: Massive infrastructure spending is incredibly unpopular. Even if Obama promises the plan will lead to jobs, the voting public will backlash and Obama will lose all his support.
CENTRAL FLORIDA FUTURE, 2012
[Jennifer Theodore, “Obama’s spending needs to be checked,” 6/13, ]
News reports about the dismal state of the economy are filled with talk about the growing national debt and deficit spending, and what effect they will have on the upcoming election. In 2008, candidate Barack Obama was quick to criticize President George W. Bush’s spending habits and promised to halve the federal deficit if he took office. But since then, the national debt has gone from roughly $10 trillion under Bush to almost $16 trillion today, according to CBS News. The deficit has gone from about $800 billion (counting the Troubled Asset Relief Program money that has been repaid) under Bush to roughly $1.3 trillion each year under Obama, not including the unfunded liabilities of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Based on information from the Congressional Budget Office, the debt as a percentage of gross domestic product increased by 21 percent under Bush’s two terms in office, while as of October of 2011, Obama had already increased it by 23.5 percent. Obama has stated, “[Republicans] run up these wild debts and then when we take over, we’ve got to clean it up.” Obviously the president inherited a large deficit, but what is relevant today is what he did with that deficit. His answer was to spend our way out of debt, and billions of dollars later, his position has not swayed. Obama spent $800 billion on his stimulus package alone, and countless examples of wasteful spending of that money have been reported. The purpose of the stimulus was to create jobs and halt the decline of the economy, but the New Mexico Watchdog reports that the cost of the jobs paid for by the stimulus funds distributed in the state of New Mexico, for example, averaged out to be more than $330,000 per job. In addition, several of the jobs created by the stimulus were temporary jobs, such as those paid for by infrastructure investments. I believe that the president’s spending record will cost him votes this November for two reasons. First, candidate Obama promised to cut net spending while making investments in certain areas that he considered to be high priorities, such as education (including “college affordability”), healthcare and energy. He has certainly “invested” billions of dollars into these branches of the economy, but any cut has yet to be seen. Secondly, while the spending is blatant, the economic recovery that the president claims is underway is not so obvious. The latest jobless numbers are discouraging; tuition and healthcare costs are still on the rise, and where are the developments in the field of clean energy that we have invested in so heavily? White House Press Secretary Jay Carney can tell us how well these policies are working until his face is blue, but until people see it for themselves, they are not going to believe it. Obama’s supporters just haven’t seen the change they thought they were voting for.
Presidential Elections Disadvantage 1NC 285
C. Internal Link: A Romney presidency guarantees war with Iran because he will expand executive power to initiate conflict.
THE ATLANTIC, 2012
[Conor Friedersdorf, “Mitt Romney Says He Could Wage War on Iran Without Congress' Approval,” 6/18, ]
On Face the Nation on Sunday, Mitt Romney said that if elected president he wouldn't have to get congressional permission for a military strike on Iran. To quote him directly (emphasis added): I can assure you if I'm president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now. I understand that some in the Senate for instance have written letters to the president indicating you should know that a containment strategy is unacceptable. We cannot survive a course of action which would include a nuclear Iran we must be willing to take any and all actions. All those actions must be on the table. If a President Romney waged war without Congressional approval, it would be the first time a sitting president violated the Constitution's separation of powers and the War Powers Resolution since President Obama did it in Libya. Says Daniel Larison: The United States survived decades of containing Soviet power. America outlasted what may have been the greatest security threat in our history partly because of a policy of containment. Iran is far weaker than any threat the USSR ever posed. If the U.S. could not survive a nuclear-armed Iran, a President Romney would be powerless to change that. On the other hand, back in the real world, if the U.S. has little to fear from a nuclear-armed Iran and is more than capable of deterring any threat from Iran, there is no reason to listen to anything Romney has to say on this subject. Romney obviously does not believe war is a last resort, and he clearly doesn't believe that the Congress has anything to say about attacking Iran. According to Romney, it is something that the president could do tomorrow if he believed it necessary. The Constitution is completely irrelevant to Romney, and so is the consent of the American people expressed through its representatives. No one should have any illusions about how Romney would conduct foreign policy if he is elected.
Presidential Elections Disadvantage 1NC 286
D. Impact: War with Iran causes global escalation and nuclear war.
CHOSSUDOVSKY, Professor of Economics Emeritus at the University of Ottawa, 2006
[Michael, PhD University of North Carolina, “The Next Phase of the Middle East War,” ]
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. This is not an overstatement. If aerial bombardments were to be launched against Iran, they would trigger a ground war and the escalation of the conflict to a much broader region. Even in the case of aerial and missile attacks using conventional warheads, the bombings would unleash a "Chernobyl type" nuclear nightmare resulting from the spread of nuclear radiation following the destruction of Iran's nuclear energy facilities. Throughout history, the structure of military alliances has played a crucial role in triggering major military conflicts. In contrast to the situation prevailing prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, America's ongoing military adventure is now firmly supported by the Franco-German alliance. Moreover, Israel is slated to play a direct role in this military operation. NATO is firmly aligned with the Anglo-American-Israeli military axis, which also includes Australia and Canada. In 2005, NATO signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel, and Israel has a longstanding bilateral military agreement with Turkey. Iran has observer status in The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and is slated to become a full member of SCO. China and Russia have far-reaching military cooperation agreements with Iran. China and Russia are firmly opposed to a US-led military operation in the diplomatic arena. While the US sponsored military plan threatens Russian and Chinese interests in Central Asia and the Caspian sea basin, it is unlikely that they would intervene militarily on the side of Iran or Syria. The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon-Palestine. The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed. Military action against Iran and Syria would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn would trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention the further implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks. If the US-UK-Israeli war plans were to proceed, the broader Middle East- Central Asian region would flare up, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghan-Chinese border. At present, there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine-Lebanon. An attack directed against Iran would serve to integrate these war theaters transforming the broader Middle East Central Asian region into an integrated war zone. (see map above) In turn the US sponsored aerial bombardments directed against Iran could contribute to triggering a ground war characterized by Iranian attacks directed against coalition troops in Iraq. In turn, Israeli forces would enter into Syria. An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict. The war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #1 287
1. Extend our GLOBE AND MAIL evidence. Obama is gaining momentum and taking advantage of recent victories in the Supreme Court, and this will carry him to victory in the election.
2. And, recent poll numbers and statistics from Ohio prove Obama will be reelected in the status quo.
THE EXAMINER, 2012
[John Michael Spinelli, “Ohio, tops among key presidential swing states, favors Obama,” 7/08, ]
Nate Silver, the odds-making baseball brain turned political predictor behind FiveThirtyEight, give the Buckeye State a 26 percent change of being the state that elects the next president in November. Silver ranks Virginia [14.2%], Pennsylvania [12.6%] and Florida [11.5%], in that order, as tipping point states. So far, according to Silver, President Obama has a 66.1 percent chance of winning versus 33.1 percent for arch rival Mitt Romney. Translated into Electoral College [EC] votes, the White House nets 297.1 votes compared to 240.9 for Romney. The magic number is 270 EC votes. Subscribe. It's free. Just do it Drilling further into the numbers, Silver predicts a popular vote of 50.8 percent for Obama versus 48.2 percent for Romney. No reputable pundit or prognosticator expects either candidate to win in a landslide over the other. For battleground state Ohio, which has an aggressive CEO-style Republican, a friendly and dominant GOP legislature to do his bidding and every other statewide office held by Republicans, Silver gives Ohio a 62.8 percent chance of break for Obama over Romney. According to the amalgamation of five polls at Real Clear Politics, Obama enjoys a +2.6 percent [46.2% v 43.6%] lead of Romney. The most recent Quinnipiac poll [6-19-25] has Obama with a 9-point lead over Romney. Notwithstanding any dysfunctions from new election laws aimed at voter suppression through one of many means—photo IDs, proof of birth, reducing early voting, etc.—this year's winner will do so with less than two percent of the vote.
3. Despite mixed numbers, Obama has the overall lead in the election.
THE HILL, 2012
[Alicia Cohn, “Poll: Voters optimistic economy will improve,” 5/15, ]
Voters are optimistic the economy will improve in the next year, but still hold doubts on President Obama’s economic policies, a new USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday finds. Likely voters in the U.S. think the economy is improving already, giving Obama an edge as the incumbent. Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed believe they will be "better off" next time this year and 58 percent predict good economic conditions in a year. But the findings also suggest greater confidence in presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s approach to managing the economic recovery. Romney continues to take a slight lead when it comes to expectations about the economy, his main campaign issue. According to the survey, more people believe the economy would get better over the next year under Romney compared to under Obama: 55 to 46 percent. In addition, 27 percent believe the economy would get worse in Romney's first term, compared with 37 percent saying it would be worse in a second Obama term. An AP-GfK poll released last week had similar results, finding four in 10 believing the economy will get better over the next year, with 22 percent saying it would get worse. For the first time, the two candidates also mirror each other when it comes to their favorability ratings. Romney earned a favorable rating of 50 percent compared to Obama's 52 percent. Similarly even, Romney's unfavorability is 41 percent compared to 46 percent for Obama. But when it comes to the presidential election, President Obama retains the best odds over his likely competitor Mitt Romney, beating Romney 56 percent to 36 in voter predictions for who will actually win in November.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #1 288
4. Recent optimism in the economy signals an Obama victory.
PAGE, 2012
[Susan, staff writer for USA Today, “Poll: Americans more optimistic economy is looking up,” 5/16, ]
Americans may be downbeat about today's economy, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, but they are increasingly optimistic that things are about to get better for the nation and themselves. A new USA TODAY/Gallup poll finds 56% of respondents, regardless of which candidate they support, predict President Obama will win in November. Though an overwhelming 71% rate economic conditions as poor, a 58% majority predict they will be good a year from now. While those surveyed are inclined to say they are worse off financially than a year ago, nearly two-thirds say they think they'll be better off this time next year. The assessment of personal finances already is on the upswing. More than a third report they are better off than they were a year ago — the highest number since before the economic meltdown in 2008. (They're still outnumbered by the four in 10 who say they're worse off, though.) The sense that the recession's impact finally is lifting should be good news for President Obama, since an improving economy typically boosts the prospects for a White House incumbent running for re-election. Indeed, regardless of which candidate they support, those surveyed predict by 56%-36% that the president will win in November over Republican Mitt Romney. That's a bigger edge than Obama had at this point four years ago; then, by 52%-41%, Americans said he would defeat Republican John McCain.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 289
1. Extend our CENTRAL FLORIDA FUTURE evidence. The most important issue to swing voters in this election is federal government spending and the deficit, and the plan will cause riots against Obama. Even if they win that the plan is perceived as a jobs bill, the massive expense of the plan will turn off voters.
2. [Insert plan-specific Link]
3. And the massive spending of the plan is the only thing that will matter. Poll numbers prove the public disapproves of massive stimulus projects.
ASSOCIATED PRESS, 2012
[News One, “Obama Plays Down Unpopular Healthcare, Stimulus Plans as He Fights for Re-Election,” 6/12, ]
But many of the major pieces of Obama’s first-term record get scant attention in ads, reflecting mixed reviews from the public after Republicans pinned the labels “job-killing” and “big government” on the health care plan and said the stimulus spending increased the federal deficit. On health care, a recent CBS-New York Times poll found that 41 percent of Americans think the Supreme Court should overturn the entire 2010 overhaul. Some 27 percent think the justices should remove the individual mandate that requires individuals to have health insurance and fine them if they don’t, and 24 percent think the law should remain in place. The public has remained divided over Obama’s $830 billion stimulus bill, even as the administration has said it accounted for millions of jobs. An ABC News/Washington Post poll in May found that 47 percent approve of the stimulus legislation and 48 percent disapprove while 5 percent had no opinion. The poll found that 50 percent favored the Obama administration’s increased regulations of financial institutions while 44 percent viewed them unfavorably. Obama’s quest for a second term is punctuated with images of a resilient America. His television ads show U.S. auto workers whose jobs are said to have been saved by the bailing out of General Motors and Chrysler. There also are children jumping into the arms of soldiers who made it home from war, and night-vision shots of the servicemen who killed bin Laden. At the same time, Obama’s campaign tries to discredit Romney’s claim to be an economic maestro, casting him as a political version of the movies’ Gordon Gekko. Out-of-work steel workers liken Romney’s former private equity firm, Bain Capital, to blood-sucking vampires. Another ad tells of a Massachusetts under Governor Romney that saw tepid job growth, more debt and the outsourcing of jobs to India, the cold-hearted decisions of an uncaring corporate culture. On his own record, Obama does talk up what he says are the benefits of the sweeping health care bill on occasion, particularly to donors, telling them it allowed millions of young people to be on their parents’ insurance and millions of seniors to have lower prescription drug costs. On the recession-fighting spending, the president rarely uses the term “stimulus,” instead referring to the nation’s economic system being built on a “house of cards” that collapsed in 2008 and forced his administration to take bold steps. A seven-minute Web video produced by his campaign, entitled “Forward,” says the economic stimulus “saved up to 4.2 million jobs” and says Obama “took on the Wall Street banks” to push reforms to ensure that bankers “never again wreck our economy.” The video also mentions Obama’s work to pass “historic health reform” that bars insurance companies from denying coverage for children with pre-existing conditions, helps seniors pay less for prescriptions and provides contraception coverage. “And by 2016, 20032 million more Americans will have health coverage,” the video says, neglecting to mention the role the Supreme Court could play in the law’s future. But the health overhaul isn’t the campaign’s focus.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 290
4. The plan will be spun as more unnecessary deficit spending or a tax hike that will overwhelm the perception of job creation.
THE DAILY BEAST, 2012
[Michael Medved, “Romney Should Make Runaway Federal Spending a Key Issue in His Campaign,” 6/19,
Despite the president’s increasingly preposterous pose as a tight-fisted guardian of the public purse, spending levels undeniably exploded as soon as his Democratic allies seized control of Congress in 2007. While the last all-Republican budget of the Bush administration (approved before the Pelosi-Reid takeover) kept federal spending at its postwar average of 20 percent of GDP, the expenditures soared under liberal leadership and have remained dangerously high throughout the Obama presidency, in 2012 amounting to more than 24 percent of GDP. Do Americans feel that the government operates so much more efficiently and compassionately today that it justifies taking an extra four cents out of every single dollar that we earn? Have we felt the improvement in federal services generated by the net increase of 200,000 civilian workers hired by the feds since Obama's inauguration? These questions should work better in this electoral battle than Ronald Reagan's familiar formulation, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Many Americans could answer yes to the old question, and many more would feel unsure. But no one can feel undecided on the mad surge in federal spending, since it’s provided no demonstrable improvement in the functions of government. Why, then, hasn’t Mitt Romney focused relentlessly on the spending issue—the one facet of the economic debate where he can most easily win the argument against President Obama? In part, the candidate and his advisers feel an understandable reluctance to raise needless controversies by getting too specific about the items in the budget they would cut. When Romney suggested at a Florida fundraiser that he might consider eliminating several federal departments, including the Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development that his father once headed, the Democrats pounced to accuse the candidate of irresponsible radicalism. The Romney camp feels far more comfortable speaking generally about a statutory cap on spending at 20 percent of GDP, leaving the particulars about which items to slash for ferocious debates during his first year as president. But the Romney team makes a major mistake if they believe that the president’s present problems mean that they can cruise to victory in November simply by presenting the candidate as the “un-Obama.” They must also persuade the public that he’s the “un-Bush.” The most effective line for the Democrats involves their charge that Romney wants to take us back to the same disastrous polices of George W. Bush that failed conspicuously in the last administration. And the best place for Governor Romney to draw a bright-line distinction between his plans and values and those of President Bush involves the all-important issue of spending. Candidate Bush, running at a time of federal surplus, frankly promised to increase federal expenditures—particularly for education—and he more than kept his promise. It’s true that the Bush spending record got infinitely worse after the Pelosi-crats came to town in 2007, but the administration had already shifted from surplus to deficit before the Democratic majorities arrived. By focusing on a rigorous, unequivocal commitment to spending reductions Governor Romney could also emphasize the crucial contrasts between his approach and the now widely unpopular “compassionate conservatism” of the 43rd president. Though polls show jobs as the electorate's principal concern, there's no way that voters can cast a direct vote for more employment opportunities. All politicians promise more jobs yet few Americans feel confident on their dueling visions on how to fulfill those pledges. But while the mysteries of job creation seem hazy, most of us maintain an instinctive fear of bankruptcy, and dramatic developments across the Atlantic highlight the dire consequences of spending and borrowing at unmanageable levels.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 291
5. Even if the plan causes growth in the long term, it will cost Obama the election in the short term due to public concerns about spending.
RASMUSSEN, 2012
[Scott, national polling expert, “RightOnline2012: Scott Rasmussen talks about 2012 elections, new media,” 6/12, ]
Last weekend, pollster Scott Rasmussen addressed the RightOnline Conference in Las Vegas. During his presentation, he said some eye-popping things. Here's one of things he said that got everyone's attention: SCOTT RASMUSSEN: One thing that Mitt Romney has going for him is that Barack Obama's instincts are totally out of step with where public opinion is today. Every time Barack Obama talks about more government spending or provide the economic recovery, he alienates somebody because a majority of Americans believe that when you cut government spending, when you cut deficits, it's good for the US economy. It's impossible to think that that information isn't making President Obama's re-election fight difficult, if not impossible. President Obama's economic philosophy is based almost entirely on spending foolishly and running incredible deficits.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #3 292
1. Extend our CENTRAL FLORIDA FUTURE evidence. Republicans will not have to do work to spin the plan as massive spending because news media will focus on deficits, and Obama’s base supports will abandon him.
