Docstoc

Advantage_Counterplans_2010_Wave_1

Document Sample
Advantage_Counterplans_2010_Wave_1 Powered By Docstoc
					USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                                                  The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                           1/121


                                             ADVANTAGE COUNTEPRLANS 2010 WAVE 1
Advantage Counteprlans 2010 Wave 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
Notes on the File ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
War Games CP – 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................... 5
War Games CP – Government Spending Good ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Cluster Groups CP – 1NC 1/2 .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Cluster Groups CP – 1NC 2/2 .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Cluster Groups CP – Solvency (Economy) ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Cluster Groups CP – Solvency (Competitiveness) .................................................................................................................................. 10
Cluster Groups CP – AT: CLusters Fail .................................................................................................................................................. 11
Interest Rates CP – 1NC .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Interest Rates CP – Solvency (Economy) ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Interest Rates CP – AT: Household Hoarding ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Manufacturing Regs CP – 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................... 15
Manufacturing Regs CP – Gov’t Intervention Key .................................................................................................................................. 16
Manufacturing Regs CP – Solvency (Heg) .............................................................................................................................................. 17
Manufacturing Regs CP – Solvency (Economy) ..................................................................................................................................... 18
States Bailout CP – 1NC .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19
ODNI CP – 1NC ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
ODNI CP – Solvency (Terrorism) ........................................................................................................................................................... 21
ONDI CP – Solvency (Terrorism) ........................................................................................................................................................... 22
ONDI CP – Solvency (Presidential Powers) ............................................................................................................................................ 23
Patents CP – 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
JV2020FLP CP – 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 25
JV2020FLP CP – Solvency (Readiness) .................................................................................................................................................. 26
JV2020FLP CP – Readiness Key to Heg ................................................................................................................................................. 27
Offshore Balancing – 1NC 1/2................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Offshore Balancing CP – 1NC 2/2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 29
Offshore Balancing CP – Solvency (Heg) ............................................................................................................................................... 30
Offshore Balancing CP – Solvency (Heg) ............................................................................................................................................... 31
Offshore Balancing CP – Solvency (Heg) ............................................................................................................................................... 32
Offshore Balancing CP – Solvency (Prolif) ............................................................................................................................................. 33
Offshore Balancing CP – Solvency (Terror) ............................................................................................................................................ 34
Offshore Balancing CP – AT: Transition Wars ....................................................................................................................................... 35
Arms Sales CP – 1NC .............................................................................................................................................................................. 36
Arms Sales CP – Solvency (U.S. China Relations) ................................................................................................................................. 37
Arms Sales CP – Solvency (Chinese Expansionism) ............................................................................................................................... 38
Legalize Drugs CP – 1NC........................................................................................................................................................................ 39
Legalize Drugs CP – Solvency (Terrorism) ............................................................................................................................................. 40
Legalize Drugs CP – Solvency (Afghanistan) ......................................................................................................................................... 41
Legalize Drugs CP – AT: This Counterplan is Stupid ............................................................................................................................. 42
Pressure Israel CP – 1NC ......................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Pressure Israel CP – Solvency (Proliferation) .......................................................................................................................................... 44
Pressure Israel CP – Solvency (NPT) ...................................................................................................................................................... 45
Pressure Israel CP – Solvency (NPT) ...................................................................................................................................................... 46
Pressure Israel CP – Solvency (Soft Power) ............................................................................................................................................ 47
Pressure Israel CP – AT: CP Destroys Israeli Relations 1/2 .................................................................................................................... 48
Pressure Israel CP – AT: CP Destroys Israeli Relations 2/2 .................................................................................................................... 49
Conference CP – 1NC .............................................................................................................................................................................. 50
Conference CP – Solvency (Democracy) ................................................................................................................................................ 51
Satalites CP – 1NC .................................................................................................................................................................................. 52
Satalites CP – Solvency (Disease/Bioterror)............................................................................................................................................ 53
Satalites CP – New Systems Key ............................................................................................................................................................. 54
Phytoplankton CP – 1NC ......................................................................................................................................................................... 55
Phytoplankton CP – Solvency (Dumping  Blooms) ............................................................................................................................. 56
Phytoplankton CP – Solvency (Climate Change) .................................................................................................................................... 57
Phytoplankton CP – Evidence Indict ....................................................................................................................................................... 58
                                        For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                             2/121
Phytoplankton CP – AT: U.S. Will Prevent Iron Dumping ..................................................................................................................... 59
Geopolymeric Cement CP – 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................ 60
Geopolymetric Cement CP – Solvency (Warming) ................................................................................................................................. 61
China-U.S. Warming CP – 1NC .............................................................................................................................................................. 62
China-U.S. Warming CP – Solvency (Collaboration) ............................................................................................................................. 63
China-U.S. Warming CP – Solvency (Sequestring Tech)........................................................................................................................ 64
