Docstoc

Highways Affirmative Memphis Urban Debate League

Document Sample
Highways Affirmative Memphis Urban Debate League Powered By Docstoc
					2012 MUDL Files                                                                                                p. 1 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                                          Highway/Infrastructure 1AC
HIGHWAYS – 1AC .......................................................................................................... 4
HIGHWAYS – 1AC .......................................................................................................... 6
HIGHWAYS – 1AC .......................................................................................................... 7
HIGHWAYS – 1AC .......................................................................................................... 8
HIGHWAYS – 1AC .......................................................................................................... 9
HIGHWAYS – 1AC ........................................................................................................ 11
HIGHWAYS – 1AC ........................................................................................................ 12
HIGHWAYS – 1AC ........................................................................................................ 14
HIGHWAYS – 1AC ........................................................................................................ 15
HIGHWAYS – 1AC ........................................................................................................ 17
HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS ................................................................. 18
HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS ................................................................. 19
HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS ................................................................. 20
HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS ................................................................. 21
HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS ................................................................. 23
HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS ................................................................. 24
HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS ................................................................. 25
HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS ................................................................. 27
HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS ................................................................. 28
HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS ................................................................. 30
HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS ................................................................. 32
HIGHWAYS – HARM EXTENSIONS ............................................................................ 33
HIGHWAYS – NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS EXTENSIONS ................................ 34
HIGHWAYS – NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS EXTENSIONS ................................ 35
HIGHWAYS – NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS EXTENSIONS ................................ 37
HIGHWAYS – NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS EXTENSIONS ................................ 38
HIGHWAYS – CHINA EXTENSIONS ........................................................................... 39
HIGHWAYS – CHINA EXTENSIONS ........................................................................... 41
HIGHWAYS – CHINA EXTENSIONS ........................................................................... 42
                                         Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                                                 p. 2 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


HIGHWAYS – CHINA – AT: CHINA’S ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE ....................... 43
HIGHWAYS – CHINA – AT: CHINA’S ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE ....................... 45
HIGHWAYS – CHINA – AT: CHINA’S ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE ....................... 47
HIGHWAYS – CHINA – IMPACT EXTENSIONS ......................................................... 49
HIGHWAYS – CHINA – IMPACT EXTENSIONS ......................................................... 50
HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY EXTENSIONS ................................................................ 51
HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY EXTENSIONS ................................................................ 52
HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY - SCENARIOS ............................................................... 55
HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY - SCENARIOS ............................................................... 56
HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY – GREAT POWER WAR ............................................... 57
HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY – GREAT POWER WAR ............................................... 58
HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY – GREAT POWER WAR ............................................... 60
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY ............... 62
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY ............... 63
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY ............... 65
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY ............... 67
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY ............... 69
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY ............... 70
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY ............... 72
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY ............... 73
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY ............... 74
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY ............... 76
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN ATTRACTS PRIVATE INVESTMENT ............... 77
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN ATTRACTS PRIVATE INVESTMENT ............... 79
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN ATTRACTS PRIVATE INVESTMENT ............... 80
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN ATTRACTS PRIVATE INVESTMENT ............... 82
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – BUILD AMERICA BONDS ............................................ 83
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – FOCUS ON PROJECTS OF “NATIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE” ........................................................................................................... 84


                                         Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                                                 p. 3 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – FOCUS ON PROJECTS OF “NATIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE” ........................................................................................................... 85
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – FOCUS ON PROJECTS OF “NATIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE” ........................................................................................................... 86
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – FOCUS ON PROJECTS OF “NATIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE” ........................................................................................................... 87
HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – FOCUS ON PROJECTS OF “NATIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE” ........................................................................................................... 88
HIGHWAYS – AT: STATE COUNTERPLAN ............................................................... 90
HIGHWAYS – AT: STATE COUNTERPLAN ............................................................... 91
HIGHWAYS – AT: STATE COUNTERPLAN ............................................................... 92
HIGHWAYS – AT: STATE COUNTERPLAN ............................................................... 93
HIGHWAYS – AT: STATE COUNTERPLAN ............................................................... 94
HIGHWAYS – AT: SPENDING DA ............................................................................... 96
HIGHWAYS – HIGHWAY DEATHS IMPACT .............................................................. 97




                                         Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 4 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                                    HIGHWAYS – 1AC

1. INHERENCY

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM DOESN’T FOCUS ON INCREASING
ECONOMIC GROWTH

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
[Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.pdf]

This brief review of the political context in which national transportation programs have
evolved demonstrates that despite frequent assertions that highways promote
economic growth there actually has never been a clearly articulated national policy to
pursue highway investments that do foster economic growth.


CURRENT FEDERAL PROGRAMS ARE POORLY COORDINATED AND
INEFFECTIVE AT PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

The processes by which federal funds are disbursed suggest one of the main
weaknesses of national transportation policy overall and of efforts to use transportation
investments to enhance national economic performance and productivity. Programs
and formulas change from one transportation bill to the next, decreasing the chance for
effective long-range planning. Programmatic structure is also mode-specific, despite
the fact that many freight and passenger trips involve the use of multiple modes.
Growing complexity in programs has been another factor in federal transportation
policy. Although programs proliferated to create balanced attention to many competing
interests, the current mix of programs constitutes what many critics call “stovepipes.”
This stymies innovation; prevents rational, integrated, comprehensive planning; and
interferes with efforts to make grants conform to a variety of stated legislative goals,
including making infrastructure investments to enhance national economic
performance. Although a region may need a mix of maintenance, public transit, and
highway investments, these federal programs are funded separately using different
formulas, and decision-making is dominated by cleverly navigating the funding
structures rather than by adhering to logical regional or metropolitan plans. Finally,
                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                     p. 5 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


analysts have noted that it is difficult to discern a national purpose or a clear set of
shared priorities in the many programs and formulas.




                               Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                   p. 6 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                                    HIGHWAYS – 1AC

CURRENT TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS ARE POORLY
TARGETED

Bill Bradley, Tom Ridge, David Walker, Carnegie Endowment, 2011
      [Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation, 2011
      http://carnegieendowment.org/files/road_to_recovery.pdf]

Congress articulates very few requirements to ensure that projects funded with federal
dollars are cost-effective or necessary or promote long-term economic growth.
Authorizing legislation is limited to requirements related to fair wage rates,
discrimination policies, and competitive contracting procedures. Contract authority—
the authority granted to DOT to obligate federal funding for authorized projects before
appropriations—increases the power of states to select projects with little federal
oversight, especially because the federal transportation law declares that its provisions
“shall in no way infringe on the sovereign rights of the states to determine which
projects shall be federally financed.” Though this law gives states much-needed
flexibility because of the wide range of different transportation needs from state to
state, it largely gave away federal oversight. States are only expected to report to the
federal government at the end of the project to arrange for reimbursement. This
provides Congress with little assurance that federal funds are being effectively targeted
toward projects of national and regional interest. Worse, delegating too much power to
plan, prioritize, and build projects to individual states means that federal transportation
programs are implemented state by state without continuity or regional vision, leading
to uneven, and sometimes negative, outcomes.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 7 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                                    HIGHWAYS – 1AC

CURRENT HIGHWAY BILLS REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKEN LACK OF
EMPHASIS ON NATIONAL PRIORITIES
Matt Sledge, Huffington Post, 2.2.12
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/us-infrastructure-deficit_n_1250886.html

Congress is divided, however, on how to fix America's roads, bridges, dams and
waterways. After Obama's proposal was defeated last year, both the House and
Senate pressed forward on writing their own long-term bills for surface transportation --
the most important component of federal infrastructure spending. But surface
transportation bills double down on the same errors that got the country into its hole in
the first place, according to JayEtta Hacker, who was formerly the director of
transportation issues at the General Accounting Office. All of these bills, she said, are
tied to a woefully inadequate system for monitoring how effectively the federal, state
and local governments spend tax dollars on infrastructure. "There are no goals," she
said. "There are no outcomes. And there's no data or information or evidence of what
kind of returns we get from the federal investment dollar." Instead, the federal
government simply doles money out to states on a ratio that's based on how much
their drivers spent on federal gas taxes. The states, in turn, spend the money they
receive on items in their federally required state transportation plan, which, Hacker
said, consists of "stapled pet projects and plans for different parts of the state."


REFORM IS UNLIKELY
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs,
Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation, 2011
     [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic
Growth,    National Transportation Policy Project, January 21, 2011]

A sense of urgency remains regarding the need to provide direction for both short-term
spending and longer-term transportation policy reform, yet there is great uncertainty as
to how these issues will evolve over the coming months. Just as there is growing
pressure to expand and increase spending on transportation infrastructure to both
contribute to economic recovery and deliver lasting economic returns, prospects for
enacting the kinds of comprehensive policy reforms needed to realize those ambitious
objectives are looking more doubtful.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                   p. 8 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                                    HIGHWAYS – 1AC

2. HARMS

AN INADEQUATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM THREATENS U.S. ECONOMIC
COMPETITIVENESS

Bill Bradley, Tom Ridge, David Walker, Carnegie Endowment, 2011
      [Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation, 2011
      http://carnegieendowment.org/files/road_to_recovery.pdf]

The U.S. surface transportation infrastructure, which is intended to deliver mobility in
an efficient and safe manner, instead subjects drivers to traffic congestion that stifles
commerce and impedes mobility around cities and along freight corridors across the
nation. The average rush-hour commuter spends a full workweek stuck in traffic each
year, and together commuters annually waste 3.9 billion gallons of fuel and incur a
direct cost of $115 billion (in 2009 dollars). Demand for freight transportation is
expected to double by 2035, yet there is no long-term plan to address mounting
congestion. The failure to address system inefficiencies adds to the cost of moving
goods and threatens America’s economic competitiveness.

THE RIGHT INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE IS KEY TO MAINTAINING U.S.
COMPETITIVENESS

Robert Puentes, fellow, Brookings Institution, 2008
     [http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2008/1/infrastructure%2
0kat z%20puentes/01_infrastructure_katz_puentes.pdf]

Third is that our global competitors do make strategic investments in the infrastructure
that drive robust, sustainable, and inclusive growth. From aggressive
telecommunications infrastructure advances in South Korea, to strategic transnational
investments in relatively slow-growing Europe, to massive hyper-investments to
accommodate fast growth in China and India, regions throughout the world are
exceeding America’s investments. Of course, it is important to not only analyze the
amount but also the purpose of those investments as not all are sensible or desirable.
Yet many are, especially in newer technologies, energy sources and next-generation
passenger rail. Many Americans are concerned that, by failing to reinvest in our
existing infrastructure and by also making the wrong kinds of investments in new
infrastructure, we are losing our competitive edge while simultaneously building
inefficient systems. Thus, this nation will continue to lose ground to those countries
that are investing in their infrastructure.
                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 9 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                                    HIGHWAYS – 1AC


CHINA AND THE U.S. ARE LOCKED IN A CLOSE STRUGGLE FOR
INTERNATIONAL PRIMACY

Alexander Vuving, Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, April 4, 2012
     [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2035188, “What is China
     Rising to? Assessing China’s and America’s Primacy Potentials]

Although the United States may lose its hard power advantage over China for a few
decades, it may still be able to maintain its preeminent position in the international
system. The key to this situation, which is somewhat similar to that of Britain in the
early 20th century, is the alignability of the United States with most of the critical
powers in the Asian arena, states such as India, Japan, Indonesia, Australia, and
Vietnam. China, for its part, also has a chance to replace the United States at the top
of the international system, and this chance is contingent in a larger part on (1) its
ability to become a pioneer on the knowledge and technological frontiers and (2) its
soft power incentives toward the critical powers, especially Taiwan, South Korea,
Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The competition between China and the
United States for global leadership will be a race for economic productivity,
technological innovation, and international alignability. It will be so close that
complacence will be the biggest enemy of both protagonists.


A GROWING CONSENSUS RECOGNIZES THAT OUR POOR ROADS CAN
JEOPARDIZE THE COMPETITION WITH CHINA

Matt Sledge, Huffington Post, 2.2.12
       [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/us-infrastructure-
deficit_n_1250886.html

China envy has its problems. The country's growth spurt is relatively new, so it's no
surprise that its infrastructure is shinier. The innovative maglev train from the Shanghai
airport to the center city isn't necessarily representative of facilities in the country's
interior. The country's centralized, dictatorial leaders, meanwhile, often steamroll over
environmental and safety concerns. But analysts from such disparate groups as the
US Chamber of Commerce and major labor unions agree that our failure to invest is
hurting the U.S. economy and U.S. businesses. Indeed, that was the thrust of a
September report from the American Society of Civil Engineers, which calculated that

                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                               p. 10 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


deficient and deteriorating roads will cost US companies $240 billion over the next ten
years in lost growth potential.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 11 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                                    HIGHWAYS – 1AC


AMERICAN DECLINE WOULD INCREASE RISK OF CONFLICT OVER TAIWAN

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor, 2012
     [Foreign Policy January/February 2012
     http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/8_geopolitically_endangered_s
pecies]

Since 1972, the United States has formally accepted the mainland's "one China"
formula while maintaining that neither side shall alter the status quo by force. Beijing,
however, reserves the right to use force, which allows Washington to justify its
continued arms sales to Taiwan. In recent years, Taiwan and China have been
improving their relationship. America's decline, however, would increase Taiwan's
vulnerability, leaving decision-makers in Taipei more susceptible to direct Chinese
pressure and the sheer attraction of an economically successful China. That, at the
least, could speed up the timetable for cross-strait reunification, but on unequal terms
favoring the mainland. At stake: Risk of a serious collision with China.