2. Obama is hinging the election on reducing spending, so the plan causes independents to vote Republican.
FINANCIAL TIMES, 2011
[Stephanie Kirchgaessner, “Obama looks to independent voters,” 4/15, ]
Barack Obama is betting that his attack on the Republican deficit reduction plan, which he has derided as un-American, will resonate with independent voters as he prepares to hit the campaign trail next week. The president will hold town hall meetings in California and two swing states: Nevada and Virginia. The political winds seemed to shift in favour of Democrats this week, with Mr Obama looking – for the first time in months – as if he is primed to lead his party into the difficult fiscal battles that lie ahead. It was, at the same time, a tumultuous week for the increasingly divided Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Party lawmakers called for their leaders to be more aggressive in demanding spending cuts and almost unanimously endorsed a 2012 budget plan that could have dire political consequences in the next election. The proposal by Republican Paul Ryan to cut $5, 200800bn in the next decade and transform Medicare, the insurance programme for the elderly, passed 235 to 193 in the House without a single Democratic vote. House passes 2012 budget Republicans in the House of Representatives united on Friday behind a 2012 budget plan slashing trillions of dollars in government spending while cutting taxes. The vote effectively serves as the Republicans’ opening gambit in what are likely to be contentious negotiations with President Barack Obama and his Democrats over debt and deficits in the coming months. The U.S. Congress must decide within weeks on raising the $14, 200300bn US debt ceiling. By a vote of 235-193, the House passed the plan written by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan for the 2012 fiscal year beginning October 1. Democrats rejected the measure, which proposes slashing spending by nearly $6 trillion over a decade and reducing benefits for the elderly and poor. All but four Republicans supported it. There is almost no chance of the Senate approving the measure in its current form. The White House swiftly condemned the measure but said it was committed to working with Republicans to bring down record deficits that all sides acknowledged imperil the country’s economic future. Reuters “I think Obama has had his best week in a while,” said Democratic strategist James Carville. “His speech really has got Democrats excited again. Also, they feel they are on the right side of public opinion here.” Mr Obama’s address on Wednesday satisfied the liberal base by reaffirming his support of tax increases for the wealthy to pay for entitlement programmes for the poor and elderly. It also spoke to independent voters who abandoned Democrats in last year’s congressional election by reassuring them that he believed the deficit required immediate action.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #3 293
3. Infrastructure bills cause deficit fights that allow Republicans to galvanize support.
GRUENBERG, 2012
[Mark, editor of Press Associates Inc, “Labor maps legislative battle for 2012,” 1/20, ]
In a Jan. 17 interview with Press Associates Union News Service, Samuel said the list includes fighting for a two-year transportation (highway-mass transit) funding bill, pushing for final resolution of a long-running war over airport construction and airways modernization - and union rights for airline workers - and extension of jobless benefits. It also includes legislation to curb Internet piracy of intellectual property, since the piracy robs dollars from royalty-based wages for musicians, actors, screenwriters, and other unionized creative professionals. And the agenda includes a longer extension of emergency federal jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed. But the outlook is cloudy for all. Even the jobless benefits bill, which both parties agree upon, is hung up by a partisan dispute over how to pay for the $150 billion measure. Congress returned to town Jan. 17 to start this year's session, after a first year characterized by Senate GOP filibusters on just about everything and by a tea party-dominated House GOP attacking spending and workers. Samuel expects those attacks to continue. He forecasts congressional Republicans will use the Congressional Review Act - a Gingrich-era GOP law - to try to overturn new federal rules streamlining union recognition election procedures. The big fights will be over job creation. Samuel expects the Obama administration to again support the infrastructure bill, jobless benefits, and other measures, though he concedes that aid to state and local governments may be iffy. Obama will outline his agenda in the Jan. 24 State of the Union address. Labor may have, finally, won one battle with the House GOP, Samuel said, over recognition elections for airline and railroad workers. "The Chamber of Commerce has finally dropped its opposition" to new rules for those elections, contained in the airport construction and modernization bill. That legislation would create 80,000-100,000 jobs. House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., has insisted that rules governing union recognition elections at airlines and railroads should force unions to win an absolute majority of all eligible voters at a worksite, with non-voters counted as "no" votes. That was the rule until last year when, after pressure from the labor movement and its allies, the government changed it. The requirement in union elections now is the same as in any other election - the winner is determined by the majority of those who actually cast ballots. Business and Mica fought the change, but with the 23rd temporary extension of the airport and airspace construction bill set to expire at the end of January, business seems to have given up. The question for congressional negotiators is if Mica will. As for extending jobless benefits, "we and the Democrats are hopeful" that Congress will OK an extension before the benefits expire Feb. 29, Samuel said. He also said the Democrats are holding fast against cutting any major programs to pay for the cost - even though in the past, Congress did not require cuts elsewhere to pay for aiding the unemployed. The House GOP is insisting on cuts, at least so far. If the GOP holds fast to its no-taxes-on-millionaires stand and the Democrats protect major programs, there could be a stalemate on jobless benefits, Samuel concedes. "But the Republicans badly miscalculated" when the last benefits extension was debated in December that their no-taxes stand was a winner. Instead, they got a political black eye for protecting the rich at the expense of unemployed workers. The two-year highway-mass transit bill, worth $106 billion plus inflation, still needs some details: Its mass transit sections are incomplete and so is its financing, outside of the federal gasoline tax. The measure would create tens of thousands of construction jobs and its passage is a major goal of building trades unions. Once Senate panels finish drafting the measure, the Democratic-run Senate is expected to approve it, Samuel said. The problem is the GOP-run House, again. Mica earlier proposed a five-year bill with much less spending per year - so much less that Laborers President Terry O'Sullivan called Mica's legislation a "job killer."
2NC Extensions – A/t: #4 294
1. Extend our THE ATLANTIC evidence. Even if Congress does not support war with Iran, Romney will expand executive authority enough to allow him to initiate a first strike.
2. Romney will surround himself with influential advisors who will all push for a first-strike against Iran.
MALONEY, 2012
[Suzanne, senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, “How to Contain a Nuclear Iran,” 3/15, ]
The Republican determination to blunt Iran’s ambitions through military strikes or regime change should not be dismissed merely as campaign rhetoric, though. Over the past four years, the context for military action against Iran has been transformed, thanks to Tehran’s progress toward nuclear capability and its revived adventurism across a Middle East in flux. Most of the Republican advisers, including some who hesitated to endorse direct strikes on Iran during their time in the Bush administration, have now concluded that an attack is essential. For that reason, the Republican support for military strikes and regime change deserves consideration. Most of the candidates have been vague on the mechanics of implementing what they advocate. When asked for specifics in the interview with The Wall Street Journal editorial board, Romney ruled out the use of ground troops but added that “the range includes something of a blockade nature, to something of a surgical strike nature, to something of a decapitate the regime nature, to eliminate the military threat of Iran altogether.”
2NC Extensions – A/t: #4 295
3. All major Republican figures are pushing for war. A Romney victory means the U.S. will try to send a message by bombing nuclear facilities.
HUFFINGTON POST, 2011
[Bradley Klapper, “Republican Presidential Candidates Challenge Obama On Iran,” 11/16, ]
Republican presidential hopefuls are focusing on Iran as a weak spot in President Barack Obama's foreign policy record, and they're reviving many of the arguments that neoconservative proponents of armed intervention against Tehran lost in the latter years of George W. Bush's presidency. Spurred by a recent United Nations report on Iran's nuclear weapons research, the leading GOP candidates are presenting themselves as hawkish alternatives to Obama and his administration's two-track policy of pressuring and engaging the Islamic republic. They propose more drastic approaches to prevent Iran from developing an atomic bomb – from funding armed rebel movements to launching military attacks. "If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon," Mitt Romney said during Saturday's foreign policy debate in South Carolina. "If you elect me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon." The former Massachusetts governor and Republican front-runner said the U.S. should be "working with the insurgents in the country to encourage regime change." But, if "there's nothing else we can do besides take military action, then of course you take military action." The killing of Osama bin Laden, NATO's successful Libya campaign and as-promised U.S. troop drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan have helped transform foreign policy into one of Obama's strengths as he prepares for a difficult re-election campaign focused on the economy. Obama has failed to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, but that elusive goal has confounded every American president since Jimmy Carter. Iran's nuclear program offers an unusual point of attack for the Republican candidates. The paucity of reliable public information makes it hard to assess whether the Obama administration has hampered Iran's nuclear ambitions or allowed their advance, offering plenty of space for GOP candidates to present alternative tactics. "There are a number of ways to be smart about Iran and relatively few ways to be dumb, and the administration skipped all the ways to be smart," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said at Saturday's debate. He called for "maximum covert operations to block and disrupt the Iranian program" and backed Romney's call for possible military action. If "the dictatorship persists, you have to take whatever steps are necessary to break its capacity to have a nuclear weapon." Seeking to one-up Gingrich, longshot candidate Rick Santorum said there "isn't going to be enough time" for tougher sanctions on Iran and more support for pro-democracy groups. He acknowledged the Obama administration's possible involvement in some of the covert attacks on Iran's nuclear program. But he suggested an even tougher approach alongside Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities pre-emptively – similar to the operations the Jewish state conducted against Iraq in 1981 and Syria four years ago. The Reagan administration fumed over the first; the Bush administration acquiesced by silence to the second. Iran insists its nuclear program is designed solely for peaceful processes, but an International Atomic Energy Agency report last week strongly suggested work toward atomic weaponry. The program has been hindered in recent years by the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, a virulent computer virus attacking its facilities and other possible interference – which may or may not have been the result of covert American or Israeli activity. For all the early talk of engagement, Obama has stuck largely to the Bush administration's latter-year policies of negotiations with Iran alongside international pressure – without the inflammatory rhetoric such as accusations of Tehran's membership in an "axis of evil." Republicans see the policy nevertheless as a failure and seem to be harkening back to the hard-line American posture taken after U.S. troops toppled Iraq's Saddam Hussein in 2003 and many conservative foreign policy thinkers made Iran's regime the next bogeyman that needed to be taken out. Then, as now, the argument held that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a mortal threat to U.S. forces in the region and to U.S. ally Israel, whose U.S. backing is wide and deep. Then, as now, the more hawkish voices said time is running out for talking and the U.S. must make clear to Iran that it will use its overwhelming military advantage. The most likely strategy would be a missile strike on one of Iran's known nuclear facilities, or sabotage from within the country.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #5 296
1. Extend our CHOSSUDOVSKY evidence. A first-strike on Iran will cause every other country in the region to get involved in the conflict due to the economic influence of Iran’s oil, and striking nuclear facilities guarantees nuclear weapons will be used.
2. Unintended consequences and civilian casualties will force Iran to escalate even if they are afraid of economic fallout.
WHITE, 2011
[Jeffrey, defense fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “What Would War With Iran Look Like,” Jul/Aug, ]
In summary, an attack on Iran could produce dynamics that would push either or both sides to escalate the conflict even if neither had an interest or an initial intention to do so. Iranian civilian casualties, for example, could provoke Iran to step up its response. This becomes more likely as the scale of a U.S. attack increases. Downed U.S. aircrews could lead to search and rescue operations that could become significant military actions in their own right. The need to restrike targets that were missed or inadequately damaged could also prolong the conflict and involve additional forces. As the conflict developed, internal and external political pressures could press both antagonists to escalate the fighting.
3. Alliances and treaty relations would force other countries to intervene.
WHITE, 2011
[Jeffrey, defense fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “What Would War With Iran Look Like,” Jul/Aug, ]
A U.S.-Iranian war would probably not be fought by the United States and Iran alone. Each would have partners or allies, both willing and not-so-willing. Pre-conflict commitments, longstanding relationships, the course of operations and other factors would place the United States and Iran at the center of more or less structured coalitions of the marginally willing. A Western coalition could consist of the United States and most of its traditional allies (but very likely not Turkey, based on the evolution of Turkish politics) in addition to some Persian Gulf states, Jordan and perhaps Egypt, depending on where its revolution takes it. Much would depend on whether U.S. leaders could persuade others to go along, which would mean convincing them that U.S. forces could shield them from Iranian and Iranian-proxy retaliation, or at least substantially weaken its effects. Coalition warfare would present a number of challenges to the U.S. government. Overall, it would lend legitimacy to the action, but it would also constrict U.S. freedom of action, perhaps by limiting the scope and intensity of military operations. There would thus be tension between the desire for a small coalition of the capable for operational and security purposes and a broader coalition that would include marginally useful allies to maximize legitimacy. The U.S. administration would probably not welcome Israeli participation. But if Israel were directly attacked by Iran or its allies, Washington would find it difficult to keep Israel out—as it did during the 1991 Gulf War. That would complicate the U.S. ability to manage its coalition, although it would not necessarily break it apart. Iranian diplomacy and information operations would seek to exploit Israeli participation to the fullest. Iran would have its own coalition. Hizballah in particular could act at Iran’s behest both by attacking Israel directly and by using its asymmetric and irregular warfare capabilities to expand the conflict and complicate the maintenance of the U.S. coalition. The escalation of the Hizballah-Israel conflict could draw in Syria and Hamas; Hamas in particular could feel compelled to respond to an Iranian request for assistance. Some or all of these satellite actors might choose to leave Iran to its fate, especially if initial U.S. strikes seemed devastating to the point of decisive. But their involvement would spread the conflict to the entire eastern Mediterranean and perhaps beyond, complicating both U.S. military operations and coalition diplomacy.
2NC Impact: Global Warming 297
1. An Obama victory is necessary for progress on climate change.
BUFFALO NEWS, 2012
[Walter and Nan Simpson, “Stakes are high in race for president,” 4/22, ]
While Obama has not yet delivered on some environmental priorities, his environmental record is solid in many areas. He appears to be committed to addressing environmental problems in a meaningful way within the constraints of what he views as politically possible. Obama’s re-election offers the promise of continuing his pro-environment programs and the hope he will do more in his second term. Cleaner air, water and energy mean tens of thousands of green jobs with improved public health outcomes that reduce health care costs. The president understands this win-win. Additionally, Obama is likely to do more on climate change in a second term if re-elected with a Democratic Congress and an increasingly informed public demanding action on this life-and-death issue. None of this will happen if Romney is elected our next president. Worse, given the GOP’s radical turn, a Republican victory would take us in reverse — undermining and eliminating laws and regulations that now protect our environment and public health. The critically important environmental vote goes to Obama.
2. If warming continues unchecked, feedbacks will create a cycle of runaway temperature increases that will destroy the planet’s ability to support human life.
TICKELL, 2008
[Oliver, researcher of the Oxford Climate Associates, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction,” 8/11, ]
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King [Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford], who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
Plan-specific Link: Public Service Employment 298
Even if there is concern over unemployment, 20071% of the public views increased deficits as a threat to the economy.
PEW RESEARCH CENTER, 2012
[Andrew Kohut, President of Pew Research Center, “Debt and Deficit: A Public Opinion Dilemma” 6/14, ]
Today, however, the budget deficit stands out as one of the fastest growing priorities for Americans, rising 16 percentage points since 2007 and ranking third with 69% calling it a top priority. Only the economy and jobs, ranking first and second at 86% and 82% respectively, have registered bigger increases over this period – hardly surprising, given the financial meltdown that began in 2008 and whose impact is still being felt today. While an increasing number of Americans share concern about the deficit, the issue has often been one that generates intense reactions among Republicans given their traditional preference for a smaller and less activist federal government. The number of Republicans ranking the budget deficit as a top priority has spiked to 84% compared to 68% a year ago, and 42% five years ago. Concern has also risen among Democrats and independents, but nowhere near to the degree it has among Republicans. About two-thirds (66%) of Democrats rank the deficit as a top priority compared to 61% last year and 57% in 2007. Just over six-in-ten (62%) of independents say the deficit is a top priority, compared to 65% a year ago and 53% in 2007. The Republican emphasis on the deficit is reflected in the voting priorities of those who favor presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and those who support President Obama. Voters who rank the federal budget deficit as a top priority favor Romney over Obama by a 52% to 42% margin. Concerns over the debt has become a troubling issue on both sides of the Atlantic. However, the politics surrounding it differs in the U.S. A median 81% of the publics in European countries regard the size of the national debt as a major threat to economic well-being; 71% of Americans share that view.
Plan-specific Link: Rail Investment 299
Voters recognize rail spending is fiscally irresponsible, and will blame the incumbents.
GREVE, 2012
[Michael, John G. Searle Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; “High-Speed “Federalism” Goes Off the Rails” 1/17, ]
California Governor Jerry Brown is still committed to the high-speed train fantasy. However, his failure to explain where the estimated $100 billion for the project might come from has generated public resistance. California seems bound to do what Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida have already done: say “no” to the federal funds. This epidemic of good sense has an obvious source: unsustainable debt levels at all levels of government—in no small measure, a consequence and legacy cost of federal transfer programs—have produced a more realistic calculus. The issuance of yet more state debt tends to alarm voters, and assurances that the feds will agree to make up any future shortfalls or even make good on their commitment produces guffaws: they don’t have the money.
Obama has made rail investment a priority, so he will be tied to the plan.
WALL STREET JOURNAL, 2009
[Josh Mitchell, “Rail Deal Is Bet on Obama's Infrastructure, Climate Policies,” 11/03, ]
President Barack Obama has said railroad investment will be a cornerstone of his transportation policies, given the environmental benefits and improved mobility that come with taking cars and trucks off roads. The White House set aside $8 billion in the economic-recovery act to improve passenger railroads--money that will directly benefit freight railroads since they own almost all of the lines used by Amtrak and regional commuter-rail operators.
Plan-specific Link: Rail Investment 300
Business lobbies will oppose the plan – they have invested too much in vehicles.
BAXANDALL, 2008
[Phineas, PhD Political Science at MIT, senior policy analyst at US Public Interest Research Group and formerly Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Taubman Center for State and Local Government, “A Better Way to Go: Meeting America’s 21st Century Transportation Challenges with Modern Public Transit,” March, ]
However, the recent renewed federal investment in transit still pales in comparison with the annual $33 billion federal investment in highways.88 And it has not been enough to compensate for decades of underinvestment in transit. The differential in direct government capital investment between highways and transit is only the tip of the iceberg when comparing the difference in capital investment between these modes in the United States over the last half century. Government investment in highways has leveraged even greater capital expenses by businesses and individuals. Businesses —motivated either by the desire to attract customers and workers or by legal requirements—have invested hundreds of billions of dollars to provide parking for vehicles. And while the figures cited above for transit capital investments include the cost of transit vehicles, they do not include the trillions of dollars Americans have invested in the purchase and upkeep of private cars and trucks.
Plan-specific Link: NAFTA 301
“Buy America” has widespread popular support throughout the country.
ALLIANCE FOR AMERICAN MANUFACTURING, 2010
[“Buy America Works” Feb, ]
Domestic Sourcing requirements enjoy broad support from the American public and from all levels of government. A February 4, 2009, Harris Interactive poll, commissioned by the Alliance for American Manufacturing, found that 84 percent of Americans favored “Buy America” requirements in The Recovery Act (66 percent strongly, 18 percent somewhat) and only 11 percent of Americans opposed. Congress adopted strong domestic sourcing requirements within The Recovery Act on a bipartisan basis. The Senate provision was added with no objection in the Appropriations Committee, and on February 4, 2009, the full Senate voted 31-65 against a McCain amendment (vote #44) to strip out the language. Meanwhile, the House Appropriations Committee voted 55-0 to include the provision in its version of the bill. To date, more than 500 local, state and municipal governments have passed “Buy America” resolutions of their own, pledging to ensure that American-made materials are used to the fullest extent possible in infrastructure projects funded by the Recovery Act.
“Buy America” is extremely popular with Democrats and unions.
WALL STREET JOURNAL, 2009
[NEIL KING JR. and JOHN W. MILLER, “Obama Risks Flap on 'Buy American',” 2/04, ]
President Barack Obama risked a backlash within his own party by criticizing "Buy American" provisions in the huge stimulus bill that would ensure that most of the big infrastructure money goes to U.S. suppliers. The measures, highly popular among congressional Democrats and trade unions, have come under heavy criticism from U.S. trade partners, some of whom threatened this week to file legal actions against the U.S. if the measures become law.