China-U.S. Warming CP – Solvency (Warming and Relations) ............................................................................................................. 65
China-U.S. Warming CP – Solvency (Warming) .................................................................................................................................... 66
China-U.S. Warming CP – Solvency (Competitiveness and Jobs) .......................................................................................................... 67
China-U.S. Warming CP – Solvency (Electricity Prices) ........................................................................................................................ 68
China-U.S. Warming CP – China Says Yes ............................................................................................................................................ 69
China-U.S. Warming CP – Cooperation Key .......................................................................................................................................... 70
China-U.S. Warming CP – Sequestration Key ........................................................................................................................................ 71
China-U.S. Warming CP – Electricity Sector Key .................................................................................................................................. 72
China-U.S. Warming CP – Politics (Popular) .......................................................................................................................................... 73
Biofortification CP – 1NC ....................................................................................................................................................................... 74
Biofortification CP – Solvency (Food Impacts) ....................................................................................................................................... 75
ITER CP – 1NC ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 76
ITER CP – Solvency (KEy to Fusion) ..................................................................................................................................................... 77
ITER CP – Solvency (Science Diplomacy) ............................................................................................................................................. 78
ITER CP – Solvency (Competitiveness) .................................................................................................................................................. 79
ITER CP – Solvency (International Image) ............................................................................................................................................. 80
ITER CP – Solvency (Energy) ................................................................................................................................................................. 81
ITER CP – Solvency (Warming) ............................................................................................................................................................. 82
ITER CP – Solvency (Tech and Innovation) ........................................................................................................................................... 83
ITER CP – Solvency (Nanotech) ............................................................................................................................................................. 84
ITER CP – Solvency (Space) ................................................................................................................................................................... 85
Mine The Moon CP – 1NC ...................................................................................................................................................................... 86
Mine the Moon CP – Solvency (Space Exploration) ............................................................................................................................... 87
Mine the Moon CP – AT: The Moon Has No H3 .................................................................................................................................... 88
Nanomedicine CP – 1NC ......................................................................................................................................................................... 89
CRC CP – 1NC 1/2 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 90
CRC CP – 1NC 2/2 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 91
CRC CP – Solvency (Child Rights) ......................................................................................................................................................... 92
CRC CP – Solvency (Soft Power) ........................................................................................................................................................... 93
CRC CP – Solvency (Soft Power) ........................................................................................................................................................... 94
CRC CP – Solvency (Human Rights Leadership) ................................................................................................................................... 95
CRC CP – AT: Unconstitutional .............................................................................................................................................................. 96
CRC CP – AT: CRC Bad Turns............................................................................................................................................................... 97
CRC CP – AT: Federalism Turns ............................................................................................................................................................ 98
CRC CP – AT: Abortion Turns................................................................................................................................................................ 99
CRC CP – AT: Child Executions Turn .................................................................................................................................................. 100
CRC CP – AT: Sovreignty Turns .......................................................................................................................................................... 101
CRC CP – AT: Parental Rights .............................................................................................................................................................. 102
CRC CP – Politics (Popular).................................................................................................................................................................. 103
CRC CP – Politics (Unpopular) ............................................................................................................................................................. 104
Legacies CP – 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................ 105
Legacies CP – Solvency (Racism) ......................................................................................................................................................... 106
Hyde CP 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 107
Hyde CP – Solvency (Abortions)........................................................................................................................................................... 108
Hyde CP – Solvency (Patriarchy) .......................................................................................................................................................... 109
Hyde CP – Abortion Key ....................................................................................................................................................................... 110
Hyde CP – Solvency (Racism)............................................................................................................................................................... 111
Hyde CP – Solvency (Agency of Women) ............................................................................................................................................ 112
Hyde CP – Solvency (AT: Abortions Kill Babies) ................................................................................................................................ 113
ENDA CP – 1NC ................................................................................................................................................................................... 114
ENDA CP – Solvency (Heteronormitivity) ........................................................................................................................................... 115
Global Poverty CP – 1NC ...................................................................................................................................................................... 116
Global Poverty CP – Solvency (Global Poverty) ................................................................................................................................... 117
                                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                                             The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                            3/121
Global Poverty CP – Solvency (Global Poverty) ................................................................................................................................... 118
Global Poverty CP – AT: Corruption .................................................................................................................................................... 119
Global Poverty CP – AT: US Poverty.................................................................................................................................................... 120
DOE CP – 1NC ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 121