A WAR WITH CHINA COULD ESCALATE TO THE NUCLEAR LEVEL

The Straits Times 2000
     [June 25, p. ln]

THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale
war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China
would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable.
Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of
horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                     p. 12 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                                      HIGHWAYS – 1AC


PERCEPTION OF OUR ECONOMIC DECLINE UNDERMINES OUR PRIMACY

Leslie Gelb, Council on Foreign Relations, 2010
      [Fletcher Forum of World Affairsvol.34:2 summer 2010
      http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/34-2pdfs/Gelb.pdf]

Power is what it always has been. It is the ability to get someone to do something they
do not want to do by means of your resources and your position. It was always that.
There is no such thing in my mind as “soft” power or “hard” power or “smart” power or
“dumb” power. It is people who are hard or soft or smart or dumb. Power is power. And
people use it wisely or poorly. Now, what has changed is the composition of power in
international affairs. For almost all of history, international power was achieved in the
form of military power and military force. Now, particularly in the last fifty years or so, it
has become more and more economic. So power consists of economic power, military
power, and diplomatic power, but the emphasis has shifted from military power (for
almost all of history) to now, more economic power. And, as President Obama said in
his West Point speech several months ago, our economy is the basis of our
international power in general and our military power in particular. That is where it all
comes from. Whether other states listen to us and act on what we say depends a good
deal on their perception of the strength of the American economy. A big problem for us
in the last few years has been the perception that our economy is in decline.

AMERICAN DECLINE WOULD RISK GREAT POWER WAR

Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, January 2012
      [http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/99521/america-world-power-
declinism]

Is the United States in decline, as so many seem to believe these days? Or are
Americans in danger of committing pre-emptive superpower suicide out of a misplaced
fear of their own declining power? A great deal depends on the answer to these
questions. The present world order—characterized by an unprecedented number of
democratic nations; a greater global prosperity, even with the current crisis, than the
world has ever known; and a long peace among great powers—reflects American
principles and preferences, and was built and preserved by American power in all its
political, economic, and military dimensions. If American power declines, this world
order will decline with it. It will be replaced by some other kind of order, reflecting the

                               Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 13 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


desires and the qualities of other world powers. Or perhaps it will simply collapse, as
the European world order collapsed in the first half of the twentieth century.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                              p. 14 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                                   HIGHWAYS – 1AC

Plan: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its
investment in infrastructure by fully funding through loan guarantees and Build America
Bonds a multi-year program that targets highway projects that foster national economic
productivity.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 15 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                                    HIGHWAYS – 1AC


3. SOLVENCY

BETTER TARGETING OF PROJECTS WOULD LEAD TO BETTER ECONOMIC
OUTCOMES

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

Highway infrastructure varies greatly in its economic effects, depending on a wide
variety of system and geographic factors at the local and regional levels. Although
highways on average appear to have positive economic effects, these effects can be
highly context-specific. Better targeting of federal highway investments could lead to
better economic outcomes.


ENOUGH GOOD PROJECTS EXIST TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION
TO ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs,
Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation, 2011
     [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic
Growth,    National Transportation Policy Project, January 21, 2011]

The test for a high-productivity public investment is that it should generate a rate of
return to society that exceeds the market return in the private sector. The resources for
any public transportation investment are ultimately drawn from the private sector
through taxes and fees, or in some cases by borrowing from the private sector. In each
case, the dollars used to make these investments constitute foregone opportunities to
make other market investments. To meet a productivity test, transportation investments
should have a greater impact in terms of raising future standards of living than other
uses of funds as measured by the return on other market investments. In addition,
public sector transportation investments necessarily compete with other public sector
investment opportunities. Thus, to ensure the best use of taxpayer dollars, government
must channel funding to the projects that offer the highest returns to society. Often that
means programs that do the most to enhance long-term productivity. While not every
road, high-speed rail, or transit project can meet this test, a portfolio of well selected
                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                               p. 16 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


and thoughtfully targeted transportation investments can make a substantial
contribution to aggregate economic productivity.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 17 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                                    HIGHWAYS – 1AC


AN EFFECTIVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM IS
ESSENTIAL TO MAINTAIN GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS

Bill Bradley, Tom Ridge, David Walker, Carnegie Endowment, 2011
      [Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation, 2011
      http://carnegieendowment.org/files/road_to_recovery.pdf]

These shortfalls in our federal transportation program do not justify abandoning federal
transportation assistance—quite the opposite, actually. A nation’s transportation
system is a major actor in its economy, deserving investment and requiring federal
funding and oversight. Changes to the system will help ensure future economic
growth, recognize demographic and geographic shifts in both population and
preferences, advance environmental and energy security, and embrace and support
innovation. All of these items are necessary to maintain global competitiveness and
guarantee future prosperity.


NATIONAL GOALS SHOULD MAXIMIZE INVESTMENTS AND ENCOURAGE
FUNDING FROM STATES AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR

National Transportation Policy Project, June 2011
      [Performance Driven: Achieving Wiser Investment in Transportation, Bipartisan
Policy Center, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/performance-driven-achieving-
wiser-investment-transportation]

To more effectively focus federal programs, it will be important to articulate the federal
interest in national transportation spending in a clear and compelling way. Federal
spending on transportation must not only go further to advance a more focused and
better defined set of national purposes, it should be designed to maximize total
investment from all levels of government and the private sector. Specifically, the U.S.
Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and/or Congress could actively promote
highway and transit funding at all levels of government by making changes—to both
the federal program structure and federal policies—aimed at: 1. Moving toward a more
performance-based and self-sustaining federal program with explicit national goals 2.
Expanding opportunities and actively encouraging increased state, local, and private
investment in transportation and more sustainable, user-based funding sources.


                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 18 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS


PRIVATE INVESTMENT IS UNLIKELY FOR TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

Roy Kienitz, the former under secretary of transportation, points out, “It’s important to
note that most transportation infrastructure projects are not viable candidates for
private investment and therefore must rely entirely on public funds backed by federal-
or state-imposed user fees or general tax revenues.”


MANY CALLS TO REFORM FEDERAL HIGHWAY SPENDING

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

But Congress did not provide the only impetus for reconsidering U.S. transportation
policy. Voices both inside and outside the government also made such calls. Inside the
government, the independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been
particularly clear about the need for reconsideration. For example, the GAO has found
that many current federal transportation programs are “not effective at addressing key
transportation challenges such as increasing congestion and growing freight demand
because federal goals and roles are unclear, many programs lack links to needs or
performance, and the programs in some areas do not employ the best tools and
approaches to ensure effective investment decisions. Outside the government, the
Bipartisan Policy Center, in a 2009 report by its National Transportation Policy Project,
noted that although the U.S. transportation system has changed dramatically since the
1950s, the federal government has not substantially reformed its policies and programs
since then, although those policies and programs have proliferated in the government’s
attempt to respond to changing priorities. The time is ripe to reconsider federal roles
because the federal government is once again debating a major transportation funding
bill.


                                Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 19 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS


FEDERAL STEPS ARE NECESSARY TO INCREASE TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAMS

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

In addition, increased private financing opportunities focused on transportation will
also require the federal government to more rapidly and readily approve tolling on
roads in the federal highway system so that investors can rely on predictable
revenues for repayment and earnings. It also will require the creation of a national
intermediary such as an Infrastructure Bank that can expertly and expeditiously
package high-priority and multistate infrastructure financing projects together with
private investors. Increased federal guidance can promote models that protect wages,
collective bargaining rights, and the taxpayers and users who are at risk if private
partners fail to manage the project responsibly.


FEDERAL PROGRAMS NEED TO BE RATIONALIZED TO HELP AREAS THAT
NEED IT MOST – EXAMPLE, ALASKA GETS TOO MUCH FUNDING COMPARED
TO CALIFORNIA

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

First we must adopt formulas for distributing federal infrastructure funds that guarantee
that all funds are allocated based on objective measures of need. Current federal
funding formulas meet far too many political goals instead of the true purpose of the
appropriations. For instance, the current formulas that distribute federal Highway Trust
Fund grants to states distribute nearly 10 times the amount of funding per capita to
Alaska when compared to California. Meanwhile California has more than 52 times as
many people as Alaska has; it is home to the nation’s largest port, which means its
infrastructure has to support the nation’s largest highway freight traffic; and California
has 13 times the number of miles of roadways as Alaska has.



                                Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                   p. 20 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS


MULTIYEAR FUNDING IS NEEDED

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

A more rational approach to determining where and how infrastructure funds are
spent should be matched with a solid funding system that provides a predictable flow
of revenues. The current on-again, off-again spigot of infrastructure funding
undermines efficiency and contributes to the erosion of our assets. Congress must
enact a multiyear set of funding bills for all elements of our infrastructure with reliable
and ongoing sources of money for investment to remedy this serious defect in our
national infrastructure spending programs.




                                Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                   p. 21 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS


FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING IS LOW AN DECLINING

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

The federal government budget authority for 2010 was $3.48 trillion. In that year, we
devoted a relatively small amount of federal appropriations toward maintaining and
improving our critical public infrastructure assets. In fact, total federal infrastructure
appropriations for direct grants, loans, and tax incentives were $92 billion in 2010, a
mere 2.6 percent of all federal expenditures. Moreover, overall U.S. investment in
transportation and water infrastructure in 2010 was 6.2 percent less in real dollars
(after accounting for inflation) than the federal government spent for infrastructure in
2000.

CURRENT FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING IS POORLY ALLOCATED

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

Most federal infrastructure investments are made as direct grants. In sum, CAP’s
analysis finds that approximately $82 billion in federal infrastructure grants flow to
states according to a variety of formulas that vary in efficacy. Congress wisely ended
the practice of loading up federal transportation authorization bills with earmarks in
2010. As a result, most of the federal infrastructure funds are allocated to states based
on formulas or are distributed as competitive grants. In some cases, grant formulas
do a good job of directing funds to where they are most needed. But most are either
outdated or inappropriate for ensuring wise expenditures of federal funds. For
instance, a significant portion of federal transportation funds are allocated with little
regard to the need to reduce oil consumption, which could be achieved by increasing
the share of funds spent on rail and transit capacity. Similarly, federal transportation
formulas are devoid of congestion measures even though reducing congestion can
increase productivity and lower the costs of travel while having the added benefit of
driving down carbon emissions. Worse yet, $9.6 billion of the federal grants for road,
bridge, and highway projects in 2010 were distributed to states based on an arcane
formula called the “Equity Bonus Program,” which distributes funds on factors largely
unrelated to the need for repair or increased capacity. And approximately $400
                                Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                              p. 22 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


million was distributed in the form of a minimum guarantee that ensures each state
receives a small portion of the eight largest federal highway grant programs. As a
result, 28 percent of federal grants in highways and roads were distributed without
regard to relative need or projected costs of repairs or capacity improvements.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                              p. 23 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS


CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS ARE POORLY ORGANIZED TO
PROMOTE ECONOMIC GROWTH

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

The processes by which federal funds are disbursed suggest one of the main
weaknesses of national transportation policy and are symptomatic of how federal
highway investments may be only loosely linked to ensuring large economic benefits.
Programs and formulas have become complex and change substantially from one
transportation bill to the next. Although programs proliferated to create balanced
attention to many competing interests, the current mix of programs constitutes
“stovepipes” that stymie innovation and prevent rational, integrated, comprehensive
planning. That is, although a region may need a mix of maintenance, public transit, and
highway investments, these federal programs are funded separately using different
formulas, and decision-making is dominated by cleverly navigating the funding
structures rather than by adhering to logical regional or metropolitan plans. The
proliferation of programs and the stove-piping make it difficult to fashion investments
that clearly meet any federal transportation goals, let alone increasing national
economic performance.