Plan-specific Link: Port Security 302
Obama has overplayed his hand on counter-terrorism, and new policies will be criticized for leaks and the appearance of “spiking the football.” This will get rid of the only issue Obama has an advantage on.
STIREWALT, 2012
[Chris, PowerPlay, “Once Helpful, National Security Leaks Becoming a Hazard for Obama Re-Election,” 6/08, ]
The brightest spot for President Obama with voters is on foreign policy. But the effort to maximize his advantage by aggressively highlighting his record may now be working against the president. The immediate concern for the president is having members of his own party make a veiled accusation of politically motivated leaking against his national security team. That looks bad and may spur an investigation that dredges up even more. In the latest FOX News poll, Obama is tied with Republican challenger Mitt Romney in a head-to-head matchup and trailing Romney on the top issues of the election, the economy, job creation and government spending. But Obama stood tall on national security issues. Obama bested Romney by 11 points on handling of foreign policy and 13 points on dealing with terrorism. Part of this is a result of voter support for two major developments in Obama’s term – the final withdrawal from Iraq and the killing of Usama bin Laden. It also stems from the fact that Romney has no foreign-policy resume to speak of while Obama has had more than three-years of on-the-job training. But part of the advantage comes from the fact that Team Obama has been very aggressive about depicting the president as a steely-eyed killer of terrorists. Consider the April anniversary of the bin Laden raid, not only did Obama do the expected in taking a victory lap – he went further, popping into Afghanistan for a speech commemorating the event, inviting NBC News to the previously verboten Situation Room and, most remarkably, using the occasion to attack Romney, whom Obama’s campaign said lacked the courage Obama showed in ordering Navy SEALs to kill bin Laden. Republicans may gripe that it’s tacky and un-presidential, but the polls suggest that Obama’s end-zone dance on bin Laden was brash enough to cut through the media clutter. For a president who started his term clashing with a bipartisan coalition in Congress over civilian trials for foreign terrorists, his current advantage over Romney on such subjects is evidence that his audacious media strategy worked. But, the Obama organization always has a problem with excess. And on national security, they have really gone over the top. Dating back to the killing of bin Laden, the administration’s intelligence apparatus has been leaking like a sieve and always on stories that cast Obama as a kind of warrior king. Rather than a wry wink when the news came that bin Laden was dead, Obama went for a massive data download, briefing and leaking and even giving high-level access to movie makers. Critics say that all of that splurping not only exposed long-secret military practices but also may have exposed the very Pakistanis who helped American forces find and kill the man behind 9/11. As the general election season has accelerated (and not in a positive direction for the president) so too have the leaks about his involvement in killing baddies accelerated.
Presidential Elections Disadvantage Affirmative 303
2AC Frontline – Presidential Elections Disadvantage 2
1AR Extensions - #1 1
1AR Extensions - #5 1
1AR Frontline – Warming Impact 1
Generic Link Turns 1
Plan-specific Link Turn: Rail Investment 1
Plan-specific Link Turn: Port Security 1
Plan-specific Link Turn: Public Service Employment 1
Plan-specific Link Turn: NAFTA 1
2AC Frontline – Presidential Elections Disadvantage 304
1. Non-unique: Romney will win the election in the status quo.
a) Recent polls prove the economy has hurt Obama.
NEWSCORE, 2012
[No author credited, “Romney leads Obama by seven points in new national poll,” 5/11,
]
Mitt Romney has jumped to a seven-point lead over President Barack Obama in a national poll released Friday. The Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll shows Romney ahead of the president with 50 percent to Obama's 43 percent. It is the highest level of support the presumptive Republican nominee has received in his matchup with Obama as well as his largest lead. The new numbers come a week after a disappointing jobs report that raised doubts about the continued economic recovery from the worst recession in the US since the Great Depression. Thirty-seven percent of those polled gave the president good or excellent marks on his handling of the economy while 48 percent disapproved of his handling of economic matters. Obama's overall approval rating is 44 percent compared to 55 percent of those who disapprove of his performance, according to the Rasmussen poll. It was his lowest approval rating in two months.
b) Romney is winning the fundraising battle.
TOBIN, 2012
[Jonathan, Senior Online Editor of Commentary magazine, “Romney Erasing Obama’s Cash Advantage,” 5/17, ]
One of the biggest problems for the Republicans this year has been the perceived huge fundraising edge President Obama is supposed to enjoy. Though Democratic predictions that forecast the president’s re-election campaign raising a billion dollars may have been a vain boast, there’s little question the record-breaking amounts Obama raised in 2008 will be exceeded in 2012 with all the advantages of incumbency now on his side. By contrast, all of the president’s potential Republican opponents raised but piddling amounts when compared to the president’s efforts. But that was bound to change once the Republican nomination was decided. The fundraising reports from April — the month Mitt Romney wrapped up the GOP contest–proves this. Romney’s campaign is set to announce today that along with the Republican National Committee, the GOP effort raised $40.1 million in April. That’s not too far below the $43.6 million President Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee took in for the same month. This reflects not only a clear surge in donations for Romney but also an evening up of the imbalance in campaign cash that had been assumed to be the case this year. And with independent groups on both sides of the aisle free to spend on the campaign, this should make not only for a wild and woolly six months until November but a contest in which both sides will have ample resources to make their case to the people. The surge will eliminate a situation where a challenger to an incumbent runs out of cash after a hard-fought nomination fight. Romney may have outspent his GOP foes heavily but the increase in donations — 95 percent of which are for less than $250 — leaves him enough money to keep campaigning and spending freely until the nominating conventions at the end of the summer. The reported $61.4 million in his coffers at the end of April may not be as much as the president has in his pocket but is enough to remain competitive. Romney’s team is hoping to raise as much as $800 million by the end of the year, while the president’s campaign has now lowered expectations to a mere $750 million. Though those who wrongly see campaign donations as a blight on the system consider these totals excessive, all this means is that both sides in the contest will be able to get their message out and organize their bases. It may be hard to avoid both Romney and Obama while watching television or surfing the Internet in the coming months, but these efforts are not undermining democracy, they are enabling it.
2AC Frontline – Presidential Elections Disadvantage 305
2. Link Turn:
[Insert plan-specific Link Turn]
3. No link: Republicans will compromise over transportation legislation to avoid causing an election year battle.
THE HILL, 2012
[Ben Geman, staff writer, “GOP hints it’ll part with Keystone XL pipeline to finish highway bill,” 5/16, ]
Republicans are pressing for approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline in a final House-Senate transportation bill but appear unlikely to draw a line in the sand that jeopardizes the infrastructure legislation. While the proposed Alberta-to-Texas pipeline is a top GOP and oil-industry priority, Republicans might have incentive to keep the matter unresolved, enabling them to continue using Keystone as a political weapon during the campaign season. The House version of the sweeping transportation funding measure grants a permit to TransCanada’s pipeline to bring oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries, but the Senate package omits the provision. Bicameral negotiations are under way to resolve differences between the bills. “The overall Republican conference position is not to sink the conference report over [Keystone XL], however, as keeping that issue alive through the elections is also acceptable,” an oil industry source told The Hill. Some other Capitol Hill sources similarly suggested that Republicans won’t allow the Keystone provision — which fell short of the 60 Senate backers needed in a recent vote — to derail talks over the bill, which extends popular transportation and infrastructure programs. GOP lawmakers are nonetheless calling the pipeline a top priority, and express confidence that there is growing support for including it in a final transportation bill. But asked if they would insist on Keystone as a condition for an agreement, several GOP lawmakers said they didn’t want to discuss “hypotheticals,” while others hinted that they they’re flexible on the matter. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), one of six Senate GOP negotiators, told The Hill in an interview that going forward with Keystone is “essential” and criticized the White House for failing to grant a cross-border permit. The White House argues that more review is needed. Hutchison also, however, emphasized the importance of the wider highway bill.
2AC Frontline – Presidential Elections Disadvantage 306
4. No internal link: Romney will not be able to get his agenda through the new Congress.
ZELIZER, 2012
[Julian, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, “Campaign rhetoric may tie next president's hands,” 4/23, ]
Romney has challenges of his own. Romney's most obvious campaign struggle will be what to do about the right. The tea party Republicans will continue to pressure Romney to play to the base so he can prove he is not the Etch A Sketch candidate his critics present him to be. Romney will face a strong temptation to echo their positions as he looks to the tea party to mobilize supporters to vote in swing states. But if Romney pushes too hard in this direction, trying to overcompensate for his perceived centrism, he would make it difficult to appeal to moderate Democrats in a first term. Without the support of at least a handful of moderates, persuading Congress to pass legislation will be extraordinarily difficult. Romney will also face growing pressure to promise that he will oppose any kind of revenue increase, including an assurance that he would support an extension of the Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans. Given the size of the deficit, such promises would put him in a difficult bind, setting him up for the kind of challenge with the Republican base that faced George H.W. Bush in 1990 when he had to settle for revenue increases after promising in his campaigning that he wouldn't agree to any new taxes. The enormity of the deficit will require revenue increases in addition to spending cuts. If the next president and Congress decide that they must significantly lower the deficit, these painful choices would be on the table. He will need to keep bargaining room to raise taxes so that this doesn't haunt him.
5. No Impact: Iran is too rational to escalate the conflict, so there will be no spillover war.
BRONNER, 2012
[Ethan, staff writer for New York Times, “Israel Senses Bluffing in Iran’s Threats of Retaliation,” 1/26, ]
Israeli intelligence estimates, backed by academic studies, have cast doubt on the widespread assumption that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would set off a catastrophic set of events like a regional conflagration, widespread acts of terrorism and sky-high oil prices. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he thinks Iranian citizens will welcome an attack. The estimates, which have been largely adopted by the country’s most senior officials, conclude that the threat of Iranian retaliation is partly bluff. They are playing an important role in Israel’s calculation of whether ultimately to strike Iran, or to try to persuade the United States to do so, even as Tehran faces tough new economic sanctions from the West. “A war is no picnic,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio in November. But if Israel feels itself forced into action, the retaliation would be bearable, he said. “There will not be 100,000 dead or 10,000 dead or 1,000 dead. The state of Israel will not be destroyed.” The Iranian government, which says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes, has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz — through which 90 percent of gulf oil passes — and if attacked, to retaliate with all its military might. But Israeli assessments reject the threats as overblown. Mr. Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have embraced those analyses as they focus on how to stop what they view as Iran’s determination to obtain nuclear weapons. No issue in Israel is more fraught than the debate over the wisdom and feasibility of a strike on Iran.
[Evidence continues next page, no text deleted]
2AC Frontline – Presidential Elections Disadvantage 307
[BRONNER evidence continues, no text deleted]
Some argue that even a successful military strike would do no more than delay any Iranian nuclear weapons program, and perhaps increase Iran’s determination to acquire the capability. Security officials are increasingly kept from journalists or barred from discussing Iran. Much of the public talk is as much message delivery as actual policy. With the region in turmoil and the Europeans having agreed to harsh sanctions against Iran, strategic assessments can quickly lose their currency. “They’re like cartons of milk — check the sell-by date,” one senior official said. But conversations with eight current and recent top Israeli security officials suggested several things: since Israel has been demanding the new sanctions, including an oil embargo and seizure of Iran’s Central Bank assets, it will give the sanctions some months to work; the sanctions are viewed here as probably insufficient; a military attack remains a very real option; and postattack situations are considered less perilous than one in which Iran has nuclear weapons. “Take every scenario of confrontation and attack by Iran and its proxies and then ask yourself, ‘How would it look if they had a nuclear weapon?’ ” a senior official said. “In nearly every scenario, the situation looks worse.” The core analysis is based on an examination of Iran’s interests and abilities, along with recent threats and conflicts. Before the United States-led war against Iraq in 1991, Saddam Hussein vowed that if attacked he would “burn half of Israel.” He fired about 40 Scud missiles at Israel, which did limited damage. Similar fears of retaliation were voiced before the Iraq war in 2003 and in 2006, during Israel’s war against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. In the latter, about 4,000 rockets were fired at Israel by Hezbollah, most of them causing limited harm. “If you put all those retaliations together and add in the terrorism of recent years, we are probably facing some multiple of that,” a retired official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, citing an internal study. “I’m not saying Iran will not react. But it will be nothing like London during World War II.” A paper soon to be published by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, written by Amos Yadlin, former chief of military intelligence, and Yoel Guzansky, who headed the Iran desk at Israel’s National Security Council until 2009, argues that the Iranian threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is largely a bluff. The paper contends that, despite the risks of Iranian provocation, Iran would not be able to close the waterway for any length of time and that it would not be in Iran’s own interest to do so. “If others are closing the taps on you, why close your own?” Mr. Guzansky said. Sealing the strait could also lead to all-out confrontation with the United States, something the authors say they believe Iran wants to avoid. A separate paper just published by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies says that the fear of missile warfare against Israel is exaggerated since the missiles would be able to inflict only limited physical damage.
1AR Extensions - #1 308
1. Obama can’t win with unemployment this high.
BLOOMBERG NEWS, 2012
[Mike Dorning and Kate Anderson Brower, staff writers, “Obama Re-Election Momentum Hits Snag in April Jobs Report,” 5/4, ]
Only one U.S. president, Ronald Reagan, has been re-elected since World War II with a jobless rate above 6 percent. On Election Day 1984, the rate was at 7.2 percent, having dropped almost three percentage points in the previous 18 months. While the jobless rate has declined since its peak during Obama’s term of 10 percent in October 2009, the drop has been slow and halting. It was stuck at about 9 percent through the first three quarters of last year. Recent economic indicators have raised concern that the job market is cooling, mimicking a slowdown in early 2011. The world’s largest economy expanded at a 2.2 percent annual rate in the first quarter, slower than the 3 percent pace at the end of 2011, the Commerce Department reported last week. Concern About Future The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index (SPX) shows that Americans are still worried about their economic future. The index dropped last week to a two-month low as more Americans grew concerned about their personal finances. The index fell to minus 37.6 in the week ended April 29 from minus 35.8, surrendering gains that had lifted it to a four-year high last month.
2. Romney is capitalizing on Obama’s weak economic policies.
BLOOMBERG NEWS, 2012
[Mike Dorning and Kate Anderson Brower, staff writers, “Obama Re-Election Momentum Hits Snag in April Jobs Report,” 5/4, ]
A slowdown in job growth in April cuts the economic momentum behind President Barack Obama’s re- election bid as he prepares to officially begin campaigning. U.S. employers added 115,000 workers to payrolls in April, the smallest gain in six months. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.1 percent as fewer people sought work. Roger Altman, a deputy Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration and a senior economic adviser to 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, called the monthly jobs report “pretty disappointing.” “We need 200,000 to 250,000 jobs to really make this, or to illustrate that this is a healthy and strongish recovery,” Altman, chairman and founder of Evercore Partners, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “We’re nowhere near that.” Private payrolls crossed a boundary in April to positive territory during Obama’s term, with a net gain of 35,000 since he took office in January 2009. Total payrolls remain lower than when Obama was inaugurated because there are 607,000 fewer federal, state and local government employees. The jobs report was released a day before Obama formally opens his re-election campaign with political rallies in the swing states of Ohio and Virginia. Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has made the president’s stewardship of the economy a point of attack and polls show voters are focused on jobs and growth. ‘Very Disappointing’ Romney termed the Labor Department report “terrible and very disappointing,” and called it evidence Obama’s policies aren’t working. “This is way, way, way off from what should happen in a normal recovery,” Romney said in an interview on the Fox News Channel. “We seem to be slowing down, not speeding up.” Stocks and bond yields dropped on concern a slowdown in hiring may restrain the wage growth needed to fuel consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index declined 1.5 percent to 1.371.11 at 12:18 p.m. in New York. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell to 1.88 percent from 1.93 percent late yesterday.
1AR Extensions - #5 309
Iran is not willing to escalate the conflict because U.S. retaliation and the economic impacts will be too great.
FREILICH, 2008
[Chuck, a Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School and a Schusterman Fellow, was a deputy national security advisor in Israel; “A disastrous attack on Iran?” 6/25, ]
There is little doubt that Iran will respond to a direct attack, or a blockade, but its options, heated rhetoric notwithstanding, are actually limited. What can it truly do? Attack American ships, block the Gulf? Maybe a pinprick to make it look good at home, but beyond that, the risks of escalation and the costs to Iran's economy are too great. Iran is extremist, not irrational. It may very well cause the US greater difficulty in Iraq, and increased terror can be expected against US and Western targets. It is highly unlikely, however, that Iran would be willing to go beyond limited actions and risk direct military escalation, not when the US has 150,000 soldiers on its doorstep. Moreover, US preparations can greatly reduce, though not eliminate, the dangers of Iran's potential responses. Oil prices will further skyrocket and Iran could add to the crisis by cutting output, but anything beyond temporary measures would be tantamount to cutting off its nose to spite its face. There will be a strong public reaction in the Moslem world, though Arab regimes will be quietly relieved to be free of a nuclear Iran. If the US plays out the diplomatic route first, international reaction will be muted.
1AR Answers to Warming Impact 310
_____Obama will not push for stricter environmental laws. He has already stated he is against any standard that hurts the oil industry.
CHRISTIAN POST, 2012
[Napp Nazworth, staff writer, “What Would Obama's Second Term Look Like?” 7/09, ]
In addition to putting carbon controls back on the front burner, Obama will also make a decision on ozone emissions in 2013. During the George W. Bush administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended tightening ozone emissions from 84 parts per billion to 75 parts per billion. The EPA under Obama recommended going even further to a range of 60 to 70 parts per billion. In September, 2011, Obama decided to not accept the EPA's recommendation, arguing that the regulation, which would mostly impact the oil and gas industry and increase energy costs, would put too much strain on an already sluggish economy. "I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover," Obama said at the time. Obama, therefore, did not even implement the 75 parts per billion standard suggested under the Bush administration and most states remain at the 84 parts per billion standard set in 1997. Obama noted at the time, though, that the ozone emissions rule is up for review every five years, which means it will be reconsidered in 2013.
______ Warming claims are wrong because the Earth is releasing more heat than it traps in.
CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK, 2011
[Dale Hurd, staff writer; “Investigation Adds to Global Warming Doubt,” 8/01, ]
NASA satellite data from the last 11 years shows Earth's atmosphere is allowing more heat to escape into space than computer models had predicted. The study in the peer-reviewed journal "Remote Sensing" means much less greenhouse gases are trapped in the upper atmosphere and that global warming may not be the big deal some have made it out to be. It's no surprise to global warming skeptics like Joseph D'Aleo, the first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel. D'Aleo said the methodology used for showing the earth is warming has been unreliable and unscientific.
1AR Frontline – Warming Impact 311
3. And, any impact to global warming is theoretical and long-term. There is no risk of a tipping point, and Obama’s policies won’t be enough to make serious change.