                                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                     The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                              4/121


                                                     NOTES ON THE FILE

This is a lovely file called an advantage counterplan file, hence the title at the top of the first page and the header.

I’ll make a brief explanation of how to use this file in a debate round for those of you who don’t know how this would work. Most of
these counterplans are very specific to certain advantages that an affirmative might claim, such as solving the recession. Now, what
you may be thinking is “what if the counterplan I choose doesn’t solve for all of their advantages?” Well, what you will do is you will
throw an extra plank into the counterplan. Let me explain…

Suppose you hit an affirmative that gives H-1B visas, and let’s assume their advantages are economy, hegemony via competitiveness
and military readiness and science diplomacy. As you look through this file, you’ll notice that there might not be a counterplan that
solves for all of there advantages, and in fact, let’s say you’re looking specifically at the Ghitmo counterplan, which you see solves for
the first two of their advantages, but not disease, however, satellites counterplan does solve for disease, but not the other two
advantages. What you could do is you could COMBINE the two counterplans. How this would work, is you would start with your
basic Ghitmo counterplan text: The United States federal government should end the use of the Guantánamo Bay military base as a
detention facility Then, you would add the counterplan text for satellites: The United States federal government should fund
collaborative efforts between the Center for Earth Observing and Space Research and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration to establish disease surveillance satellites that use remote sensing data monitoring. Then you combine them into one
overall counterplan: The United States Federal Government should end the use of the Guantánamo Bay military base as a
detention facility and fund collaborative efforts between the Center for Earth Observing and Space Research and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration to establish disease surveillance satellites that use remote sensing data monitoring. Now
you have a winning counterplan (although it’s a little long). But! Make sure of a couple of things before you read it. Make sure that a)
you read the evidence for BOTH counterplans, and b) before you read it, make sure that the two or more parts of the counterplan
aren’t contradictory.

The next page will have a list of all of the advantages that we have counterplans for, and under the name of each advantage will be a
list of the counterplans in the file that solve that particular advantage (in the order of which one solves best).

MORE IMPORTANTLY, there is one major problem with this type of counterplan: the perm solves 100%. Then you might ask, how
can you win? Simple. You read a disadvantage to the plan that doesn’t link to the counterplan. Every round that I have won on this
type of counterplan, the only answer I have given to the perm is that: “the perm still links to the disad”. The question then becomes,
what disad?

Luckily, there are two sister disads to these counterplans that I would read. The key thing with these disads is the link is based off of
the plan providing a social service, which the counterplan doesn’t do. These disads are the illegal immigration disad and the military
recruitment disad (they’re explained in their respective files)

Enjoy!




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                               The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        5/121


                                                WAR GAMES CP – 1NC

Counteprlan Text: The United States federal government should stage massive war games on the scale of World War II with
any willing international actor. In the event that no actor is willing, the United States federal government should roleplay the
Civil War.

Contention 1 is Competition – The Counteprlan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