                                Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 24 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS


CURRENT EXTENSIONS OF LEGISLATION HAVEN’T LED TO ADOPTION OF
NATIONAL GOALS

National Transportation Policy Project, June 2011
      [Performance Driven: Achieving Wiser Investment in Transportation, Bipartisan
Policy      Center, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/performance-driven-
achieving-wiser-investment-transportation]

Each of these factors has contributed to continued delay in passing a new surface
transportation bill, which in turn has necessitated a series of extensions to expired
federal surface transportation authorization legislation. When debates began on a
future direction for new legislation, and as repeated extensions have been enacted,
NTPP has consistently made the case for pressing forward with reform even in the
absence of a long-term authorization bill. For example, substantial research could be
done using existing research funds so that when the time is right for new legislation
there is a better understanding of the data and tools necessary to successfully
introduce performance measurement. But each extension of existing surface
transportation law so far has been “clean” and has not allowed for any policy changes.
The result has been no further progress toward articulating clear national goals or
providing a better direction for research funding. This is unfortunate. Regardless of the
overall funding situation, the United States cannot afford to delay the reforms needed
to bring performance and accountability for results to our surface transportation
programs.




                                Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 25 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS


CURRENT HIGHWAY FUNDING WILL DECLINE

National Transportation Policy Project, June 2011
      [Performance Driven: Achieving Wiser Investment in Transportation, Bipartisan
Policy      Center, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/performance-driven-
achieving-wiser-investment-transportation]

Today’s situation is different. Leaders from both parties have made it clear that an
increase in the motor fuel tax is highly unlikely (the tax was last changed in 1993).
Even after the economy revives, revenues from federal highway user fees are
expected to grow more slowly than in previous decades. Automobile fuel economy is
increasing again and current federal mandates require the new car and light truck fleet
to reach a combined fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. More efficient
vehicles, a reduced rate of growth in VMT, and a continued transition away from
gasoline as our primary motor fuel, inevitably means that the current highway funding
mechanism will generate fewer new dollars than in the past.


CURRENT HIGHWAY FUNDING REVENUE IS INSUFFICIENT

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs,
Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation, 2011
     [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic
Growth,    National Transportation Policy Project, January 21, 2011]

This is the case even though transportation programs have historically been financed
to a greater extent by “user fees” than by general funds. Nevertheless, transportation
spending has been deeply affected by the same trends that have contributed to the
deterioration of the overall federal budget situation. Resistance to raising taxes has
meant that federal taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel—at 18.4 and 24.4 cents per
gallon, respectively—have not been raised since 1993. Taking into account inflation,
this means real tax rates have declined: in addition the purchasing power of the dollar,
as measured by the consumer price index, has fallen by one-third over the same time
period. Revenues raised through the gas tax have fallen still further relative to the
actual demands placed on the nation’s highways as cars and trucks became more fuel
efficient and thus traveled further on each gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel. This means
that Federal Highway Trust Fund revenues per mile driven have fallen dramatically
since better fuel economy translates into fewer gallons of fuel purchased for the same
                                Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                p. 26 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


amount of travel. With the combined effects of inflation and improved fuel economy,
federal fuel taxes are no longer sufficient to cover the costs of the federal highway
program.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                             p. 27 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS


THE STIMULUS SPENDING ON INFRASTRUCTURE WAS CONCERNED WITH
SHORT TERMS JOBS, NOT NECESSARILY LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs,
Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation, 2011
     [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic
Growth,    National Transportation Policy Project, January 21, 2011]

Given the pressure to put these funds to work quickly, some of the transportation
spending that occurred in 2009 and 2010 undoubtedly included projects that may
produce some short-run employment gains but will have less to contribute to longer-
term economic growth.




                                Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                p. 28 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS


CURRENT PRIORITIES MUST BE CHANGED

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs,
Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation, 2011
     [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic
Growth,    National Transportation Policy Project, January 21, 2011]

These new pressures and challenges come at a time when many experts and
stakeholders, including the BPC, are calling for a fundamental overhaul of federal
transportation policy and funding mechanisms. They argue that future transportation
spending must be driven by considerations of economic merit and guided by a clear
articulation of the federal role. Short-term job creation is certainly an important and
legitimate goal of public policy, especially at a time of high unemployment, but as this
paper demonstrates, an overly narrow focus on immediate job impacts is likely to be
shortsighted and produce sub-optimal results, especially if it detracts from efforts to
implement more fundamental programmatic reforms. Of course, public resources
should be spent wisely at any time. At the same time they can also create employment
opportunities in the short-term and contribute to the nation’s economic recovery. To
achieve these outcomes, however, our nation must approach transportation spending
differently than in the past.


MANY PROGRAMS NOW SPEND ON PROJECTS WITH NO CONCERN FOR LONG
TERM ECONOMIC GOALS

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs,
Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation, 2011
     [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic
Growth,    National Transportation Policy Project, January 21, 2011]

Many current highway programs, such as the “Equity Bonus” program, distribute
billions of dollars in funding to states with little accountability, from an economic
perspective, for how that money is used. Yet many advocate continued funding for
such programs because they “create jobs.” In the haste to pump more money into
these programs, it becomes distinctly possible—indeed, even likely— that scarce and
now usually borrowed resources are being directed to projects that do not meet
reasonable and appropriate productivity criteria for public expenditures. For reasons
discussed in this paper, even the jobs benefits commonly ascribed to these
                                Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                               p. 29 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


expenditures are more uncertain than might first appear. Given that the “multiplier
effect” typically used to calculate employment impacts is often exaggerated and rarely
qualified, such jobs claims should not form the basis for spending decisions,
particularly in a time of constrained resources and overwhelming national deficits.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 30 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS


FEDERAL APPROACH TO HIGHWAY SPENDING IS SHORT-TERM, UNFOCUSED
AND POLITICIZED

Bill Bradley, Tom Ridge, David Walker, Carnegie Endowment, 2011
      [Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation, 2011
      http://carnegieendowment.org/files/road_to_recovery.pdf]

While the country suffers the effects of an increasingly degraded and underperforming
transportation system, investment decisions on the nation’s transportation system
have become increasingly unfocused, short-term, and highly politicized. In 1987,
President Ronald Reagan vetoed a transportation funding bill because it contained
100 earmarks; in 2005, President George W. Bush signed a subsequent transportation
funding bill containing 6,229 earmarks without objection. Since the completion of the
Interstate Highway System more than twenty years ago, states and metropolitan
areas have cobbled together their own project and investment plans for highway,
transit, and rail, but this piecemeal approach prevents the smooth integration of local,
state, and federal policies and hinders potential synergies across projects. This
approach also compromises federal oversight and accountability, making it difficult to
measure performance and set appropriate authorization levels for the future.


CURRENT HIGHWAY SPENDING LACKS CRITERIA AND PRIORITIZATION

Bill Bradley, Tom Ridge, David Walker, Carnegie Endowment, 2011
      [Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation, 2011
      http://carnegieendowment.org/files/road_to_recovery.pdf]

An analysis of these programs reveals that the majority simply do not articulate
objectives or abide by reporting mechanisms. Many of the large core formula programs
have some eligibility limitations; most of the smaller ones do not specify clear goals or
objectives for the funds. Three federal programs that target funds at large infrastructure
projects—Projects of National and Regional Significance, the National Corridor
Infrastructure Improvement Program, and the Coordinated Border Infrastructure
Program—do not have clearly defined outcomes or statements of purpose. In a 2009
evaluation of these programs, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
concluded that their priorities were unclear; there was limited room for a criteria-
based, competitive project-selection process; and there was little assurance that
funded projects achieved the highest possible return on federal investments.
                                Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                             p. 31 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                p. 32 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – INHERENCY EXTENSIONS


THE CURRENT HIGHWAY PROGRAM IS BASED ON OUTDATED GOALS

Bill Bradley, Tom Ridge, David Walker, Carnegie Endowment, 2011
      [Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation, 2011
      http://carnegieendowment.org/files/road_to_recovery.pdf]

These trends belie a deeper problem: that national transportation investment decisions
have become reactionary, short-term, and highly politicized. Further, this analysis
confirms that of the over 100 programs that make up the federal transportation effort,
only a handful offer clearly stated goals, and even fewer have reporting requirements
or accountability mechanisms. The use of formula-based funding distribution,
congressional earmarking, and discretionary program project lists complicates the
connection between activities and outcomes. Too few federal transportation programs
have funding levels tied to the achievement of results. The federal transportation effort
is now a loose collection of parochial interests. Despite the successful completion of
the Interstate Highway System in the 1980s, the federal government’s current broad
transportation program structure, funding mechanisms, and implementation process
are nearly the same as they were in 1956. Thus, the United States is entrenched in a
transportation system that is structured according to those priorities from more than
half a century ago. But the nation’s transportation programs and investments instead
must be reformed to meet twenty-first-century goals and challenges.




                                Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 33 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – HARM EXTENSIONS


ONE-IN-FOUR BRIDGES ARE DEFICIENT

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

Nearly one in four bridges in America is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
In 2007, for example, the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis collapsed, killing 13 people
and injuring 145. While that bridge collapsed due to a design flaw, it was also in
need of significant repairs and as a result was listed on the nation’s inventory of
structurally deficient bridges. Any one of America’s nearly 70,000 bridges that are
structurally deficient and in need of repair could become the next I-35W Bridge.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 34 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                  HIGHWAYS – NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS EXTENSIONS


INFRASTRUCTURE IS A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO U.S. LEADERSHIP

Ernst Frankel, Professor Emeritus, Engineering, MIT, October 2007
     [http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/201/frankel.html]

Physical infrastructure, once the pride of America and a major contributor to its
economic and social growth and success, has in recent years become an acute
embarrassment to this nation. Infrastructure failures, ineffectiveness, and the inability
to properly plan, construct, manage, and maintain it now pose an acute challenge to
America’s claims of economic, social, environmental, and technological leadership.

POOR INFRASTRUCTURE IS HURTING OUR ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

This decline is impeding our economic competitiveness. The United States now ranks
24th on key global indicators for infrastructure quality among 142 nations, according
to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report for FY 2011-12, down
from No. 8 in FY 2005-06.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 35 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                  HIGHWAYS – NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS EXTENSIONS


U.S. INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING LAGS OTHER COUNTRIES

Matthew Slaughter, Professor, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth, 2011
     [Building Competitiveness, Organization of International Investment, April 12,
2011
     http://www.ofii.org/news-room/ofii-press-releases/976-ofii-kicks-off-infrastructure-
            campaign-to-build-.html]

America’s infrastructure crisis contrasts starkly with the dramatic infrastructure
improvements being made in so many other countries. America today spends
approximately 2% of GDP on infrastructure (federal, state, local, and private-sector
spending). This amount is down 50% from U.S. levels in the 1960s, and it is low
compared to many other major countries. Comparable infrastructure-spending shares
today are about 5% in Europe and 9% in China. The OECD recently forecast that now
through 2030, world infrastructure spending will average 3.5% of GDP per year, about
$71 trillion in all. Should these projected rates be realized, then America’s current
infrastructure spending will lag dozens of countries for another generation.


POOR INFRASTRUCTURE MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO RECRUIT THE BEST
COMPANIES

Matthew Slaughter, Professor, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth, 2011
     [Building Competitiveness, Organization of International Investment, April 12,
2011
     http://www.ofii.org/news-room/ofii-press-releases/976-ofii-kicks-off-infrastructure-
            campaign-to-build-.html]

America’s infrastructure crisis is threatening America’s global competitiveness because
it is eroding the country’s ability to attract and retain dynamic global companies that
create high-productivity, high-wage jobs. America’s ability to meet the infrastructure
needs of dynamic global companies increasingly lags the ability of many other
countries—in contrast to much of 20th century, when America’s infrastructure was a
strong pull attracting these companies. In the United States, global companies have
long been among America’s most innovative. The U.S. subsidiaries of global
companies, in particular, have long created and sustained high-paying American jobs
based on substantial investments in ideas, capital, and exporting—much of which is
based on lessons learned around the world.
                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                             p. 36 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 37 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                  HIGHWAYS – NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS EXTENSIONS


INFRASTRUCTURE KEY TO INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS

Ernst Frankel, Professor Emeritus, Engineering, MIT, October 2007
     [http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/201/frankel.html]

Infrastructure is the lifeblood of an economy and continued failure to address its needs
will invariably lead to decline, particularly in an American economy increasingly based
on services and not on manufacturing and agriculture. Our competitors, such as China,
India, and others, train proportionally a much larger number of engineers committed to
and capable of advancing their infrastructure. This will give them an enormous
advantage in facing increasingly complex economic challenges. Many of our
competitors build major infrastructure in less than half the time and at less than half the
cost as we do. They increasingly dominate the global infrastructure engineering and
project market, a sector in which U.S. firms led not too long ago. In many Asian
countries as much as 30% of engineering research funding is for infrastructure design,
technology, materials, testing, and fabrication research – and that percentage is
growing. There are estimates that the U.S. will have to spend as much as 5% of its
GNP (or over $600b/year) for infrastructure repair, replacement, and expansion for
many years to come if it wants to remain competitive in the international economy.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 38 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                  HIGHWAYS – NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS EXTENSIONS


AMERICA FACES A HUGE COMPETITIVENESS CHALLENGE

Matthew Slaughter, Professor, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth, 2011
     [Building Competitiveness, Organization of International Investment, April 12,
2011
     http://www.ofii.org/news-room/ofii-press-releases/976-ofii-kicks-off-infrastructure-
            campaign-to-build-.html]

Indeed, the Crisis and Recession have expanded America’s competitiveness challenge
because so many dynamic emerging economies have sustained high growth rates in
recent years. While America’s GDP fell by 2.6% in 2009, GDP in India grew by 5.7%
and in China by 9.1%--rates that accelerated to about 10% in 2010. The International
Monetary Fund calculates that 2010 GDP growth averaged 7.1% for all emerging and
developing economies. The challenge facing America today is not just building an
economic recovery. It is building an economic recovery that also advances America’s
global competitiveness. A globally competitive America must fundamentally mean the
success of American workers: success in creating globally competitive, high-
productivity, good-paying jobs by all companies operating in America. American
workers and their families need dynamic jobs with rising earnings and thus rising
standards of living.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                   p. 39 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – CHINA EXTENSIONS


CHINA’S INFLUENCE IS BASED ON PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR GROWING
ECONOMIC POWER

Shaun Breslin, professor, University of Warwick, Asia Programme, February
2011
      [“The Soft Notion of China’s ‘Soft Power’,” Asia Programme Paper ASP 2011/03
      http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/1001/]
This brings us to the final form of China’s non-hard power. Even after three decades of
reform, it is still not so much what China has become that is the focus of attention, as
what it will become in the future. The word ‘will’ is deliberately used instead of ‘might’,
as China’s future rise has been taken for granted by many. As a result, there has long
been a tendency to develop policies towards China today based on the power that it is
expected to have in the future. Thus China has been empowered by the way in which
others think about it; perceptions have altered realities. But these external perceptions
of China are not based on the supposed soft-power attraction of culture and values.
Rather, China’s imagined power is typically built on assessments of growing material
power and clout – particularly China’s future economic power.


THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF FUTURE CHINESE ECONOMIC POWER GIVES THEM
INFLUENCE THAT OVERCOMES THE NEGATIVE IMAGE OF THEIR HUMAN
RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

Shaun Breslin, professor, University of Warwick, Asia Programme, February
2011
       [“The Soft Notion of China’s ‘Soft Power’,” Asia Programme Paper ASP 2011/03
       http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/1001/]
But the main intention of this paper was not to evaluate the extent of Chinese soft
power, but to question the efficacy of deploying ill-thought-out and catch- all definitions.
Quite simply, if we want to understand the potential sources of why other countries act
in relation to China, making a simple division between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power is a very
blunt instrument. In particular, while there are indeed ideational and normative drivers
for the way in which others treat China, to think that this is a reflection of a growing
admiration of (and attraction to) the current Chinese political and social order might be
going too far in many cases. Attraction to the Chinese economic record (and a desire
to emulate the positive elements of it) is another matter altogether. And the desire to
become tied to China’s ‘inevitable’ economic future is even more important. In short, it

                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                             p. 40 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


is easy to infer soft power, as a number of studies and policy analyses seem to have
done, when harder material sources of influence have arguably been more important.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                              p. 41 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – CHINA EXTENSIONS


CHINA CAN PASS THE U.S. IN HARD POWER IN THE SHORT TERM IF THE U.S.
SLIPS IN GROWTH AND INNOVATION

Alexander Vuving, Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, April 4, 2012
     [ssrn-id2035188.pdf, “What is China Rising to? Assessing China’s and America’s
Primacy    Potentials]

If the base scenario of our analysis is the most likely one, the United States will
maintain a slight edge over China in the competition for hard power and Beijing will
never catch up to Washington. But if America fails to maintain an environment
conducive to growth and innovation as it has in the past, and if China will be as
successful as Taiwan and South Korea were in boosting productivity, Beijing will have
a great chance to surpass Washington in terms of hard power.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 42 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – CHINA EXTENSIONS


UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS, CHINA WILL RAPIDLY PASS THE U.S.
ECONOMICALLY IN A SHORT TIME

Arvind Subramanian, Sen Fellow, Peterson Inst for International Econ, October
2011
     [Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct 2011 vol 90 Issue 5

The upshot of my analysis is that by 2030, relative U.S. decline will have yielded not a
multipolar world but a near-unipolar one dominated by China. China will account for
close to 20 percent of global GDP (measured half in dollars and half in terms of real
purchasing power), compared with just under 15 percent for the United States. At that
point, China's per capita GDP will be about $33,000, or about half of U.S. GDP. In
other words, China will not be dirt poor, as is commonly believed. Moreover, it will
generate 15 percent of world trade--twice as much as will the United States. By 2030,
China will be dominant whether one thinks GDP is more important than trade or the
other way around; it will be ahead on both counts. According to this index and these
projections, China's ascendancy is imminent. Although the United States' GDP is
greater than China's today and the two countries respective trade levels are close, the
United States is a very large and vulnerable debtor--it hogs about 50 percent of the
world's net capital flows--whereas China is a substantial net creditor to the world. In
2010, the United States' lead over China was marginal: there was less than one
percentage point difference between their respective indices of dominance. In fact, if
one weighed these factors slightly differently, giving slightly less weight to the size of
the economy relative to trade, China was already ahead of the United States in 2010.
China's ascendancy in the future will also apply to many more issues than is
recognized today. The Chinese economy will be larger than the economy of the United
States and larger than that of any other country, and so will its trade and supplies of
capital. The yuan will be a credible rival to the dollar as the world's premier reserve
currency. What is more, the gap between China and the United States will be far
greater than expected. In 2010, the U.S. National Intelligence Council assessed that in
2025, "the U.S. will remain the preeminent power, but that American dominance will be
much diminished." This is unduly optimistic. My projections suggest that the gap
between China and the United States in 2030 will be similar to that between the United
States and its rivals in the mid-1970s, the heyday of U.S. hegemony, and greater than
that between the United Kingdom and its rivals during the halcyon days of the British
Empire, in 1870. In short, China's future economic dominance is more imminent and
will be both greater and more varied than is currently supposed.

                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 43 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


               HIGHWAYS – CHINA – AT: CHINA’S ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE


CHINA’S ECONOMY WON’T COLLAPSE – THEY WILL CONTINUE TO
CHALLENGE THE U.S. ECONOMICALLY

Alexander Vuving, Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, April 4, 2012
     [ssrn-id2035188.pdf, “What is China Rising to? Assessing China’s and America’s
Primacy    Potentials]

Contrary to some widespread beliefs, China’s unbalanced growth path is unlikely to
lead to the collapse of the Chinese economy in the near future. Instead, it may even
shorten China’s rise to economic primacy. If China continues its current investment-
driven and export-led path, it can hardly avoid a long period of stagnation in the future.
However, none of the possible triggers of recession is likely to immensely derail
China’s growth in the near future. The immediate cause of China’s “lost decades” is
likely to be a debt crisis precipitated by the loss of the demographic dividend in a
rapidly aging population, which no longer is able to save massively to keep the banking
system afloat. As this is likely to become acute in the 2030s, China will likely enter a
period of stagnation in two (but not one or a half) decades from now. In the meantime,
China will still have a great chance to overtake the United States as the world’s largest
economy.


CHINA’S ECONOMY WON’T COLLAPSE

Arthur Kroeber, editor China Economic Quarterly, Brookings, May 2012
     [Foreign Policy May 22, 2012
     http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/22/bear_in_a_china_shop]

No question, China has many problems. Years of one-sided investment-driven growth
have created obvious excesses and overcapacity. A weaker global economy since the
2008 financial crisis and rapidly rising labor cost at home have slowed China's vaunted
export machine. Meanwhile, a massive housing bubble is slowly deflating, and the
latest economic data is discouraging. Real growth in GDP slowed to an annualized rate
of less than 7 percent in the first quarter of 2012, and April saw a sharp slowdown in
industrial output, electricity production, bank lending, and property transactions. Is
China's legendary economy in serious trouble?
Not just yet. The odds are that China will navigate these shoals and continue to grow
at a fairly rapid pace of around 7 percent a year for the remainder of the decade,

                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                           p. 44 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


overtaking the United States to become the world's biggest economy around 2020.
That's a lot slower than the historical average of 10 percent, but still solid.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                    p. 45 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


               HIGHWAYS – CHINA – AT: CHINA’S ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE


HISTORICAL EXAMPLES PROVE CHINA WILL CONTINUE TO GROW

Arthur Kroeber, editor China Economic Quarterly, Brookings, May 2012
     [Foreign Policy May 22, 2012
     http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/22/bear_in_a_china_shop]

China's economic model, for all its odd communist trappings, closely resembles the
successful strategy for "catch-up growth" pioneered by Japan, South Korea, and
Taiwan after World War II. The theory behind catch-up growth is that poor countries
can achieve substantial convergence with rich-country income levels by simply copying
and diffusing imported technology. In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance, Japan
reverse-engineered products such as cars, watches, and cameras, enabling the
emergence of global firms like Toyota, Nikon, and Sony. Achieving catch-up growth
requires an export-focused industrial policy, intensive investment in enabling
infrastructure and basic industry, and tight control over the financial system so that it
supports infrastructure, basic industries, and exporters, instead of trying to maximize
its own profits.
China's catch-up phase is far from over. It has mastered the production of basic
industrial materials and consumer products, but its move into sophisticated machinery
and high-tech products has only just begun. In 2010, China's per capita income was
only 20 percent of the U.S. level. By most measures, China's economy today is
comparable to Japan's in the late 1960s and South Korea's and Taiwan's around 1980.
Each of those countries subsequently experienced another decade or two of rapid
growth. Given the similarity of their economic systems, there is no obvious reason
China should differ.


CHINA HASN’T OVER-INVESTED IN INFRASTRUCTURE

Arthur Kroeber, editor China Economic Quarterly, Brookings, May 2012
     [Foreign Policy May 22, 2012
     http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/22/bear_in_a_china_shop]

And despite years of breakneck building, China's stock of fixed capital -- the total value
of infrastructure, housing, and industrial plants -- is not all that large relative to either
the economy or the population. Rich countries typically have a capital stock a bit more
than three times their annual GDP. For China, the figure is about two and a half. And
on a per capita basis, China has about as much fixed capital as Japan did in the late
                               Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                             p. 46 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


1960s and less than a third of what the United States had as long ago as 1930. Further
large-scale investments are still required. So China's economy can continue to grow in
part based on capital spending, though a gradual transition to a consumer-led
economy does need to begin soon.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 47 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


               HIGHWAYS – CHINA – AT: CHINA’S ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE


PREDICTIONS OF CHINESE ECONOMIC DECLINE HAVE BEEN WRONG AND
PROVEN UNLIKELY HISTORICALLY

Gideon Rachman, foreign affair commentator, Financial Times 2011
       [Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2011
       http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/think_again_american_decline?
]
But predictions of the imminent demise of the Chinese miracle have been a regular
feature of Western analysis ever since it got rolling in the late 1970s. In 1989, the
Communist Party seemed to be staggering after the Tiananmen Square massacre. In
the 1990s, economy watchers regularly pointed to the parlous state of Chinese banks
and state-owned enterprises. Yet the Chinese economy has kept growing, doubling in
size roughly every seven years. Of course, it would be absurd to pretend that China
does not face major challenges. In the short term, there is plenty of evidence that a
property bubble is building in big cities like Shanghai, and inflation is on the rise. Over
the long term, China has alarming political and economic transitions to navigate. The
Communist Party is unlikely to be able to maintain its monopoly on political power
forever. And the country's traditional dependence on exports and an undervalued
currency are coming under increasing criticism from the United States and other
international actors demanding a "rebalancing" of China's export-driven economy. The
country also faces major demographic and environmental challenges: The population
is aging rapidly as a result of the one-child policy, and China is threatened by water
shortages and pollution. Yet even if you factor in considerable future economic and
political turbulence, it would be a big mistake to assume that the Chinese challenge to
U.S. power will simply disappear. Once countries get the hang of economic growth, it
takes a great deal to throw them off course. The analogy to the rise of Germany from
the mid-19th century onward is instructive. Germany went through two catastrophic
military defeats, hyperinflation, the Great Depression, the collapse of democracy, and
the destruction of its major cities and infrastructure by Allied bombs. And yet by the
end of the 1950s, West Germany was once again one of the world's leading
economies, albeit shorn of its imperial ambitions.