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 2012
[David Perlman, staff writer; “Warming nears point of no return, scientists say,” 6/07, ]
The scientists concede there is "considerable uncertainty" that these forces will inevitably lead to such a rapid and radical transformation of the world's environment - a "state shift," as they call it - but they argue such a shift is "highly plausible" and may have already begun. Slowing or reversing that transition will require international cooperation to slow population growth, curb dependence on fossil fuels, increase the efficiency of food production, and manage both lands and oceans as reservoirs of biodiversity, the scientist say. Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has been a vociferous skeptic on the urgency of global warming, called the warnings by Barnosky and his colleagues "highly implausible." "Even if their models of the future were correct, what's crucial is the time frame, and no one thinks that something terrible will happen in anything like the future they see," Lindzen said. "Their population predictions are extremely unlikely, and their climate predictions are always hypothetical."
4. And, global warming is a natural phenomenon that is part of the Earth’s normal cycle.
FOREX TV NEWS, 2011
[Conor Kelly, staff writer; “NASA’s Antarctic Study Casts Doubt on Global Warming,” 6/19, ]
A recent study published by University of Southern California researchers suggests that Antarctica featured drastically different conditions in its past—particularly during the Miocene Era. The study, conducted with the purpose of predicting conditions following further climate change, found that global temperature changes in the past have drastically altered the climates of the poles. By drilling into the crust beneath Antarctic ice sheets, the scientists were able to analyze waxed leaf fossils, suggesting that the climate allowed for vegetation. Past experiments have reached difficulties using this technique, as shifting ice sheets destroy fossils. However, Sarah J. Feakins, leader of the study, was tipped off by pollen samples that suggested hints of plant life. By looking at hydrogen isotopes present in the plant matter, the team was able to determine air and water conditions during the plant’s life. In a paper published in Nature Geoscience, the researchers reported hotter and wetter conditions in Antarctica’s past than were previously believed. The research has been used by many to claim evidence that global warming is part of a natural phenomenon involving cyclic climate change. Carbon monoxide readings during the Miocene Era fall somewhere between 400 and 600 parts per million (ppm). Readings today are steadily reaching 393 ppm, one of the highest readings in several million years, a trend geologists say match with this period in Earth’s history. USC researchers suggest that at the current rate, global temperatures will reach Miocene Era levels by the end of this century.
Generic Link Turns 312
Even accounting for increased spending, there is massive public support for increased investment in transportation infrastructure.
HOUSTON CHRONICLE, 2012
[“Americans Value Highways and Bridges as a National Treasure,”5/18,
]
Clearly, Americans hold the nation's infrastructure in high regard. Nearly nine in ten (89 percent) Americans feel it’s important for the federal government to fund the maintenance and improvements of interstate highways. Yet, this infrastructure isn’t receiving the fiscal attention it deserves. Congress recently approved the ninth extension of transportation legislation that originally expired in 2009. The Highway Trust Fund – due to inflation, rising construction costs and increasingly fuel efficient vehicles – no longer collects enough money to support the U.S. surface transportation system, remaining solvent only through a series of infusions from federal general revenue funds. More than half of Americans (57 percent) believe the nation’s infrastructure is underfunded.
Voters are willing to support new infrastructure projects, and this issue is more important than concern over budgets or the deficit.
ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION, 2011
[“The Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey”, ]
Voters want common ground on transportation legislation more than on any other issue. Americans want leaders to seek common ground across a host of issues, but they want it on transportation legislation more than any other area. 71% of voters say there should be common ground on this issue—higher than other major issues—while 19% say leaders should hold fast to their positions, which is lower than other major issues. By comparison, the next-highest issue is legislation dealing with the budget deficit, where 69% would like to see common ground and 25% want to see leaders holding fast to their positions. This pattern holds across other issues as well, from energy development to health care reform to tax cuts to Social Security. Two in three voters say that improving the nation’s infrastructure is highly important, and many say our current infrastructure system is inadequate. 66% of voters say that improving the country’s transportation infrastructure is extremely (27%) or very (39%) important. Another 27% say it is somewhat important. Just 6% say it is not important. Again, majorities of Democrats (74%), independents (62%), and Republicans (56%) say this is very or extremely important, as do 59% of Tea Party supporters. The importance of improving infrastructure also is consistent regardless of the length of a voter’s commute—whether their commute is less than 15 minutes (60% important), between 15 and 44 minutes (69%), or 45 minutes or longer (63). Indeed, 20044% say that roads are often or totally inadequate and that only some public transportation options exist for those who want them. Only 4% of voters say that roads are totally adequate with lots of public transportation options, while 50% say roads are mostly adequate and there are just enough public transportation options.
Plan-specific Link Turn: Rail Investment 313
Important business lobbies support rail investment, and the public does not oppose the plan.
LONGMAN, 2009
[Phillip, Senior Research Fellow with the New America Foundation’s Health Policy Program, “Back on Tracks,” Washington Monthly, Jan/Feb, ]
Is all this politically feasible? Certainly more so than ayear ago, before the consensus formed that we must invest massively in infrastructure of some kind. Importantly, too, we're not talking about bailing out a failing industry, but about helping an expanding, more energy-efficient one to grow fast enough to meet pressing public needs. Nor would we be making big bets on unproven technology. Also, it's important to remember that big trucking companies, facing acute driver shortages and mounting highway congestion, are increasingly shifting their containers to rail and so have an interest in improved rail infrastructure. With trucking companies morphing into logistics companies, it's a new day in the special interest politics of freight.
A majority of Americans support transit reform and getting cars off the roads.
BAXANDALL, 2008
[Phineas, PhD Political Science at MIT, senior policy analyst at US Public Interest Research Group and formerly Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Taubman Center for State and Local Government, “A Better Way to Go: Meeting America’s 21st Century Transportation Challenges with Modern Public Transit,” March, ]
Approximately three out of four Americans now believe that improving transit and building communities that require less driving are the best solutions for reducing traffic congestion. Many cities nationwide are considering new or expanded commuter rail or light rail networks.
Plan-specific Link Turn: Rail Investment 314
The vast majority of voters support expanding rail because of its cost savings versus personal vehicles.
BAXANDALL, 2008
[Phineas, PhD Political Science at MIT, senior policy analyst at US Public Interest Research Group and formerly Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Taubman Center for State and Local Government, “A Better Way to Go: Meeting America’s 21st Century Transportation Challenges with Modern Public Transit,” March, ]
It is no surprise, then, that dozens of American communities are planning to expand and modernize their transit infrastructure. The recent GAO survey of transit project sponsors found that the sponsors had more than 140 projects eligible for funding under the New Starts program and planned to seek federal funding for three-fourths of those projects.102 And as noted above, in recent years, voters have approved more than two-thirds of proposed transportation referendums, in many cases voting to increase or extend local-option taxes specifically devoted to transit programs.103 The rising cost of owning and operating a vehicle, coupled with increasing congestion, has driven many Americans to desire new transportation choices. According to one recent poll, 20075 percent of those surveyed believed that improving public transit and building communities that require less driving are the best solutions for reducing traffic, while only 21 percent—one in five—believed that building new roads was the best solution. 104
Older citizens support expanding rail transit services.
BAXANDALL, 2008
[Phineas, PhD Political Science at MIT, senior policy analyst at US Public Interest Research Group and formerly Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government Taubman Center for State and Local Government, “A Better Way to Go: Meeting America’s 21st Century Transportation Challenges with Modern Public Transit,” March, ]
Other demographic, economic and cultural factors are also driving increased demand for transit. The retirement of the “Baby Boom” generation will lead to a surge in the number of older Americans, with one in five Americans projected to be 65 years old or older by 2030.110 Transit plays an important role in the lives of many older Americans, providing mobility to those who cannot or should not drive. Demand for transit services among older Americans can only be expected to increase as the nation’s population continues to age.
Plan-specific Link Turn: Port Security 315
Counter-terrorism policy allows Obama to focus on his strengths, and the public strongly supports his terrorism policies.
HABARI NETWORK, 2012
[“Election 2012:Obama national security record gives Romney limited opportunities to challenge commander in chief,” 6/20, ]
President Barack Obama’s not-so-secret counterterrorism fight against al-Qaida in Yemen and Somalia, the killing of Osama bin Laden and strong hints of a cyber war against Iran give Republicans few openings to challenge the commander in chief. This aggressive national security policy has undercut the derisive label Republicans have successfully attached to Democrats in the past: the soft-on-defense Mommy Party. It has been one of the most effective election-year cudgels for the GOP. Just eight years ago, President George W. Bush capitalized on his tough response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to win a second term. In a major assist to Bush’s candidacy, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth used debunked claims to undermine Democratic rival John Kerry’s decorated Vietnam War record and cast him as “unfit to serve.” In the past 3½ years, Obama has waged a secret campaign against al-Qaida in two countries, one on the Arab peninsula, the other on Africa’s east coast. The White House officially acknowledged the lethal attacks in Yemen and Somalia in its semiannual report to Congress last Friday. Navy SEALs took out bin Laden in Pakistan in May 2011 while armed drones have pursued al-Qaida terrorists within the country, degrading the terrorist group. In public opinion polls, Obama gets high marks for his record on national security, a contrast to his weaker numbers on handling the nation’s finances. An Associated Press-GfK poll conducted in May found that 64 percent approved of Obama’s handling of terrorism and 53 percent approved of the way he’s managing the situation in Afghanistan. By contrast, less than half approved of his handling of the economy (46 percent), unemployment (48 percent) or gas prices (30 percent). Republicans, who have successfully pummeled the president on the economy, have made little headway on national security.
Plan-specific Link Turn: Public Service Employment 316
Lack of a jobs bill will guarantee Romney the election in the status quo. The perception of solving unemployment robs Romney of all his support.
TIMES-HERALD, 2012
[Dan Thomasson, “Thomasson: 8.2 jobless rate endangers Obama’s job,” 7/11,
]
The latest job figures make it increasingly easy to see a change in the White House in November based on an economy that can’t seem to pull itself out of the doldrums and a president who insists he’s not to blame. With a few more months of substandard job creation, how likely is it that President Barack Obama will be the only incumbent since Franklin D. Roosevelt to survive an unemployment rate higher than 7.2 percent? The Labor Department’s announcement Friday of just 80,000 new jobs in June — 20,000 less than had been forecast — didn’t budge the overall jobless rate off the current 8.2 percent mark, meaning unemployment has been stuck above 8 percent for 41 months. The stock market responded negatively to the jobs number. Some 13 million Americans are out of work, and a whole bunch of them have given up looking. Time’s a-wasting for any kind of a serious turnaround that might save this administration. If history is any judge, it doesn’t matter much whether Mitt Romney can do any better. A whole lot of voters — more every day — will be willing to roll the dice in Romney’s favor. Now we are told that the Federal Reserve is laying plans for more economic stimulation, under the assumption that it may be necessary to keep away the wolves of a second recession. What exactly the Fed would do is not clear — take another shot at lowering interest rates, perhaps. But some economists don’t think the Fed has enough arrows left in its quiver to matter much. There are some positive signs in all this. The housing market limped up slightly and some sectors showed minor gains in employment. Health care and manufacturing had 13,000 and 11,000 new jobs, respectively. But all in all, it was a bad day for the president and his campaign, made worse by a realization that too much time has been spent worrying about the health care reform law and its big price tag. If you doubt the impact the economic numbers have on the election, go back to 1992. The first George Bush had an 89 percent approval rating after Desert Storm, but it declined sharply later that year to 36 percent when Democratic challenger Bill Clinton’s campaign tried to show the president lacked concern over hard times. As Clinton campaign strategist James Carville said of the key issue, “It’s the economy, stupid.” In the current campaign, Romney wasted no time in charging that the president’s policies had led to the continued anemic outlook. The 200,000-plus jobs created a few months ago would have to be repeated for three years, the experts say, before the economic picture could be as rosy as before 2008. You have to wonder what the president can do at this stage to overcome the situation. He has called for more spending on infrastructure that would bolster the public employee numbers. Good luck with that from a Congress in which Republicans and even some Democrats now are committed to cutting spending. Besides, don’t look for any relief from Capitol Hill until after November.
Plan-specific Link Turn: NAFTA 317
Free-trade support is historically a game-changer in Presidential elections, and Obama’s support for jobs created by NAFTA can turn the tide.
BLOOMBERG NEWS, 2012
[Editors, “Obama-Romney Debate Over Offshoring Is Phony and Harmful,” 7/11, ]
The U.S. presidential campaign seems to have time-traveled back to 1992, when independent candidate Ross Perot thought he heard the “giant sucking sound” of American jobs moving to Mexico. Perot lost his presidential bid, along with the argument against globalization. The winner, Bill Clinton, went on to sign the North American Free Trade Agreement. The resulting U.S. job losses, primarily in manufacturing, were offset by gains elsewhere, according to numerous studies. Two decades of bipartisan support for globalization should have settled the matter as a political issue. Instead, President Barack Obama reopened the debate with television ads attacking Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, saying Bain invested in companies that shipped work to overseas call centers and factories. The president hopes voters will conclude Romney isn’t the job creator he claims to be -- even though , a nonprofit group, found no evidence to support the charge that Romney, while still running Bain Capital, sent jobs overseas.
States Counterplan Negative 318
Background Information: States 1
States Counterplan 1NC 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #1 “Permutation” 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 “No solvency” 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #3 “Theory” 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #4 “No revenue” 1
Plan-specific Solvency: NAFTA 1
Plan-specific Solvency: Port Security 1
Plan-specific Solvency: Public Service Employment 1
Plan-specific Solvency: Rail Investment 1
Background Notes: States Counterplan 319
States Counterplan 1NC 320
A. Text:
[Insert plan-specific text]
B. Solvency. Only state action on transportation is effective in the short-term because federal action is too inefficient.
HOLLER, 2012
[Dan, Communications Director for Heritage Action for America, “Thinking Outside the Beltway,” 4/04, ]
When it comes to the problem of how to pay for our nation’s transportation needs, the temptation in Washington is to view Washington as the solution. After tens of billions in Highway Trust Fund bailouts and nine short-term extensions, it is clear Washington does not hold the answer. The real answer is outside the beltway. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell recently scoffed at the idea of looking beyond Washington for transportation funding solutions, saying proponents of such a move “haven’t looked at any of the state budgets recently.” But the Governor misses the point. It is not that states are awash in cash (the federal government isn’t either), but rather that states are much more efficient. Last year, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels explained his state “can build in 1/2 the time at 2/3 the cost when we use our own money only and are free from the federal rulebook.” Literally just outside the Washington Beltway, a private company is adding four high-occupancy toll lanes for half the cost the government projected, and the lanes are better designed, too. Instead of looking for an innovative solution, too many in Congress prefer to debate various funding mechanisms for months on end knowing they will settle for a gimmick that ensures insolvency. There is a better way; lawmakers just need to know where to look.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #1 “Permutation” 321
1. The permutation is not net-beneficial. There is no impact to “solving better” because the Counterplan alone solves enough to prevent their Harms. The permutation still links to the net-benefits because federal government spending still triggers the links to our disadvantages, while state action does not.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 “No solvency” 322
1. Extend our HOLLER evidence. The federal government is not suited to provide infrastructure- the states can provide improvements more efficiently.
2. We have specific solvency evidence.
[Insert plan-specific solvency]
3. Federal funds aren’t allocated to high priority areas because special interest groups in D.C. drive allocations.
ROTH, 2010
[Gabriel, research fellow at the Independent Institute, “Federal Highway Funding” June, ]
Federal aid typically covers between 75 and 90 percent of the costs of federally supported highway projects. Because states spend only a small fraction of their own resources on these projects, state officials have less incentive to use funds efficiently and to fund only high-priority investments. Boston's Central Artery and Tunnel project (the "Big Dig"), for example, suffered from poor management and huge cost overruns.21 Federal taxpayers paid for more than half of the project's total costs, which soared from about $3 billion to about $15 billion. Federal politicians often direct funds to projects in their states that are low priorities for the nation as a whole. The Speaker of the House of Representatives in the 1980s, "Tip" O'Neill, represented a Boston district and led the push for federal funding of the Big Dig. More recently, Representative Don Young of Alaska led the drive to finance that state's infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," discussed below. The inefficient political allocation of federal dollars can be seen in the rise of "earmarking" in transportation bills. This practice involves members of Congress slipping in funding for particular projects requested by special interest groups in their districts. In 1982, the prohibition on earmarks in highway bills in effect since 1914 was broken by the funding of 10 earmarks costing $362 million. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan vetoed a highway bill partly because it contained 121 earmarks, and Congress overrode his veto. Since then, transportation earmarking has grown by leaps and bounds. The 1991 transportation authorization bill (ISTEA) had 538 highway earmarks, the 1998 bill (TEA-21) had 1,850 highway earmarks, and the 2005 bill (SAFETEA-LU) had 5,634 highway earmarks. The earmarked projects in the 2005 bill cost $22 billion, thus indicating that earmarks are consuming a substantial portion of federal highway funding. The problem with earmarks was driven home by an Alaska bridge project in 2005. Rep. Don Young of Alaska slipped a $223 million earmark into a spending bill for a bridge from Ketchikan—with a population of 8, 19900—to the Island of Gravina—with a population of 50. The project was dubbed the "Bridge to Nowhere" and created an uproar because it was clearly a low priority project that made no economic sense.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 “No Solvency” 323
4. Federal funds discourage private sector investment because the government lacks leadership and oversight.
O’HARE, 2012
[Kerr, Vice President, Director of Policy for National Journal; “It's Time for Innovation & Leadership,” 4/02, ]
It is troubling that Congress seems to be moving away from the user pays concept - but until Congress steps up to the plate, they must not hamper state and local funding and financing options. While we are supportive of the policy reforms in the Senate transportation bill (MAP-21), we are troubled by several provisions in the bill that could make it more difficult for many states to leverage funding with private sector partners. BAF is particularly concerned about language that would provide a disincentive to states to consider partnering with the private sector for fear of losing a percentage of its federal funding; eliminates the option to use Private Activity Bonds (PABs) to finance leased highway projects; and changes the depreciation timetable for long-term highway leases from 15 years to 45. Taken together or individually, these provisions would have a chilling effect upon future private investment in infrastructure. Because federal funding has become less certain, several states and cities have looked to such things as public-private partnerships (P3s) (over 30 states have some form of P3 authorizing language on the books), state infrastructure banks, and local referendum to raise a sales tax with proceeds going to specific projects. But there is also a void of leadership and innovation at the federal level. For example, a properly structured National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) that offered low interest loans to projects of regional or national significance could be one of the many tools available to help finance infrastructure projects of national and regional significance. Instead of erecting barriers to P3s, the federal government should also explore establishing a P3 "best practices" entity like there is in Canada and Australia to help states and cities better understand the financing options available to them when partnering with the private sector. And at a minimum, the provisions that hamper such partnerships in MAP-21 must be removed when the bill gets conferenced with a House bill.
5. Federal infrastructure programs aren’t tailored to the specific needs of each state, and bureaucratic regulations increase overall cost.