SIZE AND MOMENTUM ASSURE CHINA’S CONTINUED RISE

Gideon Rachman, foreign affair commentator, Financial Times 2011


                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                               p. 48 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


      [Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2011
      http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/think_again_american_decline?
]
And whatever economic and political difficulties it does experience will not be enough
to stop the country's rise to great-power status. Sheer size and economic momentum
mean that the Chinese juggernaut will keep rolling forward, no matter what obstacles
lie in its path.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                p. 49 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff




                         HIGHWAYS – CHINA – IMPACT EXTENSIONS


WAR WITH CHINA OVER TAIWAN COULD OCCUR FROM MISCALCULATION

Michael Swaine, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment, 2005
     [www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail&id=771&&prog=
zch]

“It is by no means certain that a severe military-political crisis over Taiwan could be
contained. In such a crisis, the danger of rapid and uncontrollable escalation would
probably exist, as each side sought to convey its resolve, neutralize or deflect actual
military strikes, and defend against potential attacks. The dangers of this situation
would be enormously aggravated by the fact that US military actions might be read by
the Chinese leadership as a threat to China’s nuclear arsenal, requiring a robust
response. A further danger is presented by the possibility that Taiwan might take
actions that serve to escalate the crisis, either inadvertently or by design.”




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 50 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                         HIGHWAYS – CHINA – IMPACT EXTENSIONS


CHINA’S ECONOMIC THREAT TO THE U.S. IS REAL

Gideon Rachman, foreign affair commentator, Financial Times 2011
     [Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2011
     http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/think_again_american_decline?
]

This time it's different. It's certainly true that America has been through cycles of
declinism in the past. Campaigning for the presidency in 1960, John F.
Kennedy complained, "American strength relative to that of the Soviet Union has been
slipping, and communism has been advancing steadily in every area of the world."
Ezra Vogel's Japan as Number One was published in 1979, heralding a decade of
steadily rising paranoia about Japanese manufacturing techniques and trade policies.
In the end, of course, the Soviet and Japanese threats to American supremacy proved
chimerical. So Americans can be forgiven if they greet talk of a new challenge from
China as just another case of the boy who cried wolf. But a frequently overlooked fact
about that fable is that the boy was eventually proved right. The wolf did arrive -- and
China is the wolf. The Chinese challenge to the United States is more serious for both
economic and demographic reasons. The Soviet Union collapsed because its
economic system was highly inefficient, a fatal flaw that was disguised for a long time
because the USSR never attempted to compete on world markets. China, by contrast,
has proved its economic prowess on the global stage. Its economy has been growing
at 9 to 10 percent a year, on average, for roughly three decades. It is now the world's
leading exporter and its biggest manufacturer, and it is sitting on more than $2.5 trillion
of foreign reserves. Chinese goods compete all over the world. This is no Soviet-style
economic basket case. Japan, of course, also experienced many years of rapid
economic growth and is still an export powerhouse. But it was never a plausible
candidate to be No. 1. The Japanese population is less than half that of the United
States, which means that the average Japanese person would have to be more than
twice as rich as the average American before Japan's economy surpassed America's.
That was never going to happen. By contrast, China's population is more than four
times that of the United States. The famous projection by Goldman Sachs that China's
economy will be bigger than that of the United States by 2027 was made before the
2008 economic crash. At the current pace, China could be No. 1 well before then.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 51 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                          HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY EXTENSIONS


U.S. ECONOMIC DECLINE IS COSTING US INFLUENCE

Gideon Rachman, foreign affair commentator, Financial Times 2011
     [Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2011
     http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/think_again_american_decline?
]

China's economic prowess is already allowing Beijing to challenge American influence
all over the world. The Chinese are the preferred partners of many African
governments and the biggest trading partner of other emerging powers, such as Brazil
and South Africa. China is also stepping in to buy the bonds of financially strapped
members of the eurozone, such as Greece and Portugal. And China is only the largest
part of a bigger story about the rise of new economic and political players. America's
traditional allies in Europe -- Britain, France, Italy, even Germany -- are slipping down
the economic ranks. New powers are on the rise: India, Brazil, Turkey. They each have
their own foreign-policy preferences, which collectively constrain America's ability to
shape the world. Think of how India and Brazil sided with China at the global climate-
change talks. Or the votes by Turkey and Brazil against America at the United Nations
on sanctions against Iran. That is just a taste of things to come.



GEO-POLITICS IS A ZERO SUM COMPETITION

Gideon Rachman, foreign affair commentator, Financial Times 2011
     [Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2011
     http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/think_again_american_decline?
]

And when it comes to the broader geopolitical picture, the world of the future looks
even more like a zero-sum game, despite the gauzy rhetoric of globalization that
comforted the last generation of American politicians. For the United States has been
acting as if the mutual interests created by globalization have repealed one of the
oldest laws of international politics: the notion that rising players eventually clash with
established powers. In fact, rivalry between a rising China and a weakened America is
now apparent across a whole range of issues, from territorial disputes in Asia to human
rights.

                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 52 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                          HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY EXTENSIONS


U.S. HEGEMONY CAN BE THREATENED SUDDENLY BY AN ECONOMIC
FAILURE

Niall Ferguson, professor Harvard Business School, February 28, 2010
      [http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/28/opinion/la-oe-ferguson28-2010feb28]
If empires are complex systems that sooner or later succumb to sudden and
catastrophic malfunctions, what are the implications for the United States today? First,
debating the stages of decline may be a waste of time -- it is a precipitous and
unexpected fall that should most concern policymakers and citizens. Second, most
imperial falls are associated with fiscal crises. Alarm bells should therefore be ringing
very loudly indeed as the United States contemplates a deficit for 2010 of more than
$1.5 trillion -- about 11% of GDP, the biggest since World War II. These numbers are
bad, but in the realm of political entities, the role of perception is just as crucial. In
imperial crises, it is not the material underpinnings of power that really matter but
expectations about future power. The fiscal numbers cited above cannot erode U.S.
strength on their own, but they can work to weaken a long-assumed faith in the United
States' ability to weather any crisis.


HISTORY PROVES U.S. PRIMACY COULD COLLAPSE SUDDENLY

Niall Ferguson, professor Harvard Business School, February 28, 2010
       [http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/28/opinion/la-oe-ferguson28-2010feb28]
Over the last three years, the complex system of the global economy flipped from
boom to bust -- all because a bunch of Americans started to default on their subprime
mortgages, thereby blowing huge holes in the business models of thousands of highly
leveraged financial institutions. The next phase of the current crisis may begin when
the public begins to reassess the credibility of the radical monetary and fiscal steps
that were taken in response. Neither interest rates at zero nor fiscal stimulus can
achieve a sustainable recovery if people in the United States and abroad collectively
decide, overnight, that such measures will ultimately lead to much higher inflation rates
or outright default. Bond yields can shoot up if expectations change about future
government solvency, intensifying an already bad fiscal crisis by driving up the cost of
interest payments on new debt. Just ask Greece. Ask Russia too. Fighting a losing
battle in the mountains of the Hindu Kush has long been a harbinger of imperial fall.
What happened 20 years ago is a reminder that empires do not in fact appear, rise,
reign, decline and fall according to some recurrent and predictable life cycle. It is
historians who retrospectively portray the process of imperial dissolution as slow-
                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                              p. 53 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


acting. Rather, empires behave like all complex adaptive systems. They function in
apparent equilibrium for some unknowable period. And then, quite abruptly, they
collapse. Washington, you have been warned.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                   p. 54 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                          HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY EXTENSIONS

US DECLINING

Richard Maher, PhD. candidate, Brown University, ORBIS, March 2011
     [ORBIS, Winter 2011 Volume 55, Issue 1 p. 54 ]

And yet, despite this material preeminence, the United States sees its political and
strategic influence diminishing around the world. It is involved in two costly and
destructive wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, where success has been elusive and the
end remains out of sight. China has adopted a new assertiveness recently, on
everything from U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, currency convertibility, and America’s
growing debt (which China largely finances). Pakistan, one of America’s closest
strategic allies, is facing the threat of social and political collapse. Russia is using its
vast energy resources to reassert its dominance in what it views as its historical sphere
of influence. Negotiations with North Korea and Iran have gone nowhere in dismantling
their nuclear programs. Brazil’s growing economic and political influence offer another
option for partnership and investment for countries in the Western Hemisphere. And
relations with Japan, following the election that brought the opposition Democratic
Party into power, are at their frostiest in decades. To many observers, it seems that
America’s vast power is not translating into America’s preferred outcomes. As the
United States has come to learn, raw power does not automatically translate into the
realization of one’s preferences, nor is it necessarily easy to maintain one’s
predominant position in world politics.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 55 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                          HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY - SCENARIOS


AMERICAN DECLINE WOULD INCREASE INSTABILITY IN PAKISTAN, WITH
POSSIBLE ESCALATION

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor, 2012
     [Foreign Policy January/February 2012
     http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/8_geopolitically_endangered_s
pecies]

Although Islamabad is armed with 21st-century nuclear weapons and held together by
a professional late 20th-century army, the majority of Pakistan is still pre-modern, rural,
and largely defined by regional and tribal identities. Conflict with India defines
Pakistan's sense of national identity, while the forcible division of Kashmir sustains a
shared and profound antipathy. Pakistan's political instability is its greatest
vulnerability, and a decline in U.S. power would reduce America's ability to aid
Pakistan's consolidation and development. Pakistan could then transform into a state
run by the military, a radical Islamic state, a state that combined both military and
Islamic rule, or a "state" with no centralized government at all. At stake: Nuclear
warlordism; a militant Islamic, anti-Western, nuclear-armed government similar to
Iran's; regional instability in Central Asia, with violence potentially spreading to China,
India, and Russia.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 56 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                          HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY - SCENARIOS


AMERICAN DECLINE LEADS TO MIDDLE EAST WAR AND ISRAEL/IRAN
ATTACK

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor, 2012
     [Foreign Policy January/February 2012
     http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/8_geopolitically_endangered_s
pecies]

America's decline would set in motion tectonic shifts undermining the political stability
of the entire Middle East. All states in the region remain vulnerable to varying degrees
of internal populist pressures, social unrest, and religious fundamentalism, as seen by
the events of early 2011. If America's decline were to occur with the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict still unresolved, the failure to implement a mutually acceptable two-state
solution would further inflame the region's political atmosphere. Regional hostility to
Israel would then intensify. Perceived American weakness would at some point tempt
the more powerful states in the region, notably Iran or Israel, to preempt anticipated
dangers. And jockeying for tactical advantage could precipitate eruptions by Hamas or
Hezbollah, which could then escalate into wider and bloodier military encounters.
Weak entities such as Lebanon and Palestine would pay an especially high price in
civilian deaths. Even worse, such conflicts could rise to truly horrific levels through
strikes and counterstrikes between Iran and Israel. At stake: Direct Israeli or U.S.
confrontation with Iran; a rising tide of Islamic radicalism and extremism; a worldwide
energy crisis; vulnerability of America's Persian Gulf allies.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 57 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                     HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY – GREAT POWER WAR


IF AMERICA BECOMES CONVINCED OF DECLINE, IT MAY BEGIN TO PULL
BACK AND UNDERMINE THE WORLD ORDER

Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, January 2012
      [http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/99521/america-world-power-
declinism]

BUT THERE IS a danger. It is that in the meantime, while the nation continues to
struggle, Americans may convince themselves that decline is indeed inevitable, or that
the United States can take a time-out from its global responsibilities while it gets its
own house in order. To many Americans, accepting decline may provide a welcome
escape from the moral and material burdens that have weighed on them since World
War II. Many may unconsciously yearn to return to the way things were in 1900, when
the United States was rich, powerful, and not responsible for world order. The
underlying assumption of such a course is that the present world order will more or
less persist without American power, or at least with much less of it; or that others can
pick up the slack; or simply that the benefits of the world order are permanent and
require no special exertion by anyone. Unfortunately, the present world order—with its
widespread freedoms, its general prosperity, and its absence of great power conflict—
is as fragile as it is unique. Preserving it has been a struggle in every decade, and will
remain a struggle in the decades to come. Preserving the present world order requires
constant American leadership and constant American commitment. In the end, the
decision is in the hands of Americans.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 58 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                     HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY – GREAT POWER WAR


U.S. DECLINIST POLICIES RISK WORLD WAR

Zalmay Khalilzad, former US Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, Feb 8, 2011
     [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-
zalmay-khalilzad?pg=2]

If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of
whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap
between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among
major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one
another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of
the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period
of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast,
multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in
frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar
international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have
devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers
could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario,
there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises
spiraling into all-out conflict.


PREEMINENCE HAS GAINED MUCH FOR THE U.S.

Richard Maher, PhD. candidate, Brown University, ORBIS, March 2011
     [ORBIS, Winter 2011 Volume 55, Issue 1 p. 59 ]

To say that the end of unquestioned preeminence may be good for the United States is
counterintuitive. Power matters in international politics, and preeminence has produced
a number of benefits for the United States (and its allies): security, especially from
attack by other states, and the absence of power competition more generally; relative
order and stability, particularly the decreasing frequency of inter-state war; prosperity
and unparalleled wealth creation, and greater freedom of action and influence over
events. Preeminence, by definition, entails few constraints to the projection of power
and influence abroad. By virtue of its position, other countries naturally look to the
United States for leadership, on everything from Middle East peace to climate change.
All other things being equal, preeminence clearly is preferable to a position of
subservience, lack of agency, and weakness.
                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                             p. 59 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 60 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                     HIGHWAYS – US PRIMACY – GREAT POWER WAR


AMERICAN PRIMACY REDUCES THE RISK OF WAR

Bradley Thayer, assoc prof, Missouri State Univ, The National Interest 2006
     [In Defense of Primacy, National Interest, Nov/Dec 2006 Issue 86]

In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American
primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for
Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold
War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical
antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps
keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey,
Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia.
This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur
where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a
Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power
wars.