ROTH, 2010
[Gabriel, research fellow at the Independent Institute, “Federal Highway Funding” June, ]
The flow of federal funding to the states for highways comes part-in-parcel with top-down regulations. The growing mass of federal regulations makes highway building more expensive in numerous ways. First, federal specifications for road construction standards can be more demanding than state standards. But one-size-fits-all federal rules may ignore unique features of the states and not allow state officials to make efficient trade-offs on highway design. A second problem is that federal grants usually come with an array of extraneous federal regulations that increase costs. Highway grants, for example, come with Davis-Bacon rules and Buy America provisions, which raise highway costs substantially. Davis-Bacon rules require that workers on federally funded projects be paid "prevailing wages" in an area, which typically means higher union wages. Davis-Bacon rules increase the costs of federally funded projects by an average of about 10 percent, which wastes billions of dollars per year. Ralph Stanley, the entrepreneur who created the private Dulles Greenway toll highway in Virginia, estimated that federal regulations increase highway construction costs by about 20 percent. Robert Farris, who was commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Transportation and also head of the Federal Highway Administration, suggested that federal regulations increase costs by 30 percent. Finally, federal intervention adds substantial administrative costs to highway building. Planning for federally financed highways requires the detailed involvement of both federal and state governments. By dividing responsibility for projects, this split system encourages waste at both levels of government. Total federal, state, and local expenditures on highway "administration and research" when the highway trust fund was established in 1956 were 6.8 percent of construction costs. By 2002, these costs had risen to 17 percent of expenditures. The rise in federal intervention appears to have pushed up these expenditures substantially.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #3 “Theory” 324
1. Counter-interpretation is that the negative is allowed to read one counterplan with a non-Resolutional actor enacting the plan.
We will identify offensive and defensive reasons to prefer our interpretation.
First, Offense:
1. Education: State vs. Federal is a crucial aspect of transportation literature, and only the counterplan allows us to debate the merits of different actors. Disadvantages alone aren’t enough because they don’t access methodology questions.
2. Negative Ground: The States Counterplan is a necessary counterweight to overwhelming Affirmative advantages and unpredictable solvency mechanisms. This topic is huge because they can use any investment mechanism for any transportation type. Having a stable generic counterplan with solvency literature is the only to make the debate fair.
3. Forces better Affirmatives: Without needing to prove a “federal key” warrant, Affirmatives would just be a slew of nuclear war advantages and arguments about risks of extinction. The counterplan is the only way to force the Affirmative to debate the solvency of their mechanism.
Now, the Defense:
1. Reject the argument, not the team: the states counterplan does not hurt the Affirmative’s ability to answer our other arguments. If this argument is unfair, just reject it and allow us to debate the other positions.
2. Err Negative on theory: they have built in advantages like the first and last speech and infinite prep time, and theory is a quick no-lose argument for them.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #4 “No revenue” 325
States will create new laws to generate the revenue necessary for transportation infrastructure.
SLONE, 2008
[Sean, transportation policy analyst at The Council of State Governments, “TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE,” ]
The commission points out that any funding mechanism is unlikely to score well on all the criteria, so the choice of an optimal approach will require value judgments to be made by policymakers on the goals they most want to advance. Ultimately, the most significant item in this list for many policymakers may be political viability. Regardless of how a funding mechanism may look on paper, decisions about how to enhance revenue to fund transportation are never made in a vacuum. Political considerations always play an important role in determining the direction a state ultimately takes. Nevertheless, drawing on important lessons learned over the years in many states, a consensus appears to have emerged about the steps necessary to successfully propose and enact new or enhanced revenue measures to fund transportation. As the Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program points out in a 2007 report, most funding initiatives come about either through legislative actions or through ballot initiatives and referenda. But regardless of how they are generated, the same steps are required to achieve success. They include: Developing a consensus on the scope of current and future transportation needs and on the importance of acting to address them; Developing a specific plan and program of investments for which additional funding is needed and demonstrating what benefits are expected from the proposed investments; Identifying clearly established roles, responsibilities and procedures for executing the plan and implementing the proposed improvements; Describing the revenue sources in detail and providing the rationales for their use; Designing and carrying out a public education and advocacy plan and campaign; Developing sustained leadership and demonstrable, sustained support; and Planning for and laying out a clear and reasonable timetable. Assessing the political landscape, researching the options, educating the electorate and implementing new revenue-enhancing measures will occupy a substantial amount of time for state governments in the next few years. The choices and the efforts they make will determine whether our nation’s transportation system ends up on the road to success.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #4 “No revenue” 326
Infrastructure banks solve any revenue issue.
SLONE, 2011
[Sean, transportation policy analyst at The Council of State Governments, “State Infrastructure Banks” 7/05, ]
While 32 states have used a state infrastructure bank, more than 87 percent of all loans from such banks made through 2008 were concentrated in just five states and nearly 95 percent of activity in just eight states. The states with the most state infrastructure bank activity through 2008 were South Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Texas and Ohio. Established in 1997, the South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank has made more than $3 billion in loans, making it the state infrastructure bank that has provided the highest level of financing of any in the nation. Among the key features of the South Carolina bank: It was initially capitalized with state and federal funds and can receive additional funds from these sources as well as other public and private entities. Private borrowers can use infrastructure revenue and public borrowers can use dedicated local taxes and revenue to demonstrate repayment capacity. The bank can set its own interest rates and repayment terms, though they are subject to agreements with bondholders. Unlike some state infrastructure banks, South Carolina’s bank can be the primary source of financing for some infrastructure projects. However, projects eligible to receive loans must have strong supplementary financing sources and demonstrate solid streams of future income. The legislation creating the bank stated its purpose as assisting infrastructure development through providing financial assistance to both public and private developers, ultimately aiming to contribute to enhancing mobility and safety, promoting economic development and increasing the public’s quality of life. One project that has benefited from South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank loans is Interstate 520, a road that encircles the cities of Augusta in Georgia and North Augusta in South Carolina and provides a direct connection to I-20. Completion of the interstate, which is known as the Palmetto Parkway on the South Carolina side, was needed to accommodate increasing traffic volume in the region. The infrastructure bank approved an initial loan of $65 million for the first phase of the project in 2001, an additional $95 million for Phase II in 2005 and a third loan of $18 million in 2007. The South Carolina Department of Transportation, the city of North Augusta, and Aiken County, S.C., have provided additional funding for the project; a countywide sales tax approved by voters in 2000 provided $17 million. It also received $21 million in federal grants. But the South Carolina Transportation Infrastructure Bank loan was the largest funding source for the project, which was completed in 2009.6
This has historically overcome the need for federal funding.
SLONE, 2011
[Sean, transportation policy analyst at The Council of State Governments, “State Infrastructure Banks” 7/05, ]
Several states—including Florida, Georgia, Kansas and Ohio—have established state infrastructure banks or accounts within their banks that are capitalized solely with state funds.7 Virginia has recently joined the ranks of those four states. Such banks allow funded projects to avoid potentially delay-causing federal regulations and restrictions (such things as labor, environmental and “Buy America” requirements) they would otherwise be subjected to if they were financed using federal funds.
Plan-specific Solvency: NAFTA 327
State action on trade with NAFTA partners will strengthen the treaty and allow the federal government to be more effective in future trade negotiations.
TANGEMAN, 1996
[A.J., J.D. Candidate 1997, Seattle University School of Law, “NAFTA and the Changing Role of State Government in a Global Economy,” Seattle University Law Review, v. 20, ]
Communication between the federal government and each state can be improved upon to further safeguard against the failure of the consultation process and limitations on state regulatory authority. There are several ways in which communication between the two powers can be enhanced, thereby increasing the likelihood of success for the consultation process. First, the federal government should actively foster state government input. Partnerships between federal and state regulatory authorities will provide an important avenue for state participation in fulfilling trade agreement obligations. Second, the federal government should develop other mechanisms for communicating with state governments to achieve common goals under trade agreements. Finally, the federal government should support and encourage bilateral and trilateral communications between subnational governments."' For example, in the hypothetical, Washington State and Mexico should communicate regarding the appropriate fumigation requirements for cherries. This type of communication will benefit state governments from both sides. Not only will more effective utilization of the NAFTA consultative process benefit both state and federal governments, but if states also become more involved in the established administrative process, the federal government will be able to make more informed policy decisions by listening to and considering state input. Federal-state relations in implementing NAFTA are likely to be cooperative in nature. Therefore, if the federal government and the states meet their obligations under the NAFTA federal-state consultation process, NAFTA will preserve state sovereignty while enhancing international trade.
Plan-specific Solvency: Port Security 328
State port regulations will be more effective due to flexibility. A federal one-size-fits-all approach is doomed to failure.
HECKER, 2002
[JayEtta, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues “Nation Faces Formidable Challenges in Making New Initiatives Successful,” 8/05, ]
Development of a set of national standards that would apply to all ports and all public and private facilities is well under way. In preparing to assess security conditions at 55 U.S. ports, the Coast Guard’s contractor has been developing a set of standards since May 2002. The Coast Guard standards being developed cover such things as preventing unauthorized persons from accessing sensitive areas, detecting and intercepting intrusions, checking backgrounds of those whose jobs require access to port facilities, and screening travelers and other visitors to port facilities. These standards are performance-based, in that they describe the desired outcome and leave the ports considerable discretion about how to accomplish the task. For example, the standards call for all employees and passengers to be screened for dangerous items or contraband but do not specify the method that must be used for these screenings. The Coast Guard believes that using performance standards will provide ports with the needed flexibility to deal with varying conditions and situations in each location rather than requiring a “cookie-cutter” approach that may not be as effective in some locations as it would be in others. Developing and gaining overall acceptance of these standards is difficult enough, but implementing them seems likely to be far tougher. Implementation includes resolving thorny situations in which security concerns may collide with economic or other goals. Again, Tampa offers a good example. Some of the port’s major employers consist of ship repair companies that hire hundreds of workers for short-term projects as the need arises. Historically, according to port authority officials, these workers have included persons with criminal records. However, new state requirements for background checks, as part of issuing credentials, could deny such persons needed access to restricted areas of the port. From a security standpoint, excluding such persons may be advisable; but from an economic standpoint, a company may have difficulty filling jobs if it cannot include such persons in the labor pool. Around the country, ports will face many such issues, ranging from these credentialing questions to deciding where employees and visitors can park their cars. To the degree that some stakeholders believe that the security actions are unnecessary or conflict with other goals and interests, achieving consensus about what to do will be difficult. Another reason that implementation poses a challenge is that there is little precedent for how to enforce the standards. The Coast Guard believes it has authority under current law and regulations 17 to require security upgrades, at both public and private facilities. Coast Guard officials have also told us that they may write regulations to address the weaknesses found during the ongoing vulnerability assessment process. However, the size, complexity, and diversity of port operations do not lend themselves to an enforcement approach such as the one the United States adopted for airports in the wake of September 11, when airports were shut down temporarily until they could demonstrate compliance with a new set of security procedures. In the case of ports, compliance could take much longer, require greater compromises on the part of stakeholders, and raise immediate issues about how compliance will be paid for—and who will bear the costs.
Plan-specific Solvency: Public Service Employment 329
States can effectively identify jobs, hire workers, and administer a Public Service Employment program.
WRAY, 1999
[L. Randall, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, as well as a visiting Senior Scholar at the Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College; “Public service employment-assured jobs program: further considerations,” Journal of Economic Issues, June, ]
Clearly, these could be significant problems that must be addressed. The existing unemployment benefits program administration might be used to administer a Public Service Employment program. Alternatively, administration could "devolve" to the state and local government levels. The federal government would simply provide as much funding as necessary to let every state and local government hire as many new employees as it desired, with only two constraints: these jobs could not replace current employment, and they could pay only the basic compensation package. Finally, a similar offer could be made to qualifying non-governmental nonprofit organizations, such as Americorps, VISTA, the National Senior Service Corps, the Peace Corps, the National Health Service Corps, school districts, and Meals on Wheels.
Plan-specific Solvency: Rail Investment 330
States have the ability to pay for and implement new rail lines that will be more competitive than federal lines.
CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 2001
[Editorial, “Let states drive high-speed train,” 12/24, ]
Amtrak--the money-losing operation that poses as a national passenger railroad in the U.S.--is taking the lead in the development of a high-speed train network in the Midwest, comparable to the European trains that zoom by at more than 150 m.p.h. High-speed rail service in the Midwest is an interesting prospect--the market, as well as environmental, energy conservation and other concerns, may justify it. But putting Amtrak in charge and expecting the feds to pay for most of it certainly is a recipe for waste and bad planning. For the Midwest, at least, a frequent, comfortable and reliable high-speed rail system would be a new concept. It ought to be designed and operated as such, according to market demand, with a rigorous bottom-line approach. In other words, everything Amtrak is not. According to plans being circulated in Congress and promoted by several local groups, Chicago would be the hub of a series of high-speed rail lines zipping out to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Detroit, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Cleveland and other major urban areas, with stops at some smaller cities like Springfield, Ill., and Madison, Wis. New trains would run on upgraded freight tracks at estimated speeds of 110 m.p.h. The initial phase would be funded by approximately $4 billion, the Midwest's share of the $12 billion High Speed Rail Investment initiative, under consideration by Congress. Individual states have pledged smaller amounts to the effort, including Illinois' $50 million. A reverse logic animates this project: Instead of determining there is urgent demand--and then seeking funding--Midwestern supporters seem to be saying, "The pot of money is there, so we might as well get our share." That's not the way to build a new railroad, but to extend Amtrak domain which, torn by the incompatible demands of politics, public service and profitability, has evolved into anything but an efficient train system. States ought to take the lead in the high-speed rail effort, and contribute a substantial amount of the money. Perhaps the federal government could pay for the start-up infrastructure improvements, as it did to build the original interstate highway system in the 1950s. Then an independent multi-state agency could purchase the trains and turn over operations to a private concern. Such high stakes and strong participation by the states would lead to a far tougher analysis of what service is needed than the pinata-style planning at play here. Built modestly and incrementally, high-speed rail could work and even make money, at which time full privatization would be the next step. A Chicago-to-St. Louis line, running on relatively underutilized freight tracks through Normal and Springfield, could be a key test. Run efficiently, it could compete favorably with airlines on speed of downtown-to-downtown service, and certainly on roominess and comfort. Regional high-speed service has caught on in California and in the Northwest, and it may well do so here. Although Amtrak's math is complicated, the agency projects that, when fully operational, its high-speed Acela line on the Northeast will make about $180 million in annual profit Are there enough commuters and are they willing to give up their cars or airline seats in favor of high-speed trains? If it's their own money on the line, state officials, planners--and taxpayers--would make sure the project makes sense before any money is invested. High-speed train service in the Midwest is a prospect worth investigating, on the right terms.
States Counterplan Affirmative 331
2AC Frontline – States Counterplan 1
Plan-specific Solvency Deficit: NAFTA 1
1AR Extension: NAFTA Solvency Deficit 1
Plan-specific Solvency Deficit: Rail Investment 1
1AR Extension: Rail Investment Solvency Deficit 1
Plan-specific Solvency Deficit: Port Security 1
1AR Extension: Port Security Solvency Deficit 1
Plan-specific Solvency Deficit: Public Service Employment 1
1AR Extension: Public Service Employment Solvency Deficit 1
2AC Frontline – States Counterplan 332
1. Permutation: Do both. Federal action can leave crucial implementation decisions up to the states, and this allows them to share power and solves best. By giving states some authority over the political ramifications of transportation policy, the federal government would avoid blame.
PUENTES, 2008
[Robert, fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institute, “A Bridge to Somewhere,” ]
If our transportation policy is going to achieve critical national objectives in an era of fiscal constraints it is going to need to focus and prioritize. Yet the national goal should not be a transportation goal, nor should it be to deliver transportation projects faster. Transportation is a means to an end, not the end itself. The nation should settle for nothing less than evidence-based, values-driven decision making. This means the development of a three-pronged strategy for our national transportation program: The federal government must LEAD in those areas where there are clear demands for national uniformity or else to match the scale or geographic reach of certain problems. There are several core steps that the federal government can take here: The U.S. needs to define, design, and embrace a new, unified, competitive vision for transportation policy— its purpose, its mission, its overarching rationale. The focus should be on investing in infrastructure that supports the competitiveness and environmental sustainability of the nation, rather than on funding individual states or singular needs. Congress should authorize a permanent, independent commission—the Strategic Transportation Investments Commission (STIC)—to prioritize federal investments. The Strategic Transportation Investments Commission would develop a national priority map that would become the basis of a multi-year federally driven program prioritized on a cost-benefit basis taking into account multimodal interactions. The identification of these important federal investments should be based on the overarching vision and goals set above. The charge of this commission is more limited than that proposed by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission in 2008. Instead of focusing on all specific investments and projects that use federal money, the STIC would focus on three specific program areas of national importance: the preservation and maintenance of the interstate highway system, the development of a true national intermodal freight agenda, and a comprehensive national plan for inter-metro area passenger travel. In this regard, the STIC should evaluate proposals for expansion of the interstates competitively and federal funds should be directed to projects where there is a clear demonstration that they will return value for money, the same it currently is for transit projects. To ensure the efficient inter-metropolitan movement of people and goods, the STIC must identify gateways and corridors of national significance. Prime candidates are the congested ports in the largest metropolitan areas and those corridors that connect large places less than 500 miles apart. These investments would be subject to benefit/cost analysis and outcome
[Evidence continues next page, no text deleted]
2AC Frontline – States Counterplan 333
[PUENTES evidence continues, no text deleted]
measures that go beyond traditional metrics like number of passengers or cost effectiveness and consider energy and environment, access and social benefits, land use and others.. The federal government should EMPOWER states and metropolitan areas to grow in competitive, inclusive, and sustainable ways. With the federal government focused on areas of national concern, there are other aspects of transportation policy where metropolitan areas should lead. This means moving to a tripartite division of labor: (a) the STIC recommending major national transportation expansions and investments; (b) the states retaining the primary role on most decision making and in small and medium sized metropolitan areas; (c) the major metropolitan areas are given more direct funding and project selection authority through a new Metropolitan Empowerment Program (METRO). The availability of these METRO funds not only provides financing for vital local projects but also encourages local officials to get involved in the transportation decision making for their region. But the realignment of responsibilities also means the federal government needs to go beyond funding and give metro areas the critical tools and flexibilities to lead. For instance: It needs to embrace market mechanisms and establish a national policy for metropolitan road pricing to allow for better management of the metropolitan network. The federal government should also pursue a strategy of “modality neutrality.” Transportation policy should enable metro areas to meet their goals on economic competitiveness, environmental sustainability, and/or equity by the best means available, rather than be constrained by rules governing a particular mode (e.g., highway, transit, bike/pedestrian, air). Lastly, the federal government needs to assist states and metropolitan areas in developing truly integrated transportation, land use, and economic development plans to serve the projected growth over the next several decades. Sustainability Challenge Contracts should be awarded to entice states and metropolitan areas to devise their own visions for coping with congestion and greenhouse gas emissions across transportation, housing, land use, economic development and energy policies. The federal government should OPTIMIZE Washington’s own performance and that of its partners to maximize metropolitan prosperity. In order to rebuild the public trust, the rationale for the federal program should be abundantly clear to the American people and to which a tangible set of outcomes must be explicitly tied. While no simple analytical tool can provide all the answers, in this era of fiscal austerity the federal government should take steps to ensure grantees apply rigorous benefit/cost analyses to any project that uses federal funds. High performing federal grantees could be given relief from regulatory and administrative requirements in order to accelerate project delivery where appropriate. By the same token, intervention strategies for consistent low performers should be considered. Recognizing the political hurdles in linking funding to outcomes, performance, and accountability, states should be allowed to opt-out of the revamped federal transportation program and forgo their allocation of federal trust fund revenues.
2AC Frontline – States Counterplan 334
2. The counterplan does not solve the case.
a) [Insert plan-specific solvency deficit]
b) States cannot sustain transportation investments. They don’t have revenue, political motivation or efficiency.
PUENTES, 2011
[Robert, fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institute, “State Transportation Reform: Cut to Invest in Transportation to Deliver the Next Economy,” 2/22,
]
First, state transportation funding sources are shrinking. Twenty-one states—including New York, Illinois, and Florida—saw transportation program area cuts in fiscal year 2010 and 11—like Michigan—expected cuts for the next fiscal year. Part of the states’ funding problem is that they are still heavily reliant on the motor vehicle fuel tax (the gas tax) for the bulk of their transportation revenues. From 1995 to 2008, more than half of the funds states used for highways came directly or indirectly through state and federal gas taxes (Table 1). But slowdowns in fuel consumption overall and stagnant gas tax rates have squeezed this revenue source. At the same time revenues are down, the demands for spending have increased. A litany of reports and analyses highlight the deteriorating condition of the nation’s transportation infrastructure. Over a quarter of major roads’ rides in urbanized areas are not at acceptable levels. According to the latest data, nearly 72,000 bridges (12 percent of the total) in the U.S. are considered to be “structurally deficient” meaning their condition had deteriorated to the point that rehabilitation or replacement is approaching or imminent. More than one-fifth of the bridges are deficient in states like Oklahoma, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. In addition to its condition, U.S. infrastructure lags when it comes to the deployment of advanced information and telecommunications technology. Second, state investments are not made in a sufficiently strategic, economy-enhancing way. States also face challenges because they spend their (now-declining) transportation dollars poorly. For example, many states have tended to allocate investments via logrolling rather than evidence. As a result, projects are spread around the state like peanut butter. The metropolitan areas that will deliver the next economy—since they already concentrate the assets that matter to smart economic growth like transportation—are often undermined by spending and policy decisions that fail to recognize the economic engines they are and focus investments accordingly. Nor have states been deliberate about recognizing and supporting the particular needs and challenges of both metro and non-metro areas. State transportation policies also remain rigidly stovepiped and disconnected as states fail to take advantage of potential efficiencies gained through integrated systems. By failing to join up transportation up with other policy areas—such as housing, land use, energy—states are diminishing the power of their interventions and reducing the return on their investments. This is a very different approach from how the economy functions and is out-of-step with innovations to connect transportation investments to economic prosperity. The benefits of federal, state and private investments are amplified when metropolitan areas pursue deliberate strategies across city and suburban lines that build on the distinctive advantages of the broader metropolis. Lastly, states have generally not had the courage to make hard choices and truly tie their transportation programs to achieving the kinds of outcomes described above. Benefit/cost or economic impact analyses are rarely, if ever, used in deciding among alternative projects and regular evaluations of outcomes are typically not conducted. Most states fail to prioritize rehabilitation and maintenance on a programmatic level and instead react on a project-by-project basis. So far, efforts to reduce oil dependency are largely ephemeral. And only three states consider social equity a primary transportation goal. Incoming governors and state legislatures face serious transportation-related challenges. They can pursue band-aid approaches to shore up their budgets through standard program cuts and allow their existing programs to limp along. Or they can begin to put in place a policy framework that connects transportation to the elements of the post-recession economy in a pragmatic manner.
2AC Frontline – States Counterplan 335
3. The counterplan is theoretically illegitimate, and that’s a voting issue for fairness.
a) Uniformity – the best arguments against state action involve a lack of uniformity, but their counterplan fiats through these. We are left without literature based answers and they can gloss over solvency for the entire case.
b) Not reciprocal – Having 50 states work together is no different than 35 states and Canada, or just California working with China. There are an infinite number of non-federal actors that could work together or individually, making it impossible to generate predictable offense.
c) Err Affirmative on theory – this topic provides too much generic Negative link ground by requiring both an investment and specifying transportation infrastructure. Generic disadvantages and kritiks are enough to outweigh most Affirmatives, so hold them to the most limited interpretation for counterplans.
d) Interpretation: The Negative can read a single-actor counterplan that is based in the literature. This allows them to test “federal key” warrants by using California or Texas, but solves our uniformity disadvantage.
4. Federal action is key: state action will be limited by an inability to generate revenue.
FREEMARK, 2012
[Yonah, writer for The Transport Politic, “Clearing it Up on Federal Transportation Expenditures,” 2/16, ]
For one, as I have noted above, states and municipalities have no clear record of choosing to invest in better projects when they are fully in charge of collecting the revenues to do so. States have too often proven a complete disregard for public transportation investments when they’re left fully in charge — see state infrastructure banks as evidence for that fact. While federal investments in transportation have been far from perfect, they have nonetheless provided for the significant expansion in transit offerings we’re now seeing. From the 1980s on, the Congress has maintained a steady stream of funding for transit from the fuel tax revenues it collects. How many states, which collect a huge amount of fuel tax revenues themselves, can say the same? But the most important role of the federal government in transportation financing is to ensure that funding is maintained during economic downturns. The Obama Administration actually increased spending on roads and transit projects following the 2008 recession, despite a decline in federal fuel tax revenues, because it was able to use its power of deficit spending (an authority state and local governments do not have**) to maintain investments when the country needed them. Devolution is overrated.
Plan-specific Solvency Deficit: NAFTA 336
The counterplan is the status quo: “Buy America” only applies to federal purchases. The states can already buy from Canada and Mexico.
MUNICIPAL CASTINGS ASSOCIATION, 2009
[“THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT BUY AMERICA REQUIREMENT,” ]
Although the ARRA’s Buy America section is to be applied under U.S. domestic law in a manner that is consistent with U.S. international legal obligations, The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) only compels the United States to extend equal procurement opportunity to goods and services for direct federal procurement from Canada and Mexico that have values at or above specified threshold levels. States, municipal, and other non-federal projects, which comprise the bulk of the Stimulus funding, are not covered by the NAFTA. This policy is reiterated by the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) in its own guidance. "Article 1001 of NAFTA expressly exempts grants, loans, cooperative agreements, and other forms of Federal financial assistance from its coverage. Unless further negotiations among the U.S., Canada and Mexico modifies {sic} NAFTA, or additional statutory requirements are implemented, the NAFTA does not affect Buy America requirements."
1AR Extension: NAFTA Solvency Deficit 337
“Buy America” does not cover state purchases, so the counterplan has no effect on trade policy.
ALLIANCE FOR AMERICAN MANUFACTURING, 2010
[“Buy America Works” Feb, ]
Buy America Requirement and NAFTA and WTO. As described below, neither of these agreements apply where the federal government provides grants and other funding to state and local authorities for highway, transit or airport projects. Other exceptions and limitations in the WTO Procurement Code substantially limit its application. NAFTA Chapter 10 does not apply at all to procurements by state and local governments, including procurements funded by federal grants, such as those made pursuant to the Federal Transit Act (19 U.S.C. App. § 1601, et seq.) and the Federal Aid Highway Act (23 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.). North American Free Trade Agreement: Statement of Administrative Action, Chapter 10 (A) (1) (c). Therefore, NAFTA presents no bar to a Buy America requirement being incorporated into the stimulus legislation.
The states have no impact on “Buy America,” and the vast majority of purchases are from the federal government.
HUGHES, 1996
[Lawrence, transportation planner with the New York City Department of Transportation, and has previously planned transportation services with the MTA New York City Transit Authority and the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, “Buy North America: A Revision to FTA Buy America Requirements,” Transportation Law Journal, 23 Transp. L.J. 207 1995-1996, HEIN Online]
The exclusion of state and local government procurement in NAFTA is consistent with international trade rules.' In most cases, the article is fair because state and local procurements are made by local communities, based on local values and local funding. The United States government does not control most state and local funding, and cannot enter into a trade agreement with other nations that would restrict state and local governments in their means of procurement. Since FTA-funded transit procurements are made by state and local governments, Buy America rules have continued to be applied. However, the procurement of transit equipment by state and local governments is unlike the other state and local procurements for which Article 1024 was written. In the United States, the FTA assists transit systems with capital funding of 80% under the discretionary and formula capital programs. Only 20% of the cost is paid for by the state or local government. The classification of transit equipment purchases as state and local government procurements is nothing more than a legal fiction and a sham; transit equipment purchases are constructively federal procurements. Since 1964 the federal government had been paying nearly the full cost of transit equipment. It was because of the federal government's near full funding of transit equipment Congress felt the need to expand Buy America to transit procurement in 1978.
Plan-specific Solvency Deficit: Rail Investment 338
States can’t implement new rail lines without federal approval due to safety regulations and interstate commerce over public lands.
GAO, 2009
[Government Accountability Office, “High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role,” Mar, ]
Several federal agencies have played a role in the planning and development of high speed rail projects to date, and others may potentially be involved as projects progress. FRA (The Federal Railroad Administration) has generally been the lead federal agency—sharing that role with other federal agencies, such as the Surface Transportation Board—regarding the environmental review process. The Surface Transportation Board must give its approval before any new rail lines can be constructed that connect to the interstate rail network. FRA also designates corridors as “high speed rail” corridors, and is the agency responsible for any safety regulations or standards regarding high speed rail operations. Safety standards relative to tracks and signaling requirements become more stringent as train speeds increase. For example, at speeds of 125 miles per hour or higher, highway-rail grade crossings must be eliminated, and trains must be equipped with positive train control, which will automatically stop a train if the locomotive engineer fails to respond to a signal. To operate at speeds above 150 miles per hour, FRA requires dedicated track—that is, track that can only be used for high speed rail service. No safety regulations currently exist for speeds above 200 miles per hour. In addition to FRA and the Surface Transportation Board, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) may play a role if highway or other transit right-of-way will be used or if highway or transit funds are to be used for some part of a high speed rail project. The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for granting rights-of-way on public lands for transportation purposes and, thus, would be involved in any new high speed rail project that envisions using public lands. Various other agencies would be involved in the environmental approval process, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others.
1AR Extension: Rail Investment Solvency Deficit 339
States don’t have the experience necessary to develop successful rail lines.
PERL, 2012
[Anthony, Director of the Urban Studies Program at Simon Fraser University, “Assessing the recent reformulation of United States passenger rail policy,” Journal of Transport Geography, May, Volume 22]
Compared to these resources, state governments possessed the most limited rail passenger knowledge, by a wide margin. Before ARRA, most state governments would not even have considered themselves participants in rail policy. State departments of transportation saw their core mission as building and maintaining roads, with some secondary responsibilities in public transit, ports, and aviation. Only a handful of state transportation departments had permanent staff working on intercity rail passenger planning or program delivery. When the GAO queried FRA officials about state capacity in rail passenger policy, the response revealed some awareness of the constraint: “While [FRA officials] found that some states are more advanced in their planning for passenger rail projects than others, some have no state resources dedicated to rail and many do not have a state rail plan to guide their efforts.” (United States Government Accountability Office, 2010, p. 27) Assigning a leading implementation role to organizations possessing the most limited capacity within the rail sector could have been expected to produce some challenge to meeting the President’s new policy goals.
Plan-specific Solvency Deficit: Port Security 340
The federal government will preempt state action on ports, and without federal guidance the states will waste money on the wrong areas.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES, 2012
[Ben Husch, Jaime Rall, Jennifer Arguinzoni, “2011-2012 Policies for the Jurisdiction of the Transportation Committee”, , 20030, 200674]
Port security is a state-federal partnership that is critical to the nation’s homeland security strategy. The states need clear federal direction to ensure that resources are focused on the most needed security improvements. Ninety-five percent of overseas cargo and millions of cruise and ferry passengers transit through ports each year. Ports are spending enormous sums to harden these vulnerable targets and need federal assistance. NCSL supports the Department of Homeland Security’s Port Security Grant Program, which is vital to ports’ abilities to make improvements quickly and comply with the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. States have been directed to enhance the security of publicly operated ferries and provide for the inspection of vehicles and freight. In some cases, federal directives have preempted state laws and policies to the extent of superseding state constitutional provisions. Federal assistance should fund these requirements to avoid unfunded mandates.
1AR Extension: Port Security Solvency Deficit 341
Federal funding is necessary to send a signal that ports are secure.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES, 2012
[Ben Husch, Jaime Rall, Jennifer Arguinzoni, “2011-2012 Policies for the Jurisdiction of the Transportation Committee”, , 20030, 200674]
The U.S. system of waterways and ports provides substantial benefits to the nation by providing access to the world’s markets. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) recognizes the combined efforts of all levels of government and users in sharing the cost of port and waterway development and maintenance. NCSL further acknowledges the distinctive roles played by the states and the federal government in financing waterways and ports. The increase of state and local financial support in recent years should be concomitant with an increased planning authority, which is particularly important for the integration and support of other transportation systems for enhanced waterway and port activity. Investment in the U.S. water transportation system is a partnership between state and local governments and the federal government. State and local authorities significantly invest resources to enhance marine terminal capacity and efficiency, dredge berths and approach channels, and share the cost of new dredging projects to widen and deepen navigation channels. The federal government traditionally had supported dredging expenses through the General Treasury. In 1986, Congress established the Harbor Maintenance Tax, which is paid on imports and the domestic coastwise movement of goods, to support increased federal operations, and to finance the maintenance dredging of navigable channels and harbors. These taxes are deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. In order to sustain U.S. leadership in global trade, the nation’s ports must receive adequate federal funds to improve and maintain federal navigational channels. NCSL supports the full use of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain the nation’s harbors and calls on Congress to adequately fund deepening projects to modernize our ports. The accumulation of harbor tax receipts at the federal level is a break in faith from the purpose of the Harbor Maintenance Tax and results in the imposition of a competitive burden without providing needed improvements necessary to achieve efficiencies to offset added taxes.
Plan-specific Solvency Deficit: Public Service Employment 342
States can’t run a Public Service Employment program because their budgets and tax revenues are too small, and only a federal program has any impact on deficits and the economy.
[ELR = EMPLOYER OF LAST RESORT]
WRAY, 2000
[L. Randall, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, as well as a visiting Senior Scholar at the Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College “The Employer of Last Resort Approach to Full Employment,” Working Paper No. 9, July, ]
State governments cannot run continuous deficits and would find that precisely when ELR is most needed, tax revenues would fall. Further, the price stabilizing features of ELR requires creation of a national labor buffer stock pool. For these reasons, the program should be nationally funded and should be subject to national standards regarding wages and benefits.
1AR Extension: Public Service Employment Solvency Deficit 343
Increased state spending will lead to cutting back social programs due to balanced budget requirements, and this defeats every economic gain of the plan.
WRAY, 2002
[L. Randall, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, as well as a visiting Senior Scholar at the Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, “The Perfect Fiscal Storm,” Policy Note No. 02/05, ]
Turning to the state level, states were faced with more responsibility, especially for social programs like welfare and Medicaid. However, all but one state is restricted by statutes or constitutions to running balanced budgets. The problem is that state revenue is strongly pro-cyclical, increasing in a boom and falling in recession. And this is a big problem when the states are increasingly responsible for types of spending that need to rise in recession—like welfare and Medicaid. What States typically do is to cut taxes and increase spending in a boom—which helps to fuel the boom—and then raise taxes and cut spending in a recession—adding to the depressionary forces that generate the recession. States have also come to rely more heavily on regressive taxes—especially taxes on consumption, while like the Federal government they give tax credits and inducements to encourage saving. This depresses spending, especially in recession when the regressive taxes on consumption are increased at exactly the time that households are trying to cut back spending to increase rainy day funds.
Topicality 344
1NC Topicality – Rail Investment [Its] 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #1 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #3 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #4 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #5 1
1NC Topicality – Port Security [Transportation Infrastructure] 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #1 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #3 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #4 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #5 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #6 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #7 1
1NC Topicality – NAFTA [In] 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #1 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #3 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #4 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #5 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #6 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #7 1
1NC Topicality – Public Service Employment [Investment] 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #1 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #3 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #4 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #5 1
2NC Extensions – A/t: #6 1
1NC Topicality – Rail Investment [Its] 345
A. Interpretation: The plan must increase investment by the United States federal government. Any other actor, including the states, is untopical.
‘Its’ is a possessive pronoun that modifies an agent already mentioned in the sentence. The only agent in the Resolution is the United States federal government, therefore any investment must belong only to that agent.
CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY, NO DATE
[“Its”, ]
Definition belonging to or relating to something that has already been mentioned The dog hurt its paw. Their house has its own swimming pool. The company increased its profits. I prefer the second option - its advantages are simplicity and cheapness.
B. Violation: The plan has the federal government provide grants to state governments, who then invest in new rail infrastructure. The investment does not belong to the federal government.
C. Reasons to vote Negative:
1) Extra-topicality: Even if the plan involves the federal government, it also uses other actors that are not predictable based on the Resolution in a vacuum. This allows them to claim unpredictable advantages and generate offense against core topic arguments like Federalism.
2) Predictability: Using any actor not explicitly mentioned in the Resolution opens the floodgates to using every actor not mentioned. There is just as much basis for predicting the states as there is predicting Nigeria. Default to the interpretation with textual support.
3) Limits: This is a huge topic because every potential investment mechanism could be used for every potential transportation method. Every new case that is added is extra shallow and generic research for the Negative, which detracts from in-depth case debate.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #1 346
1. They don’t meet. The Affirmative explicitly uses state governments in the plan to implement the infrastructure purchase. Even if the federal government starts the process, the agents in charge of the critical parts of the plan are not the federal government. This is enough to link to our predictability and extra-topicality impacts.
2. Evaluate the plan in a vacuum because that is the most objective way. If they mention actors that are not in the Resolution, it automatically means they don’t meet our interpretation.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 347
1. Extend our interpretation: “Its” must refer to something already mentioned in the sentence. The only agent mentioned in the resolution is the United States federal government, so therefore “its investment” can only be referring to that agent. This is necessary for predictability and limits, which are key to ground and education.
2. We have more definitional support: even if “its” can mean “related to,” the way they use it is vague and does not support their arguments. They haven’t proven that “its” can refer to something not present in the sentence. Here is another definition proving that “its” refers to the main agent of an action.
WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY, NO DATE
[“Its”, ]
of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action
2NC Extensions – A/t: #3 348
1. Extend our net-benefits.
First, our interpretation is critical to establishing predictability. Even if they have a card that mentions the states, that doesn’t mean we can do research before the round on every potential partner for the United States federal government in the area of transportation. This would make cooperating with Canada on an oil pipeline, or Mexico on new highways, topical and would explode Affirmative ground while also decreasing the arguments that link for the Negative.