AMERICAN WITHDRAWAL MAKES WAR WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS MORE
LIKELY

Robert Kagan, senior associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
2007
      [Policy Review No. 144, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-
review/article/6136]

The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be
nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system.
Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international
competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents
these rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance.
Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the
strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers
have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often
through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One
novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess
nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply
make them more catastrophic.
                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                             p. 61 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                p. 62 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


             HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY


THE U.S. NEEDS A MORE TARGETED INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs,
Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation, 2011
     [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic
Growth,    National Transportation Policy Project, January 21, 2011]

The United States must advance an approach to federal transportation policy that both
promotes long-term economic growth and supports high-quality jobs. Wise and well-
targeted expenditures on transportation infrastructure can generate lasting productivity
gains, while also providing a more immediate stimulus to accelerate the nation’s
ongoing recovery from a devastating recession. In the current environment of growing
deficits and urgent pressure to cut spending, the ability to demonstrate that scarce
taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently is essential. This means that more
comprehensive and sophisticated analytical tools are needed to assess the short- and
long-run benefits of different transportation programs and projects. Simply put, the
nation can no longer afford to support poorly targeted investments when the needs are
so great and public resources are so constrained. Further, a more rigorous method for
setting transportation priorities will support an investment strategy that maximizes the
transportation sector’s contribution to sustained economic growth and recovery.



INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT HELPS ECONOMY IN MANY WAYS

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

American families and communities are suffering from the consequences of anemic
economic growth and high unemployment. Meanwhile, aging roads, bridges, water
systems, and other key public assets are putting our public safety and national
economic competitiveness at risk. The challenges present an obvious opportunity for
bipartisan action: Boost infrastructure investments that build permanent public
assets, generate business for small- and medium-sized companies, create jobs, and
enhance our global competitiveness.


                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                               p. 63 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


             HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY


INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING HAS THE LARGEST ECONOMIC MULTIPLIER
EFFECT

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

Among the tools at the government’s disposal to boost jobs, rebuilding our
infrastructure is one of the options with the greatest impact. After President Barack
Obama proposed the American Jobs Act, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s
Analytics, found in 2011 that new federal spending for infrastructure improvements to
highways and public schools would generate $1.44 of economic activity for each $1
spent. In reviewing the economic impact of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Congressional Budget Office found that infrastructure
investments and purchases by the federal government for goods and services had
the largest jobs multiplier impact of all the stimulus elements.


HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING BOOSTS THE ECONOMY IN SEVERAL
WAYS

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

Highway infrastructure can affect the economy in a number of ways, nearly all of them
related to increasing mobility. It can enable producers to reach markets more cheaply,
to increase the size of their market area, and to have a broader choice of input
suppliers. It can increase the speed with which producers can reach markets or inputs,
allowing them to hold lower inventories and carry out just-in-time production. Highway
infrastructure can enable workers to choose among a wider array of employment
opportunities and to live farther from their workplaces. It can enable consumers to have
a more varied choice of goods, services, and prices. Not all highway infrastructure
produces these outcomes in the same way. Some transportation infrastructure serves
purely local needs, whereas other infrastructure enables connections to national and
international markets. Besides the longer-run effects, highway infrastructure also can

                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                               p. 64 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


boost economic activity through immediate construction activity that results from new
highway infrastructure investment.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 65 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


             HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY


NATIONAL-LEVEL STUDIES FIND ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

Finally, we also found that papers that analyzed national level data were more likely
than studies that analyzed state-level or substate-level data to find a positive and
significant relationship between infrastructure and economic outcomes. We believe
that this reflects the findings of much of the analysis at the state level and below that
highway infrastructure has a tendency to reallocate economic activity and not just to
increase it. Furthermore, national-level studies may be more likely to capture
geographically distant spillovers that could be quite important but might not be found in
a study concentrating on more constrained geographic areas.


PROJECTS OF “NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE” HAVE BETTER ECONOMIC IMPACT
THAN LOCAL PROJECTS

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

Currently, federal spending goes to a large variety of highway projects, including those
that may have only local effects or even net negative effects. With the United States
facing fiscal constraints, federal highway spending can fulfill the policy aim of
supporting better economic performance by focusing on projects that have positive net
benefits dispersed over large geographic areas. We refer to these as projects of
national significance, and we suggest that they are the most likely to be in the national
interest and worthy of national funding.


GENERALLY, HIGHWAY SPENDING INCREASES ECONOMIC GROWTH FOR
SEVERAL REASONS

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                p. 66 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


      [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
      http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

In this study, we concentrated on this foundational issue and explored the extent to
which highway investments in fact contribute to improvement in economic outcomes.
Transportation investments generate improvements in economic well-being by
increasing connectivity and reducing travel time, and, in the best case, they increase
productivity— the ability to generate more output from each unit of labor, capital, and
materials inputs. Productivity increases lead to higher employee earnings, higher
profits, and improved standards of living. These, in turn, encourage private capital
investments in structures, equipment, and technologies and thus create jobs. Aside
from productivity improvements, other valuable outcomes include increases in output,
employment, and income.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                p. 67 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


             HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY


HIGHWAY INVESTMENTS WILL ONLY HELP THE ECONOMY IF THEY ARE
PROPERLY PLANNED TO ENHANCE THE OVERALL NETWORK

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

This suggests at the very least that in a developed economy with a comprehensive
highway system, such as that of the United States, it is inappropriate to expect that
each highway investment will have large positive economic effects. Investments are
more likely to have large and positive effects if properly planned to play central
network-enhancing roles.


HIGHER PRODUCTIVITY FROM IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE IS THE KEY TO
LONG TERM ECONOMIC GROWTH

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs,
Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation, 2011
     [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic
Growth,    National Transportation Policy Project, January 21, 2011]

Over the long-term, higher productivity—the ability to generate more output and
income from each dollar of capital or hour of work—is the key to higher labor earnings
and improved standards of living. Because higher productivity is so central to economic
growth, it must be an explicit concern, rather than a presumed outcome based on
increased spending, when Congress finally takes up a comprehensive authorization
bill. At the same time, of course, Congress will need to address other long-term
transportation-related objectives including safety, energy independence, and
environmental sustainability. High-productivity transportation investments can generate
improvements in economic well-being by increasing connectivity and reducing
congestion. This represents a critical dimension of improving long-term employment,
allowing labor to enhance its productivity at lower cost and encouraging private capital
investments in structures, equipment, and technologies to reap higher returns from
American industry. Of course, these investments also create direct employment
opportunities—primarily in the construction industry—but this short-term job creation,

                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                               p. 68 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


while vitally important, must be viewed within the context provided by a longer-term
view.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                               p. 69 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


             HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY


LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY IS THE KEY TO JOB CREATION BECAUSE ANY
GOVERNMENT SPENDING PROGRAM WOULD CREATE JOBS IN THE SHORT
TERM

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs,
Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation, 2011
     [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic
Growth,    National Transportation Policy Project, January 21, 2011]

A focus on high-productivity investments does not mean ignoring jobs impacts, rather it
means shifting the emphasis to longer-term job creation. A more effective
transportation network will draw jobs to related industries, including sea transport,
warehousing, land transport, and so forth—jobs that, for the most part, will last much
longer than short-term construction jobs. It is also important to understand, however,
that any shift in resources creates losers as well as winners. A dollar spent on
transportation means a dollar less to spend on other public investments or programs.
In an environment of finite resources, funding transportation projects will create jobs,
but at the expense of jobs that could have been created in other sectors had the
money been used differently. This is why reform to direct government spending to the
most productive investments is so crucial. While transportation investment always
“creates jobs,” its net effect on workers and the economy as a whole—taking into
account the benefits that will be foregone as a result of reduced public spending in
other areas of the economy—will be positive only if government transportation
investments are rigorously selected to meet productivity criteria.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                p. 70 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


             HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY


TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS EXPAND MARKETS AND
CREATE TRADE SPECIALIZATION ADVANTAGES, CAUSING ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT

T.R. Lakshmanan, Boston University, Dept of Geography and Environment, 2011
      [J of Transport Georgraphy, 19 (2011) p.1-12]

Fig. 8 offers one view of the mechanisms and processes underlying the wider
economic benefits of transport infrastructure investments. It is a contemporary version
of what the Economic Historians, (e.g. Williamson, 1974; O’Brien, 1983) call ‘‘forward
linkages” of transport infrastructure. The lower costs and increased accessibility due to
transport improvements modify the marginal costs of transport producers, the
households’ mobility and demand for goods and services. Such changes ripple through
the market mechanisms endogenizing employment, output, and income in the short
run. Over time dynamic development effects derive from the mechanisms set in motion
when transport service improvements activate a variety of interconnected economy-
wide processes and yield a range of sectoral, spatial, and regional effects, that
augment overall productivity. The lower costs and enhanced accessibility due to
transport infrastructure and service improvements expand markets for individual
transport-using firms. As such market expansion links the economies of different
localities and regions, there is a major consequence in terms of shifting from local and
regional autarky to increasing specialization and trade and the resultant upsurge in
productivity. Thus, the US Interstate Highway System, the Trans- European Network
(TEN) Program and super-efficient ocean ports all contribute to ‘‘Smithian” growth—
growth arising from specialization and trade.

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT LEAD TO GAINS IN TRADE BETWEEN
REGIONS AND NATIONS

T.R. Lakshmanan, Boston University, Dept of Geography and Environment, 2011
      [J of Transport Georgraphy, 19 (2011) p.1-12]

The lowering of travel time and costs, and the service improvements induced by
transport infrastructure expands the markets for individual transport-using firms. As
such market expansion links the economies of different localities and regions, there is
a major consequence in terms of a shift from local and regional autarky to increasing
specialization and trade and the consequent upsurge in productivity. This is as true for
inter-regional trade between highly differentiated regional economies in continental
                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                            p. 71 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


regions such as the United States or the European Union as for cross-border
international trade in Free Trade Areas (FTAs). The US Interstate Highway System, the
Trans-European Network program and the emergence of super-efficient ocean ports all
contribute to ‘‘Smithian” growth—growth arising due to specialization and trade.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                   p. 72 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


             HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY


INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT CAN PROVIDE THE “BIG PUSH” NECESSARY
TO TRIGGER MASSIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH

T.R. Lakshmanan, Boston University, Dept of Geography and Environment, 2011
      [J of Transport Geography, 19 (2011) p.1-12]

Rosenstein-Rodan (1943) and Hirschman (1958) described a problem of development
in traditional economies whereby investment in increasing returns to scale
technologies (i.e. industrialization) in a single production sector is not profitable, but
simultaneous investment in such technologies by several sectors is profitable. This can
occur for several reasons. Most notably, when there are linkages between sectors by
means of intermediate goods, expanding one sector expands the market of other
sectors. Thus if all sectors industrialize at once there are mutually supportive
intermediate demands that allow them all to achieve scale economies. This is the
justification for a ‘‘big push” industrialization policy as a means to address the
coordination failure. Another reason for coordination failure is the fact that no single
sector can support the transportation or other infrastructure necessary for its
industrialization. If all sectors industrialize at once, they can jointly support this
infrastructure. In light of this, investment in public infrastructure may be viewed as a
policy to overcome coordination failure for two reasons. First, it may be sufficient to
make it profitable for all sectors to industrialize independently. Second, even if it is not
sufficient to create independent profitability, it may provide a signal to firms in all
sectors to anticipate widespread industrialization.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                               p. 73 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


             HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY


CORRECTLY TARGETED TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
WOULD STIMULATE LONG TERM ECONOMIC GROWTH

Bill Bradley, Tom Ridge, David Walker, Carnegie Endowment, 2011
      [Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation, 2011
      http://carnegieendowment.org/files/road_to_recovery.pdf]

America’s underinvestment in transportation means that its mobility alternatives are
circumscribed. U.S. investment in transportation infrastructure does not optimize its
contribution to economic growth. Roads dominated by cars and trucks outstrip all
other modes. There is a limited capability to handle both recurring and nonrecurring
disruptions—a huge lost opportunity. Studies show that infrastructure investment,
targeted strategically, underpins economic productivity. Spending on infrastructure
creates access to jobs, stimulates long-term economic growth, and engenders a
multitude of other positive economic activities.


INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING INCREASES ECONOMIC GROWTH THREE WAYS

Bill Bradley, Tom Ridge, David Walker, Carnegie Endowment, 2011
      [Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation, 2011
      http://carnegieendowment.org/files/road_to_recovery.pdf]

Transportation, after all, is a means to an end, not an end in itself. And in a national
context, this end is economic growth. Therefore, transportation investments should
catalyze growth in three important ways. First, transportation projects may lead to
gains in TFP, which are often realized in the form of “agglomeration economies”—
which simply means that interconnectedness and density benefit firms through
knowledge spillovers, greater supplier access, and larger labor markets. Indeed, it
has been asserted that “without increasing returns to scale in the context of
transportation improvements, it is impossible to account for the observed spatial
concentration of firms and regional specialization in regional and national economies.”
Second, reduced transportation costs may lead to increased output in transportation-
using sectors, mostly by reducing firms’ inventory and logistical costs. And third,
macroeconomic benefit is likely to be derived from additional tax revenues to the
degree to which transportation investments increase land values and/or enhance
access to higher-paying jobs.

                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 74 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


             HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY


INFRASTRUCTURE IS THE FOUNDATION OF PAST AND FUTURE AMERICAN
COMPETITIVENESS

Matthew Slaughter, Professor, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth, 2011
     [Building Competitiveness, Organization of International Investment, April 12,
2011
     http://www.ofii.org/news-room/ofii-press-releases/976-ofii-kicks-off-infrastructure-
            campaign-to-build-.html]

Infrastructure has long been one of the foundations of America’s competitive success.
The competitive success of the United States over much of the 20th century was
based on extended periods of strong productivity growth in companies and resulting
growth in average earnings for workers. High-quality infrastructure has helped boost
U.S. productivity and standards of living, in part by encouraging global companies to
create high-paying jobs here. Today, however, America’s infrastructure is
deteriorating—both in absolute terms and relative to other countries that are rapidly
bolstering their infrastructure. Improving America’s infrastructure will boost its global
competitiveness. Although very welcome, renewed U.S. economic growth and ongoing
recovery from the World Financial Crisis and Great Recession have not eliminated the
reality that today the United States is in a new era of global competition to attract,
retain, and grow the dynamic jobs of global companies. These companies have ever-
widening choices for where to locate around the world, choices for which infrastructure
is a major consideration. Not improving America’s infrastructure now could mean the
loss of future American investment and jobs to other countries.


RESEARCH LINKS INFRASTRUCTURE TO ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY

Matthew Slaughter, Professor, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth, 2011
     [Building Competitiveness, Organization of International Investment, April 12,
2011
     http://www.ofii.org/news-room/ofii-press-releases/976-ofii-kicks-off-infrastructure-
            campaign-to-build-.html]

A large body of research has documented the many economic benefits America has
derived from building and maintaining its infrastructure. A recent report from the U.S.
Treasury and Council of Economic Advisers summarized the evidence as follows.
Many studies have found evidence of large private sector productivity gains from public
                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                p. 75 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


infrastructure investments, in many cases with higher returns than private capital
investment. Research has shown that well designed infrastructure investments can
raise economic growth, productivity, and land values, while also providing significant
positive spillovers to areas such as economic development, energy efficiency, public
health, and manufacturing.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 76 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


             HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN HELPS ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY


RESEARCH CLEARLY LINKS INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT WITH
PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH

Matthew Slaughter, Professor, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth, 2011
     [Building Competitiveness, Organization of International Investment, April 12,
2011
     http://www.ofii.org/news-room/ofii-press-releases/976-ofii-kicks-off-infrastructure-
            campaign-to-build-.html]

Research has documented that periods of strong U.S. productivity growth were
generally also periods of high levels of U.S. infrastructure investment, and conversely
that the post-1973 slowdown in U.S. productivity coincided with a slowdown in U.S.
infrastructure spending. This strong country-level correlation between infrastructure
spending and productivity appears in many other advanced countries. For example,
one study of 21 OECD countries over 20 years found that higher telecommunications
investment boosts GDP, especially when the critical mass of near-universal access is
achieved (with, on average, a 10% increase in the penetration rate boosting
economic growth by 1.5%). Other researchers have linked infrastructure to productivity
growth for particular industries and regions. For example, one important study
documented how building America’s interstate highway system in the 1950s and
1960s, which accounted for about 25% of total U.S. non-residential investment over
that generation, boosted productivity growth in vehicle-intensive industries such as
construction, utilities, and wholesale and retail trade.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                               p. 77 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


              HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN ATTRACTS PRIVATE INVESTMENT


SUBSIDY INCREASES THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

Private investors have partnered with state or local governments to build roads,
expand highway systems, and build or repair bridges. Typically in this case the
private investor pays the public entity upfront an estimated market value for the
transportation asset, and then is required under an agreement to cover the cost of
improving the asset. In addition, these agreements permit the investor to charge tolls
or receive dedicated tax payments while also establishing clear maintenance
requirements. Investors enter into these agreements where the tolls or dedicated
taxes are projected to cover all costs and profits and are most attractive to investors
when the level of earnings has the potential to exceed projections. Federal credit
subsidies lower the overall project costs, which in turn reduces the pressure on tolls
and/or dedicated taxes, which then has the positive results of making a project more
politically and financially feasible.


FEDERAL RESOURCES CAN STIMULATE PRIVATE INVESTMENT BY REDUCING
RISK – EXAMPLE, ENERGY

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

Private investment in energy infrastructure works very differently. In this sector,
investors expect public funds to reduce the risk that their private market product
cannot cover its costs in the short run. For instance, while a private investor may be
confident that they can recoup their costs and earn a profit from the construction of a
wind farm overtime, it can take several years before a wind farm is generating enough
revenue to cover operating costs plus debt and profits. Public financing reduces
overall project costs and thereby shortens the length of time that a private investor
has to wait to begin to receive reasonable returns on an investment. In each of these
critical infrastructure sectors, increased federal resources made available in the form
of credit subsidies or tax expenditures can increase the level of private-sector
investment.
                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                             p. 78 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 79 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


              HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN ATTRACTS PRIVATE INVESTMENT


JOINT PUBLIC PRIVATE VENTURES LIKELY IN TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

The balance of the private investment is likely to occur in the transportation sector. In
this sector, new private investment will most likely occur through the formation of new
entities where the public sector and private sector join forces to undertake large-scale
infrastructure improvements financed with private capital and where the projects
generate revenues that can pay back private investors while the private investor and
the government share the risk of the project being financially viable. The most likely
candidates for this approach to financing are airports, ports, inland waterways, new
tolled roads, some existing roads that might be tolled, and tolled bridges.

FEDERAL LOAN AND LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAMS HAVE LOW COSTS

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

Federal loans and loan guarantees play a small but increasingly significant role in
U.S. infrastructure improvements. CAP’s review of the plethora of federal loan and
loan guarantee programs concluded that in 2010 nine major federal government
lending programs had approximately $124 billion in credit capacity for core public
infrastructure projects. For federal budgeting purposes, the cost of these programs is
called the credit subsidy, which is determined by the Office of Management and
Budget for each program after accounting for expected principal disbursement, loan
repayments, defaults, and interest or fees collected. Based on our analysis, this
maximum capacity would cost the government an estimated $3.25 billion.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                               p. 80 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


              HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN ATTRACTS PRIVATE INVESTMENT


TRANSPORTATION LOAN GUARANTEES END UP COSTING 10 PERCENT OF
THE LOAN AMOUNT DUE TO INTEREST SUBSIDIES AND NON-PAYMENTS

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

The 1998 Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act, or TIFIA,
authorized federal credit programs to support publicly funded transportation
infrastructure. Through the TIFIA program, infrastructure projects that cost at least
$50 million are competitively selected for federally subsidized loans and loan
guarantees to state and local governments, public and private transportation
authorities such as turnpikes and airports, and private sponsors of new projects.
These loans are backed by an annual appropriation of credit assistance for lines of
credit and loans issued. TIFIA loans are capped at 33 percent of overall project costs
and offer low-interest, long-term loans with a two-year grace period before principal
and interest payments begin. The cost to the U.S. Treasury for these loans and loan
guarantees are estimated to be 10 percent of the overall value of the federal loan or
guarantee for accounting purposes, figuring in the cost of an interest subsidy and the
risk of possible losses on the loans and loan guarantees. The TIFIA program’s $122
million FY 2010 appropriation enables the Department of Transportation to lend or
guarantee slightly more than $1 billion per year toward public, private, and public-
private partnership infrastructure projects.


TRANSPORTATION LOAN GUARANTEES HAVE LOW DEFAULT RATES

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

Over the past 12 years, the TIFIA program has entered into 25 loan agreements
totaling $8.7 billion. In some cases, the public and private sponsors of projects found
enough capital to exceed the program’s matching requirements. As a result, for well
less than $10 billion, TIFIA loans enabled $33 billion in public and private capital
improvements to public highways, airports, mass transit systems, and large
intermodal centers. The federal government has been making loans and loan

                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 81 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


guarantees for transportation infrastructure projects for nearly a decade with negligible
defaults.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                            p. 82 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


              HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – PLAN ATTRACTS PRIVATE INVESTMENT


FEDERAL TAX CREDITS OR SUBSIDIES CAN LOWER STATE AND PRIVATE
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

The federal government uses two tax code tools to incentivize infrastructure
investment. One tool is the subsidy of infrastructure finance made possible by
exempting from federal taxes the interest earnings from bonds issued by state and
local governments for this purpose. State and local governments issue these
taxexempt bonds to finance capital improvements to roads, transit, public works, and
schools. The tax-free stream of income attracts private investors because they are
willing to accept lower returns than if the bonds were taxable. In 2009 and 2010 the
government made available another class of subsidized bonds. The earnings on
these bonds, known as Build America Bonds, were taxable, but the federal government
lowered the cost of infrastructure projects for state and local governments by paying
part of an issuer’s interest cost, which means that the federal subsidy was given
directly to the state or local government rather than the investors.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                p. 83 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                     HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – BUILD AMERICA BONDS


BUILD AMERICA BONDS LOWER THE COST OF STATE INFRASTRUCTURE
PROGRAMS

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

In 2009 Congress created the Build America Bonds program, a taxable alternative to
tax-exempt bonds. Build America Bonds were taxable state- and-local government
bonds that had the same investment restrictions as tax-exempt bonds but could only
be used for new projects. And they differed from tax-exempt bonds because the
federal government paid a subsidy equal to 35 percent of the interest to the issuer. By
making direct subsidy payments to state and local issuers, the federal government
was able to ensure the entire subsidy accrued to issuers, rather than partially to high-
income bondholders. The recent Center for American Progress report “Bring Back
BABs: A Proposal to Strengthen the Municipal Bond Market with Build America
Bonds” points out these bonds were a more efficient way of subsidizing state and local
infrastructure finance. And because these bonds were taxable, they expanded the
market for municipal bonds to traditional taxable bond investors and international
investors. This type of long-term and nationally attractive bond increased the demand
for municipal securities and helped drive down borrowing costs for state and local
governments, providing much-needed support to long-overdue infrastructure
investment.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                p. 84 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


       HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – FOCUS ON PROJECTS OF “NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE”


ADOPTING THE “WIDER ECONOMIC BENEFIT” STUDY METHOD CAN MEASURE
THE SPILLOVER EFFECTS

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

In fact, there are efforts under way to modify cost-benefit analysis in a way that might
capture such spillovers. The most notable of these efforts is the development of the
measurement of what has come to be known as wider economic benefits (WEB). WEB
includes such transportation-infrastructure-related economic effects as agglomeration
externalities, meaning effects from the increased concentration of businesses;
improvements in competition; increased output in markets that may have one or
several dominant producers; and the effects of making it easier for people to get to
places of employment (U.K. Department for Transport, n.d., 2005).4 By measuring
overall economic outcomes such as output or productivity in a geographic area, the
production function literature captures WEB without differentiating when those
outcomes stem from agglomeration effects or from better competition, for example.
However, a retrospective production-function study and a retrospective or prospective
cost-benefit study taking account of WEB, if done properly, should reach much the
same overall conclusions.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                   p. 85 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


       HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – FOCUS ON PROJECTS OF “NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE”


THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD FOCUS ON PROJECTS OF NATIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

However, the federal government should fund projects that have large net benefits
across a large number of geographic areas, especially when some of the areas will
face losses as a result of negative spillovers. The success of the ADHS, as reported in
Lynch (2007), suggests that such projects can be designed successfully. With such
projects, coordination between different jurisdictions will be difficult and may not result
in enough funding to pay for a project, despite its large positive aggregate benefits
across a multistate region or nationwide. As a convenient shorthand, we call such
projects those of national significance. In an era of fiscal restraint, we suggest that the
federal government concentrate its financing on projects of national significance.
Implementing this suggestion makes it critical to define such projects carefully, as
many transportation analysts have long called for. After reviewing the research
described here, we suggest that projects of national significance should at a minimum
meet some basic criteria. They should have a large net positive economic effect, and
that postive effect should be spread over large geographic areas and multiple
jurisdictions.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                   p. 86 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


       HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – FOCUS ON PROJECTS OF “NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE”


CONGRESS NEEDS TO CHANGE THE FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE

National Transportation Policy Project, June 2011
      [Performance Driven: Achieving Wiser Investment in Transportation, Bipartisan
Policy      Center, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/performance-driven-
achieving-wiser- investment-transportation]

This report attempts to fill that gap by describing the building blocks needed to lay the
foundation for a more performance-driven federal policy in the next surface
transportation bill. NTPP’s guiding principle continues to be that no matter how much
money is available for transportation at the federal level, it needs to be invested wisely.
In the present environment of constrained resources, it is more urgent than ever that
Congress take steps to introduce performance measures and dramatically change how
transportation investments are prioritized.