MANDERINO, 1973
[Louis, Justice for Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, “Sigal, Appellant, v. Manufacturers Light and Heat Co”., Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 200450 Pa. 228; 299 A.2d 646; 1973 Pa. LEXIS 600; 44 Oil & Gas Rep. 214, Lexis-Nexis]
On its face, the written instrument granting easement rights in this case is ambiguous. The same sentence which refers to the right to lay a 14 inch pipeline (singular) has a later reference to "said lines" (plural). The use of the plural "lines" makes no sense because the only previous reference has been to a "line" (singular). The writing is additionally ambiguous because other key words which are "also may change the size of its pipes" are dangling in that the possessive pronoun "its" before the word "pipes" does not have any subject preceding, to which the possessive pronoun refers. The dangling phrase is the beginning of a sentence, the first word of which does not begin with a capital letter as is customary in normal English [***10] usage. Immediately preceding the "sentence" which does not begin with a capital letter, there appears a dangling [*236] semicolon which makes no sense at the beginning of a sentence and can hardly relate to the preceding sentence which is already properly punctuated by a closing period. The above deviations from accepted grammatical usage make difficult, if not impossible, a clear understanding of the words used or the intention of the parties. This is particularly true concerning the meaning of a disputed phrase in the instrument which states that the grantee is to pay damages from ". . . the relaying, maintaining and operating said pipeline. . . ." The instrument is ambiguous as to what the words ". . . relaying . . . said pipeline . . ." were intended to mean.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #3 349
Second, this is key to limits. Allowing “its” to mean any agent, whether in the resolution or not, is vague in a way that only benefits the Affirmative. The impact is that the Negative is forced to rely on poorly researched generics and impact defense without any in-depth strategy. Only we have evidence that compares grants to states with direct federal spending on infrastructure.
GRAMLICH, 1998
[Edward, former professor of economics at the University of Michigan and a former member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve “Before the President's Commission to Study Capital Budgeting,” 3/6, ]
Apart from politics, how in principle should capital spending be defined? In fact the types of spending in the federal budget that really qualify as capital spending are few and far between. The spending should result in tangible physical equipment. Military spending on construction and long-lived durable goods would qualify. Military spending on consumables, ammunition and so forth, would not. Domestic spending on direct construction would qualify. But grants to state and local governments, even those nominally for capital purchases, would not. These grants do not directly result in capital equipment purchases because the recipient government is perfectly free not to spend the grants on capital equipment, and a host of econometric studies over the years have shown that recipient governments do not spend all their capital grants on equipment. So-called human investment programs would not qualify either, both because the spending cannot be assured and because it is not clear whether this supposed human investment really does raise a person's market output. Entitlement spending definitely would not count. When all is said and done, a relatively small amount of federal spending will be validly classified as capital spending. But there will be major headaches involved in identifying this small amount of spending.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #4 350
1. Extend our Extra-topicality standard. Even if they use the federal government, they also use other agents and go beyond the resolution in order to gain unpredictable advantages and skew out of core topic link ground. This is an independent voting issue because the substance debate becomes an endless game of catch-up.
Severance is not enough – the 1NC strategy has already been ruined, and we don’t have enough time left to create a strategy based on the actual plan text. Pre-round preparation is critical to equalizing Affirmative bias like first and last speech.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #5 351
1. You should default to a standard of competing interpretations. Reasonability is arbitrary because every judge will have a different idea of what a “good” interpretation is. Weighing the costs and benefits of each interpretation and judging the plan based on the best one is the only way to put the round in the hands of the debaters, which encourages more education.
1NC Topicality – Port Security [Transportation Infrastructure] 352
A. Interpretation: For policymakers, “Transportation infrastructure” refers to fixed assets that transport people or goods.
ORR AND KEEVER, 2008
[Ryan, executive director at the Collaboratory for Research on Global Projects; Gregory, private attorney, “Enabling User-Fee Backed Transportation Finance in California,” Jan, ]
Here transportation infrastructure is defined as “any fixed physical asset designed for transporting people and goods including highways, arterial streets, bridges, tunnels, and mass transportation systems.” 1 An often overlooked aspect of transportation infrastructure, even of the most well constructed type, is that it is a consumable asset: it has a finite life, wears out with use, and needs periodic replacement. This paper is intended for a wide audience: state assembly members who approve major freeway and mass-transportation projects, public officials at Caltrans and local governments who are involved in project implementation, and other participants in the decision making process, including but not limited to local government agencies (such as local transit authorities), state agencies (such as Business, Transportation and Housing), regional councils (such as the Bay Area Council), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) (such as environmental and neighborhood groups), infrastructure operators and funds, labor groups, the Treasurer’s Office, the Governor’s office, and taxpayers and users.
B. Violation: The plan is a tweaking of security features attached to ports, but does not develop the infrastructure that physically transports either goods or people.
C. Reasons to vote Negative:
1) Predictability: There are thousands of ways a plan could attach or modify to an existing piece of transportation infrastructure, and there is almost no literature for any of them. Stronger highway guardrails or shiny speedy limit signs would all be topical under their interpretation, and this makes generating strong links to core topic arguments impossible.
2) Negative Ground: The best links on this topic are perception and spending based, and allowing plans to skirt core topic literature and make cosmetic changes to infrastructure allows them to spike our arguments by arguing the plan isn’t perceived and winning on a minute risk of a contrived advantage.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #1 353
1. They don’t meet. The plan upgrades security systems at seaports, which is only a minor remodeling. The term “transportation infrastructure” means the part of the port that is used in transporting goods or people, and the scanners do not do that.
2. If this plan meets, then every plan that has anything to do with transportation would meet. Modifying speed limits or using different screws on guard rails might be good for security and safety, but that doesn’t mean they should be topical.
TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY, 2010
[“Section 1511 Infrastructure Certification Requirements for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part B (IDEA-B) Grants under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)”]
Minor remodeling, which is not an infrastructure investment under the USDE’s definition, “means minor alterations in a previously completed building. The term also includes the extension of utility lines, such as water and electricity, from points beyond the confines of the space in which the minor remodeling is undertaken but within the confines of the previously completed building. The term does not include building construction, structural alterations to buildings, building maintenance, or repairs.”
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 354
1. This evidence doesn’t say security systems are topical, it says transportation mechanisms used to defend the United States are topical. The seaport as a whole is vital for defense, but the security of each individual ship does not qualify.
2. The Congressional Budget Office explicitly excludes law enforcement spending from “transportation infrastructure.”
MUSICK, 2010
[Nathan, CBO’s Microeconomic Studies Division, “Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure,”
]
Although different definitions of “infrastructure” exist, this report focuses on two types that claim a significant amount of federal resources: transportation and water. Those types of infrastructure share the economic characteristics of being relatively capital intensive and producing services under public management that facilitate private economic activity. They are typically the types examined by studies that attempt to calculate the payoff, in terms of benefits to the U.S. economy, of the public sector’s funding of infrastructure. For the purposes of CBO’s analysis, “transportation infrastructure” includes the systems and facilities that support the following types of activities: Vehicular transportation: highways, roads, bridges, and tunnels; Mass transit: subways, buses, and commuter rail; Rail transport: primarily the intercity passenger service provided by Amtrak; Civil aviation: airport terminals, runways, and taxiways, and facilities and navigational equipment for air traffic control; and Water transportation: waterways, ports, vessels, and navigational systems. The category “water infrastructure” includes facilities that provide the following: Water resources: containment systems, such as dams, levees, reservoirs, and watersheds; and sources of fresh water such as lakes and rivers; and Water utilities: supply systems for distributing potable water, and wastewater and sewage treatment systems and plants. Consistent with CBO’s previous reports on public spending for transportation and water infrastructure, this update excludes spending that is associated with such infrastructure but does not contribute directly to the provision of infrastructure facilities or certain strictly defined infrastructure services. Examples of excluded spending are federal outlays for homeland security (which are especially pertinent to aviation), law enforcement and military functions (such as those carried out by the Coast Guard), and cleanup operations (such as those conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers following Hurricane Katrina in 2005).
2NC Extensions – A/t: #3 355
1. Extend our net-benefits.
First is Predictability. There are tons of types of transportation infrastructure such as highways, ports, bridges, and airports. Each of these has thousands of pieces that could each be improved with a small advantage to be claimed, but none of them are large enough to link to core topic arguments. This makes research impossible because we will never be able to catch up to the case of the week.
Second is Negative Ground. The most viable link literature this year is about perception of massive spending, but allowing the Affirmative to implement minor, tangential changes means they will always win risk of a “no link.”
2NC Extensions – A/t: #4 356
1. This definition isn’t resolutional because it only defines “transportation” and leaves off the “infrastructure” part. Clearly, “infrastructure” is limited only to the first part of this definition.
2. The U.S. Code has thousands of components and defines the same word differently each time. Literature-based definitions are more predictable and better drive the topic.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #5 357
1. “Federal key” warrants shouldn’t be the only way we test affirmatives. If every round forces the Negative to go for the States Counterplan, the only thing we will ever learn about is Federalism or the Politics Disadvantage which are stale and over-debated. Forcing the Affirmative to abide by a more limited resolution that does not also require a specific Negative strategy allows us to explore better and more diverse arguments, like Kritiks.
2. This isn’t even true. Smart Affirmatives will start making minor changes to transportation infrastructure that is entirely on federal ground, such as security improvements on roads around federal prisons or on Native American reservations. The States Counterplan won’t check those affirmatives, so a smaller topic is necessary.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #6 358
1. This evidence isn’t from the Stimulus Act; it is from a random person’s explanation of the Act. Prefer definitions to contextual evidence because any blogger can write about “transportation infrastructure” but that doesn’t mean it is supported by enough literature to handle a year’s worth of debates.
2. This evidence doesn’t include seaports. They can’t have it both ways: either seaports are topical but they don’t have evidence about security systems, or security systems are topical but only at airports. Either way, the plan is not topical.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #7 359
1. You should default to a standard of competing interpretations. Reasonability is arbitrary because every judge will have a different idea of what a “good” interpretation is. Weighing the costs and benefits of each interpretation and judging the plan based on the best one is the only way to put the round in the hands of the debaters, which encourages more education.
1NC Topicality – NAFTA [In] 360
A. Interpretation: “In the United States” means the investment for transportation infrastructure must take place solely within the physical boundaries of the United States.
In means within.
, 2012
[“In,” ]
located or situated within; inner; internal: the in part of a mechanism.
The United States are within the 50 states and territories.
, 2012
[“United States,” ]
a republic in the N Western Hemisphere comprising 48 conterminous states, the District of Columbia, and Alaska in North America, and Hawaii in the N Pacific. 267, 19954, 200767; conterminous United States, 2003,022, 200387 sq. mi. (7, 200827, 19982 sq. km); with Alaska and Hawaii, 2003, 200615, 20122 sq. mi. (9, 200363,166 sq. km). Capital: Washington, D.C. Abbreviation: U.S., US Also called United States of America, America.
B. Violation: The plan purchases materials from outside the physical boundaries of the United States.
C. Reasons to vote Negative:
1) Predictability: There are thousands of places outside of the United States that the Affirmative could invest in, making it impossible to do pre-round research and generate generic links for our arguments.
2) Extra-topicality: Even if the plan involves the United States, it also invests in other countries that are not predictable based on the Resolution in a vacuum. This allows them to claim unpredictable advantages and generate offense against core topic arguments like the States Counterplan.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #1 361
1. They don’t meet. The evidence they are reading is not in the context of the resolution because it does not assume a strict requirement to be “in the United States.” A simple bright-line can be drawn: if the spending of the plan goes anywhere outside the physical boundaries of the U.S., then the Affirmative is going outside the Resolution.
2. Investment also includes the cost of buying the materials and bringing them to the project-site. This means the initial purchase is also included in the resolution, not just the final product, proving the plan is not topical.
OFFICE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, NO DATE
[Discretionary Grants Administration Manual, ]
Capital Expenditure The cost of the asset including the cost to put it in place Capital expenditure for equipment, for example, means the net invoice price of the equipment, including the cost of any modifications, attachments, accessories, or auxiliary apparatus necessary to make it usable for the purpose for which it was acquired. Ancillary charges, such as taxes, duty, protective in-transit insurance, freight, and installation may be included in, or excluded from, capital expenditure cost in accordance with the organization's regular accounting practices (See definitions of "acquisition cost" in 45 CFR 74.132 and OMB Circular A-122 and “capital expenditures” in OMB Circular A-21).
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 362
1. This is incorrect. Companies with offices in the United States are classified as “in the United States” if the office that receives payment is within the physical boundaries of the Resolution. Our argument is not that the investment has to go to a company classified as an American company, just that the investment cannot leave the country.
2. At worst, this just means the Affirmative has the burden of defending “Buy America” laws. The Resolution means that the Affirmative has to specify domestic companies, and the Negative gets access to “Free Trade good” arguments.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #3 363
1. This counter-interpretation is not grammatical in the Resolution. “In the United States” is a complete clause, so the term “in” cannot be pulled out of that. Their interpretation only makes sense if “in” is used as an independent adjective and not as part of a clause.
2. Multiple dictionaries use our definition.
MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, 2012
[“In,” ]
1 a —used as a function word to indicate inclusion, location, or position within limits
2NC Extensions – A/t: #4 364
1. Extend our Predictability net-benefit. There are a limitless amount of places the Affirmative could invest, each with their own set of relations-based advantages that would outweigh generic Negative arguments. Negative ground is more important than Affirmative ground because we are limited to perception and spending links that are always predictable for the Affirmative, but new advantages are impossible to research.
2. Their evidence is not from a legal authority, and concludes that the federal government has not set standards for what “Buy America” means. It is just as likely that the government will conclude that foreign materials are outside the U.S., and you should always prefer a more limiting interpretation when the evidence isn’t clear.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #5 365
1. This evidence is not relevant to a debate on interpretations. Even if the federal government allows foreign-made material that does not mean that the Resolution does. Topicality should be about competing interpretations because the “real world” does not abide by strict Resolutions.
2. Being treated as a “U.S. firm” is distinct from being located “in the United States.” This still allows the Affirmative to claim unpredictable advantages.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #6 366
1. The Affirmative is extra-topical. Money from the plan will go to companies physically located in Canada and Mexico, even if the final project is in the United States. Their Canada Relations advantage proves that they are using this to outweigh core Negative arguments, which proves why extra-topicality is an independent voting issue.
2. Severance is not enough – the 1NC strategy has already been ruined, and we don’t have enough time left to create a strategy based on the actual plan text. Pre-round preparation is critical to equalizing Affirmative bias like first and last speech.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #7 367
1. You should default to a standard of competing interpretations. Reasonability is arbitrary because every judge will have a different idea of what a “good” interpretation is. Weighing the costs and benefits of each interpretation and judging the plan based on the best one is the only way to put the round in the hands of the debaters, which encourages more education.
1NC Topicality – Public Service Employment [Investment] 368
A. Interpretation: Infrastructure investment includes the cost of the physical components and buildings, but not expenses on human capital or labor. This is the only limited interpretation.
EL MAKHLOUFI, 2011
[A., economics professor at University of Amsterdam, “Economics Effects of Infrastructure Investment on Output and Productivity: A Meta-Analysis”, 2004/11, ]
Existing literature concerned with the study of the relationship between infrastructure investment and economic growth show a wide variety of point of view concerning the definition of the concept 'infrastructure' (Lakshmanan, 1989). Although the literature is generally clear in the way in which specific public goods are categorized, the general tendency is the association of infrastructure to particular characteristics of physical features (e.g. large and costly installations) or public services (educational buildings, hospitals, information flows, water and power supply, etc.). Some authors define infrastructure in a broader way without making any distinction between physical and non-physical infrastructure (Hirschman, 1958 for example). Others restrict the definition of infrastructure to core infrastructure consisting of railways, airports, and utilities such as sewerage and water facilities, information flows and particular cases of externalities of public goods (Aschauer, 1990; Anderson, 1991). Gramlich (1994, p. 1177) for example, defines infrastructure capital from an economic point of view as "large capital intensive natural monopolies such as highways, other transportation facilities, water and sewer lines, and communications systems." More generally, most studies employ a narrow definition of public capital that includes the tangible capital stock owned by the public sector, excluding military structures and equipment and infrastructure capital based on private ownership. Other studies use a broad definition of public capital by including human capital investment (e.g., Garcia-Mila and McGuire 1992) or health and welfare facilities (e.g., Mera 1973). The latter components are hard to measure, which explains why most authors focus on narrowly defined public capital.
B. Violation: The primary investment of the plan is for salaries and continued employment, not for the physical infrastructure.
C. Reasons to vote Negative:
1) Predictability: Literature on transportation infrastructure is about the physical assets, not the people constructing them. The links specific to their plan are divorced from topic-specific literature, making it impossible to research them before the round.
2) Extra-topicality: Even if the plan involves transportation, it also invests in other items that are not predictable based on the Resolution in a vacuum. This allows them to claim unpredictable advantages and generate offense against core topic arguments like the Economy Disadvantage.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #1 369
1. They don’t meet. The plan is an employment policy that happens to mention transportation. Here’s the test: could they replace “transportation infrastructure” in the text with “energy infrastructure” or “education policy” and still claim their racism advantage? If yes, the Affirmative is untopical.
2. The key factor in whether the plan is investment or not is whether the item is consumable. They create a permanent employment system, which is distinct from a physical asset or project that has a finite time-span.
ORR AND KEEVER, 2008
[Ryan, executive director at the Collaboratory for Research on Global Projects at Stanford University; and Gregory, California admitted attorney, Jan, “Enabling User-Fee Backed Transportation Finance in California,” ]
Here transportation infrastructure is defined as “any fixed physical asset designed for transporting people and goods including highways, arterial streets, bridges, tunnels, and mass transportation systems.” An often overlooked aspect of transportation infrastructure, even of the most well constructed type, is that it is a consumable asset: it has a finite life, wears out with use, and needs periodic replacement.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #2 370
1. This doesn’t say that labor expenses are part of the investment, only an effect of the investment. This proves our extra-topicality argument, that the Affirmative claims advantages by being more than the Resolution allows.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #3 371
1. Extend our Predictability net-benefit:
Even if they have a definition of “investment,” there is not a body of literature to support that definition. A good interpretation will allow for a reasonable number of Affirmative plans while also providing solid link literature for the Negative. Only our interpretation limits down the number of mechanisms that can be paid for with “investment.”
Predictability and reasonable limits are necessary for a fair division of ground. Otherwise, the Negative would always lose because our generic links won’t apply to the plan, and Affirmative advantages like infinite prep-time will allow them to have hyper-specific link turns that we won’t be able to research ahead of time.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #4 372
1. Neither of these cards proves their interpretation is qualified. The UNITED NATIONS evidence is only about reporting total expenses to a non-U.S. government agency, which is not a definition that should apply to a topic about the United States federal government. The GAO evidence is not about transportation at all, so it is not in the context of the Resolution. They are playing smoke-and-mirrors; only we have evidence in the context of the words in the topic.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #5 373
1. The plan is extra-topical. Even if they do purchase infrastructure materials, they also create a Public Service Employment program that is not connected to that infrastructure. The labor costs and permanent job promises are not Resolutional and allow them to claim unpredictable advantages that do not link to topic-specific arguments. Their Racism advantage proves our point: this is not tied to transportation at all, and allows them to outweigh our arguments with a moral obligation.