INVESTMENT SHOULD BE TARGETED AT NATIONAL CONNECTIVITY

National Transportation Policy Project, June 2011
      [Performance Driven: Achieving Wiser Investment in Transportation, Bipartisan
Policy      Center, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/performance-driven-
achieving-wiser- investment-transportation]

Some federal programs are clearly directed toward components of a national
transportation system that serves to connect people and goods. For example, the
Interstate Maintenance program clearly targets a national asset that the federal
government has funded, planned, and maintained. By contrast, Transportation
Enhancements (TE) is a program dedicated to components of systems that tend to be
more local in nature. Even when TE may support investments that are in the national
interest, it is not targeted to infrastructure that is part of a connected national system.




                               Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                  p. 87 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


       HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – FOCUS ON PROJECTS OF “NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE”


INVESTMENT SHOULD BE TARGETED AT NATIONAL COMMITMENTS

National Transportation Policy Project, June 2011
      [Performance Driven: Achieving Wiser Investment in Transportation, Bipartisan
Policy      Center, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/performance-driven-
achieving-wiser- investment-transportation]

There are federal programs that may not fund a national system but address needs
that fall squarely within the federal government’s jurisdiction or responsibilities. Often
these are programs that could not exist without federal participation and that involve
scale economies or longterm national commitments. For example, roads in national
parks may not be part of a nationally connecting system and they may not serve a vital
economic interest, but maintaining these roads clearly requires federal support and
commitment.

GOVERNMENT CRITERIA NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE SPENDING IS A
POSITIVE INVESTMENT

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs,
Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation, 2011
     [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic
Growth,    National Transportation Policy Project, January 21, 2011]

Short-term job creation, while vitally important, must be viewed within the context
provided by a longer-term view. Over the longterm, higher productivity—the ability to
generate more output and income from each dollar of capital or hour of work—is the
key to higher labor earnings and improved standards of living. While transportation
investment always “creates jobs,” its net eff ect on workers and the economy as a
whole will be positive only if government transportation investments are rigorously
selected to meet productivity criteria.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                p. 88 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


       HIGHWAYS – SOLVENCY – FOCUS ON PROJECTS OF “NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE”


THE GOVERNMENT MUST DO A BETTER JOB EVALUATING INVESTMENTS TO
GET THE BEST RETURNS

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs,
Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation, 2011
     [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic
Growth,    National Transportation Policy Project, January 21, 2011]

In the context of an untenable federal fi scal posture, comprehensive and strategic
reforms that clearly identify the federal role in transportation and target funds toward
genuinely high-value transportation projects will be essential. Simply assuming that
any transportation investment will have positive stimulative eff ects and will produce
long-term gains for the economy is not a sound basis for investment. We need to do a
better job of systematically evaluating alternative investments so as to better
distinguish among their diff erent outcomes and so as to improve the returns to public
investment in an era of unprecedented budget pressures and increasingly constrained
government resources.

FEDERAL INVESTMENT SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON NET GAINS FOR THE
ECONOMY AS A WHOLE, NOT JUST A LOCAL AREA OR STATE

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs,
Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation, 2011
     [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic
Growth,    National Transportation Policy Project, January 21, 2011]

Shifts in jobs occur not just across industries and sectors, but also across counties and
states. Even a sub-optimal transportation investment is likely to be able to show
positive employment impacts, especially in the shortterm, from the perspective of the
winning state or city. But from a national perspective and over time these gains could
be—and often are—outweighed by losses elsewhere. A central recommendation of the
BPC’s 2009 report was that federal transportation policy should guide federal dollars
so as to produce a net gain for the economy as a whole over time, rather than for one
area or region in the short-term. The construction of the Interstate Highway network,
for example, created jobs near interstate interchanges as new and existing businesses
were drawn to locations where they could take maximum advantage of the accessibility
afforded by the new highway system. Towns that were bypassed by the Interstates,
however, lost jobs as some of their businesses moved to these new locations and as
                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                             p. 89 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


other businesses that stayed “died on the vine” because they could no longer compete.
Nevertheless, the federal investment creating the interstate highway network was
justified because overall gains exceeded overall losses.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 90 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                          HIGHWAYS – AT: STATE COUNTERPLAN


STATES LACK ADEQUATE COST-BENEFIT FORMULAS FOR SPENDING
INFRASTRUCTURE MONEY

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

Similarly, federal, state, and local infrastructure planning needs to rely on standardized
cost-benefit analysis tools so scarce public funds are invested in projects with the
greatest public return. The illogical formula-based distribution of federal funds is often
replicated at the state and local levels where funds are spread around so that most
localities get a small bit of funding rather than making an objective decision on how
best to spend the funds to meet the most compelling need for repair, congestion
mitigation, or traveling efficiency.


INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING CAN BOOST THE ECONOMY IN ONE AREA AND
HURT IT IN THE NEIGHBORING AREA

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

Research at the substate level confirms that the economic effects of highway
infrastructure are far from straightforward. Highway infrastructure in a county can boost
the economic performance of that county but can also cause economic declines in
other counties. Such positive and negative effects can even be found within a county
or metropolitan area and could result in a zero or even negative overall economic
effect for a metropolitan area or a multicounty region.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                               p. 91 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                          HIGHWAYS – AT: STATE COUNTERPLAN


FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING SHOULD FOCUS ON PROGRAMS
WITH MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

Currently, federal spending goes to a wide range of projects, from those that have
largely local effects to those that have geographically dispersed effects. With the
United States facing fiscal constraints, we suggest that the federal government focus
its financing on projects expected to have large net benefits dispersed across wide
geographic areas, in part because the federal government can solve multijurisdiction
coordination problems.


POSSIBLE NEGATIVE SPILLOVER EFFECTS FROM STATE PROGRAMS

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

The issue of cross-state spillovers remains unsettled, with a number of papers finding
zero or negative spillovers. Jiwattanakulpaisarn et al. (2008) found that lane-mile
additions of interstate highways in one state produced negative long-run employment
spillovers across all other states. Using data for the 48 contiguous states between
1984 and 1997, they focused on the density of highway lane-miles and private sector
employment, testing both the existence of a relationship and causality.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 92 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                          HIGHWAYS – AT: STATE COUNTERPLAN


STATE INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS HAVE A NET NEGATIVE ECONOMIC
EFFECT

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

Working with highway data from 1989 to 2002, Sloboda and Yao (2008) also found
negative spillovers. They estimated the effects of own-state highway spending on
state-level gross product, as well as the effects of highway spending in other states.
Including other variables—labor and private capital—they found that own-state
spending on highways had no effect on state output but that spending elsewhere
tended to depress own-state output.


LOCAL PROJECTS JUST MOVE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AROUND

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

Analysis of the effects of transportation infrastructure on local geographic areas tends
to find that such projects largely reallocate economic activity from one part of the
geographic unit to another part. Local areas analyzed include counties; metropolitan
areas, some of which may be multicounty or may cross state lines; and parts of
metropolitan areas. Although there may be gains in the area receiving the
infrastructure, there are also likely to be losses in neighboring areas, and sometimes
these losses equal or outweigh the gains. In some cases, this leads overall effects on
economic outcomes to be on net close to zero. These findings appear in studies that
take place across states, within states, and within metropolitan areas.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                p. 93 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                          HIGHWAYS – AT: STATE COUNTERPLAN


LOCAL EFFECTS OF HIGHWAY PROJECTS ARE CANCELED OUT IN
NEIGHBORING AREAS

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

Despite initial findings that small geographic areas benefit from public investment that
includes roads, most studies of highway infrastructure in such areas have provided
evidence that outcomes are far from straightforward. Highway infrastructure in a county
can boost the economic performance of that countybut it can also cause economic
declines in other counties. Such positive and negative effects can even be found within
a county or metropolitan area and could result in a zero or near-zero overall economic
effect for a metropolitan area or a multicounty region. Indeed, a number of studies
have found a zero economic effect of highway infrastructure on economic outcomes


FEDERAL SPENDING SHOULD FOCUS ON PROJECTS OF NATIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

Currently, federal spending goes to a large variety of highway projects, including some
that may have only local effects or even net negative effects. With the United States
facing fiscal constraints, federal highway spending can continue to provide economic
benefits to the nation by focusing on projects that have positive net benefits dispersed
over large geographic areas. We refer to these as projects of national significance and
suggest they are the most likely to be in the national interest and worthy of national
funding.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                   p. 94 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                          HIGHWAYS – AT: STATE COUNTERPLAN


ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL CORRECTLY VALUE PROJECTS
WITH SPILLOVER FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER

Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011
    [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.p
df]

These findings suggest that, at the least, federal highway policy should recognize that
a given geographic area may experience either positive or negative economic
consequences from the construction of highway infrastructure somewhere else.
Recognizing both effects will allow a better assessment of the real value of a project
and provide an opportunity to better target investments. For example, a project that
might have large gross benefits in one area could end up being of little net value once
negative spillovers are accounted for. In contrast, a project that appears to be of little
value to one area could have large net benefits once positive spillovers on other near
and far areas are accounted for. Just as important, an assessment of the winners and
losers from an infrastructure project can provide the basis for determining which
projects are unlikely to get funded by local jurisdictions and could merit federal
assistance. Projects with substantial positive spillovers to other areas are less likely to
be funded by local or even regional jurisdictions unless they can find ways to partner
with other areas that will gain from the infrastructure.

STATE OR LOCAL PROJECTS HAVE NEGATIVE SPILLOVER EFFECTS

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs,
Senior Researcher, RAND Corporation, 2011
     [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic
Growth,    National Transportation Policy Project, January 21, 2011]

As an example, if federal money were to be used to build a high-speed truck link
between a port and a freight rail hub it might cut net delivery time to a region. The
prospect of improved inventory management, increased sales, and other profits would
then draw cargo to the port, increase port jobs, and expand employment related to the
movement of goods on regional highways and increased business at the rail hub. At
the same time, traffic to competing ports would likely decline, creating exactly the same
chain reaction—in reverse. Thus, employment losses at losing ports would, to some
extent, offset employment gains at the winning port. The economy as a whole would be
                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                                 p. 95 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


better off only if the increased productivity and costs savings from the port investment
boosted overall activity such that benefits to the broader region and nation (some of
which would likely translate to increased activity at other ports as well) exceeded the
cost of the initial investment.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                              p. 96 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                              HIGHWAYS – AT: SPENDING DA


COST ESTIMATES ARE EXAGGERATED

Center for American Progress February 2012
     [Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative, (Donna Cooper), Doing what Works
     http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/pdf/infrastructure.pdf]

Before summarizing our proposal, however, let’s first examine what’s holding us back.
In large part, the problem is a false perception that the cost of repairing America’s
infrastructure requires trillions of dollars in new federal spending. In fact, our plan
shows that the most pressing needs of infrastructure can be addressed by improving
our use of current funds, making reasonable changes in how users of infrastructure
pay for it, and increasing federal spending by roughly $48 billion a year, according to
this new analysis by the Center for American Progress.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League
2012 MUDL Files                                                              p. 97 of 97
Highways/Infrastructure Aff


                          HIGHWAYS – HIGHWAY DEATHS IMPACT


UNSAFE ROADS RESULT IN TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FATALITIES

Bill Bradley, Tom Ridge, David Walker, Carnegie Endowment, 2011
      [Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation, 2011
      http://carnegieendowment.org/files/road_to_recovery.pdf]

U.S. roads are not as safe as they should be. Nearly 35,000 people are killed each
year on them—the equivalent of a Boeing 737 airliner crashing every weekday.
Moreover, about 2.5 million people are injured on U.S. roads every year. 32 The
annual economic cost of these traffic-related tragedies is estimated at $230 billion.
The American Automobile Association estimates that crashes impose an annual “tax”
of $1,050 on every American. 33 Those residing within 984 feet of major highways
are more likely to have asthma, leukemia, and cardiovascular disease, conditions
that are extremely debilitating and costly in terms of private and public health care
expenditures.




                              Memphis Urban Debate League

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:11/3/2012
language:English
pages:97