2. Severance is not enough – the 1NC strategy has already been ruined, and we don’t have enough time left to create a strategy based on the actual plan text. Pre-round preparation is critical to equalizing Affirmative bias like first and last speech.
2NC Extensions – A/t: #6 374
1. You should default to a standard of competing interpretations. Reasonability is arbitrary because every judge will have a different idea of what a “good” interpretation is. Weighing the costs and benefits of each interpretation and judging the plan based on the best one is the only way to put the round in the hands of the debaters, which encourages more education.
Topicality 375
2AC Frontline – Rail Investment Topicality [Its] 376
1. We Meet: The United States federal government is entirely responsible for the funding that purchases rail infrastructure. No other actor owns the investment. This is a question of implementation mechanisms, not topicality.
2. Counter-interpretation: The United States federal government must initiate and be responsible for the investment, but states can help implement the plan.
“Its” means associated with.
OXFORD DICTIONARY ONLINE, NO DATE
[“Its”, ]
its Entry from World dictionary Pronunciation:/ɪts/ possessive determiner belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified: turn the camera on its side he chose the area for its atmosphere
3. Prefer the counter-interpretation:
a) Education – State grants are the core of transportation policy. Restricting the Affirmative to only the federal government means we ignore the majority of literature on how the real world operates.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 2011
["National Infrastructure Investments: TIGER Discretionary Grants", Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, ]
The grants for National Infrastructure Investments in the FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act are for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure grants to be awarded to a State, local, or Tribal governments, including U.S. territories, tribal governments, transit agencies, port authorities, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), other political subdivisions of State or local governments, and multi-State or multijurisdictional groups applying through a single lead applicant on a competitive basis for surface transportation projects (including, but not limited to: (1) Highway or bridge projects eligible under title 23, United States Code; (2) public transportation projects eligible under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code; (3) passenger and freight rail transportation projects; and (4) port infrastructure investments) that will have a significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region.
2AC Frontline – Rail Investment Topicality [Its] 377
b) Overlimiting – The federal government includes grants to states for transportation infrastructure in its definition. Using non-statutory definitions arbitrarily and unfairly restricts Affirmative ground.
SENATE BILL 1968, 2011
[Introduced by Mark Warner and Mark Kirk, “S. 1968: A bill to require the Secretary of Transportation to establish a pilot program to increase accountability with respect to outcomes of transportation investments, and for other purposes,” 12/08, ]
‘(5) TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT- The term ‘transportation investment’ means Federal funding for a project included in a transportation program. ‘(6) TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM- The term ‘transportation program’ means a plan or strategy prepared by a metropolitan planning organization or a State for transportation systems and facilities in the metropolitan planning area or the State, including a transportation plan, transportation improvement program, statewide transportation plan, or statewide transportation improvement program developed under section 5303 or 5304 of this title or section 134 or 135 of title 23.
4) Extra-topicality is not a voting issue: if we win state governments using federal money are considered federal infrastructure projects, then we are not outside the resolution. At worst, reject the extra-topical parts of our plan and hold us to the purchase of infrastructure.
5) Default to reasonability: it’s impossible for the Affirmative to win the round on topicality, so we should only need to provide a good interpretation rather than the best one. If both sides have ground and arguments, you should resolve the debate on substantive issues instead of topicality.
2AC Frontline – Port Security Topicality [Transportation Infrastructure] 378
1. We Meet – The plan is a substantial increase in investment for transportation infrastructure at seaports. The resolution does not call for every plan to build a new seaport or highway system, but only to substantially improve those that already exist.
2. Counter-interpretation: Transportation infrastructure includes support systems designed for defense and security at seaports, and these are not considered “minor remodeling.”
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 2010
[“Clarifying Guidance on American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Section 1512 Quarterly Reporting”, www2.policy/gen/.../guidance-1512-quarterly-reporting.doc]
For the purposes of Section 1512 reporting, the Department has defined an infrastructure investment as follows. ‘An infrastructure investment is financial support for a physical asset or structure needed for the operation of a larger enterprise. Therefore, infrastructure investments include support for tangible assets or structures such as roads, public buildings (including schools), mass transit systems, water and sewage systems, communication and utility systems and other assets or structures that provide a reliable flow of products and services essential to the defense and economic security of the United States, the smooth functioning of government at all levels, and society as a whole.’ However, an infrastructure investment does not include “minor remodeling” as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 77.1(c).
3. Prefer the counter-interpretation:
a) Affirmative ground: If the plan is only allowed to build a new road or port, there would only be a handful of cases with no advantage distinctions between them and every round would be about the Economy disadvantage. The long-term nature of construction and investment advantages means the Affirmative would always lose to short-term perception links and a high risk of States Counterplan solving the entire Affirmative.
b) Education: Most literature regarding transportation infrastructure is about making it more efficient or improving security. The Negative artificially limits out these arguments, forcing us to rely on stale and repetitive arguments like Federalism that get debated every domestic topic.
2AC Frontline – Port Security Topicality [Transportation Infrastructure] 379
4. The federal government uses our definition, which makes it the only predictable way to interpret the Resolution.
US CODE, 2012
[“Transportation,” United States Code Service, accessed via ProQuest Congressional, code approved 6-15-12]
(5) Transportation.— The term “transportation” includes— (A) property, facilities, instrumentalities, or equipment of any kind related to the movement of property, regardless of ownership or an agreement concerning use; and (B) services related to that movement, including receipt, delivery, transfer in transit, storage, handling, and interchange of property.
5. There is no risk of a limits explosion or a loss of links. The Affirmative is already bound by an investment increase and there are a limited number of actions to improve transportation hubs that have “federal key” warrants. All of the tiny plans they are afraid of are checked by the States Counterplan.
6. Their interpretation is outdated. The Stimulus act proves security is now a part of “transportation infrastructure.”
HOGG, 2009
[Frank, consultant for Rubin Brown consulting firm citing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, “Focus On Contractors: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”, ]
An important focus of the Act is increased investment in America’s physical infrastructure. The provisions of the new Bill provide for additional spending on several key infrastructure programs including: Transportation Infrastructure - Includes highway and bridge construction, high speed rail corridors, airport improvement grants, transit improvements, and TSA explosive detection systems. Total appropriations of approximately $49 billion. Water and Environmental Infrastructure - Includes clean water investments, other water resource expenditures and environmental cleanup. Total appropriations of approximately $21 billion. Building Infrastructure - Includes GSA federal buildings and facilities, military construction, VA construction, school construction, housing facilities expenditures, and other facilities expenditures. Total appropriations of approximately $29 billion. Energy/Technology Infrastructure - Includes wireless/broadband, electricity grid, weatherization and energy grants. Total appropriations of approximately $30 billion.
7. Default to reasonability: it’s impossible for the Affirmative to win the round on topicality, so we should only need to provide a good interpretation rather than the best one. If both sides have ground and arguments, you should resolve the debate on substantive issues instead of topicality.
2AC Frontline – NAFTA Topicality [In] 380
1. We Meet: A key distinction needs to be made between generic “investment” and “transportation infrastructure investment.” They are correct that money from the plan might go outside U.S. borders, but the most comprehensive definition proves it only counts as infrastructure investment when it is the fixed and finished product. This means the actual highway has to be in the United States, and the plan meets that requirement.
ORR AND KEEVER, 2008
[Ryan, executive director at the Collaboratory for Research on Global Projects; Gregory, private attorney, “Enabling User-Fee Backed Transportation Finance in California,” Jan, ]
In arriving at these conclusions, this paper examines data from recognized think tanks, the state budget, published articles and commentary specific to California, international studies on user-fee backed finance, and comments and views articulated by state senior government officials. Here transportation infrastructure is defined as “any fixed physical asset designed for transporting people and goods including highways, arterial streets, bridges, tunnels, and mass transportation systems.” An often overlooked aspect of transportation infrastructure, even of the most well constructed type, is that it is a consumable asset: it has a finite life, wears out with use, and needs periodic replacement.
2. No case meets their interpretation, because American companies are classified as “outside the United States” in trade law due to having offices in multiple countries. This means money sent to any company physically within the United States is likely to go to an office overseas.
NEW YORK TIMES, 2009
[Ian Austen, “To the North, Grumbling Over Trade,” 8/07, ]
Buy America provisions have been popular with organized labor, including United States-based unions like the United Steelworkers of America, which also have members in Canada. But they have not been met with the same enthusiasm by many businesses. In a submission to the Office of Management and Budget, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States said that the measure was effectively blocking American companies from bidding on infrastructure work because they have global operations, including branches in Canada.
3. Counter-interpretation: “In” means “moving into.”
, 2012
[“In,” ]
inward; incoming; inbound: an in train.
2AC Frontline – NAFTA Topicality [In] 381
4. Prefer the counter-interpretation:
a) Legal context. Federal infrastructure investment uses our interpretation. The Stimulus Act allows foreign-made items to be waived through “Buy America” restrictions if they are imported by U.S. companies for projects in the United States.
METALS SERVICE CENTER INSTITUTE, 2009
[Steve Lawrence, “BUY AMERICAN AND THE STIMULUS FOLLIES,” Nov/Dec, ]
Estimates vary widely because the government has, to say the least, not developed much of a tracking system yet. But even the Obama administration’s Council of Economic Advisers, while saying the stimulus is working, also concedes that most of the money spent so far has gone to tax breaks and education in the various states. A bit more than $100 billion, about 13%, of the stimulus package is intended for infrastructure projects. Little of this has been spent yet, in part because contractors and state and local governments were waiting for the Office of Management and Budget to clarify what exactly Buy American means for government and agencies below the federal level. Commitments, Not Contracts First off the blocks was to be a variety of so-called “shovel ready” wastewater and clean water programs, to be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has nearly $7 billion to spend on such things. The agency said it had committed maybe $77 million at the end of September. But commitments are not the same as contracts, and the Associated General Contractors, whose members actually build the projects, say it was more like $30 million. In either case, this is not the sort of money that kick-starts an economy. It is, however, the real world speaking. And the real world of global manufacturing could not so simply accommodate the notion that a single country, even one as vast and productive as the United States, could manufacture all its essentials within its borders. Contractors and governments quickly realized that the manhole covers, pipes, valves and other parts of the standard water treatment project are mostly not now made in the United States. General Electric, to take one prominent example, is a leading manufacturer of water treatment filters, and they are used in projects all over the country. The filters, though, are made in Canada, and at least five water projects are hung up as the local agencies building them apply to the EPA for waivers to the Buy American restriction. The same is true for manhole covers, and pipes and bolts and other parts in other projects from West Virginia to Maine. The EPA, in the middle of September, had received at least 45 waiver requests affecting 50 different parts or projects. It had approved just 14 waivers and denied one. The rest were suspended, dropped, referred to other agencies, or dancing in the bureaucracy. That bureaucracy had approved waivers for those water treatment plant filters, made only in Canada, resin beads used in a specific type of water treatment filter for Ocean Shores, Washington, and made only in Australia and even coconut fiber mats for a river restoration project in Utah. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources told the EPA it had surveyed coconut fiber mat makers and could only find the all-natural fiber mats it needed from sources in Sri Lanka and India. They were, however, imported by an outfit in Ogden, Utah, which at least kept a few jobs in Ogden.
2AC Frontline – NAFTA Topicality [In] 382
b) Grammar. Infrastructure investment is a unique form of investment that is based on the final product, not any parts designed to be consumed in making that product.
INVESTOPEDIA, NO DATE
[“Investment,” ]
Definition of 'Investment' An asset or item that is purchased with the hope that it will generate income or appreciate in the future. In an economic sense, an investment is the purchase of goods that are not consumed today but are used in the future to create wealth. In finance, an investment is a monetary asset purchased with the idea that the asset will provide income in the future or appreciate and be sold at a higher price.
5. Only our interpretation is specific to transportation. The agency in charge of transportation infrastructure investment defines “made in the United States” as including Canadian materials when the investment is substantial.
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 2012
[“Buy America Act and Highway Projects,” 5/15, ]
Most of the significant highway projects in the United States are funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with funds from the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (known as SAFETEA-LU). This funding brings with it Buy American restrictions that require all steel and iron materials used to be U.S.-made. Read the SAFETEA-LU text. Highway improvement monies come with certain stipulations. For example, SAFETEA-LU has an aggressive goal for contract support from U.S. small disadvantaged (minority) and woman-owned businesses. The FHWA, part of Department of Transportation, is responsible for regulating and maintaining U.S. highway infrastructure. Canadian companies will generally interact with the FHWA in either a direct sale to the FHWA or as a subcontractor on an FHWA project. Procurement Procurement by the FHWA (when the FHWA purchases something for its own use) is covered by NAFTA Chapter 10. On purchases of goods or services Canadian firms will be treated as U.S. firms when the prime contract is worth more than US$25,000 for goods, US$77, 200494 for general services, and US$10,074,262 for construction services. The FHWA is directly responsible for building and maintaining roads on federally administered lands like parks and Indian reserves. The FHWA generally encourages the participation of Canadian firms in its direct procurement. Be aware though that other programs, such as small business set asides, still may impede the participation of Canadian firms.
2AC Frontline – NAFTA Topicality [In] 383
6) Extra-topicality is not a voting issue: if we win foreign-made materials are considered investment within the United States, then we are not outside the resolution. At worst, reject the extra-topical parts of our plan and hold us to the purchase of infrastructure within the United States.
7) Default to reasonability: it’s impossible for the Affirmative to win the round on topicality, so we should only need to provide a good interpretation rather than the best one. If both sides have ground and arguments, you should resolve the debate on substantive issues instead of topicality.
2AC Frontline – Public Service Employment Topicality [Investment] 384
1. We Meet – The plan is a continuous investment in transportation infrastructure projects like building new highways. Paying labor is a necessary component of building anything, so if that isn’t topical then no Affirmative can meet.
2. Counter-interpretation: Infrastructure investment includes employment expenses during the construction phase.
RIETVELD, 1994
[Piet, professor in transport economics at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, “Spatial Economic Impacts of Transport Infrastructure Supply,” July, ]
As a definition for transport infrastructure we use those immovable capital goods for transport which are characterized by a considerable degree of economies of scale so that it is usually supplied as a collective input into production. As a consequence, the government has a high degree of control on the level of supply, price, and/or quality. Transport infrastructure includes facilities such as railway lines, railway stations, highways, canals, seaports, and airports. As indicated in Table l, transport infrastructure investments have both temporary and nontemporary effects on the economy. A major temporary effect concerns the stimulation of employment and income during the construction phase via the demand side.
3. Prefer the counter-interpretation:
a) Affirmative Ground: Under their interpretation, the Affirmative would only be allowed to purchase materials but not build or maintain them. This makes it impossible to generate any advantages based on qualified literature, and the Affirmative would always lose on time-frame to the Economy Disadvantage.
b) Education: The most important debate in the literature on transportation is how investment impacts jobs and unemployment. Arbitrarily excluding that portion of the debate forces us to argue only resource based impacts which are contrived and have no evidentiary support.
2AC Frontline – Public Service Employment Topicality [Investment] 385
4. Our interpretation is most qualified.
a) The United Nations uses our interpretation for official reports, this makes it the most qualified.
UNITED NATIONS, 2007
[International Accounting and Reporting Issues, p. 94, ]
For infrastructure investment, the calculation of the total investment should include costs of ancillary, related or incidental goods and labour, in addition to capital costs. For support of ongoing facilities or programmes (e.g. an organization funds the daily operations of a public facilities), the reported investment should include operating costs.
b) Even if U.S. agencies have different definitions, they all include labor costs.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, 1998
[“Best Practices: Elements Critical to Successfully Reducing Unneeded RDT&E Infrastructure: Report to Congressional Requesters,” 1/01, ]
DoD generally defines infrastructure as “all fixed and permanent, installations, fabrications, or facilities for the support and control of military forces." It consists of mission supporting property, plant, equipment, and personnel, including contractor manpower, DoD excludes the equipment and personnel necessary to perform directly critical technical and acquisition functions, DoE defines infrastructure as "all real property and installed equipment and personal property that is not solely supporting a single program mission." NASA defines infrastructure as “the supporting a single program mission." NASA defines infrastructure as “the underlying foundation for NASA operations, including its people, facilities, equipment, business systems, institutional information systems, and technical infrastructure." Facilities are the land, buildings, structures, permanently located trailers, and other real property improvements, including utility systems and collateral equipment that essentially is integrated into the facility. Business systems are business processes and business tools. Institutional information systems include NASA computers, networks, and general purpose application software. Technical infrastructure includes mission/project/technology/science implementation tools and processes, such as equipment and instrumentation, processes and procedures, and software tools.
2AC Frontline – Public Service Employment Topicality [Investment] 386
5) Extra-topicality is not a voting issue: if we win labor costs are included in government infrastructure investment budgets, then we are not outside the resolution. At worst, reject the extra-topical parts of our plan and hold us to the purchase of infrastructure. Contextual evidence proves our interpretation avoids any limits explosions.
GRAMLICH, 1998
[Edward, former professor of economics at the University of Michigan and a former member of the Board of Governors of the Federal,” Before the President's Commission to Study Capital Budgeting,” 3/6, ]
Apart from politics, how in principle should capital spending be defined? In fact the types of spending in the federal budget that really qualify as capital spending are few and far between. The spending should result in tangible physical equipment. Military spending on construction and long-lived durable goods would qualify. Military spending on consumables, ammunition and so forth, would not. Domestic spending on direct construction would qualify. But grants to state and local governments, even those nominally for capital purchases, would not. These grants do not directly result in capital equipment purchases because the recipient government is perfectly free not to spend the grants on capital equipment, and a host of econometric studies over the years have shown that recipient governments do not spend all their capital grants on equipment. So-called human investment programs would not qualify either, both because the spending cannot be assured and because it is not clear whether this supposed human investment really does raise a person's market output. Entitlement spending definitely would not count. When all is said and done, a relatively small amount of federal spending will be validly classified as capital spending. But there will be major headaches involved in identifying this small amount of spending.
6) Default to reasonability: it’s impossible for the Affirmative to win the round on topicality, so we should only need to provide a good interpretation rather than the best one. If both sides have ground and arguments, you should resolve the debate on substantive issues instead of topicality.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- chicago public high school transcripts
- which high school for my address
- chicago high school transcripts online
- austin high school chicago yearbook
- chicago public high school rankings
- austin high school chicago history
- austin high school chicago alumni
- austin high school chicago reunion
- chicago high school transcript request
- chicago high school rankings
- east chicago high school indiana
- austin high school chicago 1954