Counterplan generates massive spending to pull us out of recession and save the economy
Peter Schiff (president of Euro Pacific Capital) July 19, 2010: Can We Get China To Bankroll The Next World War?
http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/07/19/can-we-get-china-to-bankroll-the-next-world-war/
There is overwhelming agreement among economists that the Second World War was responsible for bringing about a decisive end to
the Great Depression. When asked why the wars in Iran and Afghanistan are failing to make the same impact today, they often claim
that the current conflicts are simply too small to be economically significant.
There is, of course, much irony here. No one argues that World War II, with its genocide, tens of millions of combatant casualties, and
wholesale destruction of cities and regions, was good for humanity. The improved American economy of the late 1940s, however,
seems to illustrate the benefits of large-scale government stimulus. This conundrum may be causing some to wonder how we could
capture the good without the bad.
If one believes that government spending can create economic growth, then the answer should be simple: let's have a huge pretend war
that rivals the Second World War in size. However, this time, let's not kill anyone.
Most economists believe that massive federal government spending on tanks, uniforms, bullets, and battleships used in World War II,
as well the jobs created to actually wage the War, finally put to an end the paralyzing "deflationary trap" that had existed since the
Crash of 1929. Many further argue that war spending succeeded where the much smaller New Deal programs of the 1930s had fallen
short.
The numbers were indeed staggering. From 1940 to 1944, federal spending shot up more than six times from just $9.5 billion to $72
billion. This increase led to a corresponding $75 billion expansion of U.S. nominal GDP, from $101 billion in 1940 to $175 billion by
1944. In other words, the war brought with it a GDP increase of close to 75% in just four years!
The War also wiped out the country's chronic unemployment problems.
In 1940, eleven years after the Crash, unemployment was still at a stubbornly high 8.1%. By 1944, the figure had dropped to less than
1%. The fresh influx of government spending and deployment of working-age men overseas drew women into the workforce in
unprecedented numbers, thereby greatly expanding economic output. In addition, government spending on wartime technology
produced a great many breakthroughs that impacted consumer goods production for decades.
So, why not have the United States declare a fake war on Russia (a grudge match that is, after all, long overdue)? Both countries could
immediately order full employment and revitalize their respective manufacturing sectors. Instead of live munitions, we could build all
varieties of paint guns, water balloons, and stink bombs.
Once new armies have been drafted and properly outfitted with harmless weaponry, our two countries could stage exciting war games.
Perhaps the U.S. could mount an amphibious invasion of Kamchatka (just like in Risk!). As far as the destruction goes, let's just bring
in Pixar and James Cameron. With limitless funds from Washington, these Hollywood magicians could surely produce simulated
mayhem more spectacular than Pearl Harbor or D-Day. The spectacle could be televised- with advertising revenue going straight to
the government.
The competition could be extended so that the winner of the pseudo-conflict could challenge another country to an all-out fake war.
I'm sure France or Italy wouldn't mind putting a few notches in the 'win' column. The stimulus could be never-ending.
If the U.S. can't find any willing international partners, we could always re-create the Civil War. Missed the Monitor vs. the
Merrimack the first time? No worries, we'll do it again!
Repeating the impact of World War II today would require a truly massive effort. Replicating the six-fold increase in the federal
budget that was seen in the early 1940s would result in a nearly $20 trillion budget today. That equates to $67,000 for every man,
woman, and child in the country. Surely, the tremendous GDP growth created by such spending would make short work of the so-
called Great Recession.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                  The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                           6/121


                        WAR GAMES CP – GOVERNMENT SPENDING GOOD

Spending Good – only way to get out of the recession
MATTHEW BERGER (writer) 6/18/2009 http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/paul-krugman-first-year-a-lot-like-great-
depression
Since cutting interest rates no longer leads to an increase in investment, government spending, even at the cost of government
indebtedness, is one of the best routes out of today's liquidity trap, he said. With little to be invested in, savings are currently
stagnating, but government spending gives savings somewhere to go and so should have an expansionary impact on the economy.
Contrary to cries for "fiscal responsibility" on the part of governments, this spending, he said, is not only good for us now but
ultimately good for us long-term. "This borrowing is actually reducing the extent to which we're impoverishing ourselves," he said.
Another beneficial route, he cautiously suggested, might be higher inflation than before the crisis. Inflation causes debt, in real terms,
to diminish and would allow real interest rates to dip below the zero percent threshold, thus maybe allowing the negative five percent
interest rate currently needed to bring world savings in line with world investment and to achieve full employment. Ideally, though,
and much easier to sell than inflation, recovery would be driven by exports, but Krugman said this option is not on the table today
"unless we can find another planet to export to." In any case, the period of recovery might be a long way off yet. "Japan's recession
might start to look good in terms of duration," he warned. "It's hard to know how this all ends."

Government spending stimulates the economy
Calbreath (writer for the Union Tribune) 2/1/09 http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/01/1b1dean185149-government-
spending-tool-revive-econ/
As politicians on Capitol Hill debate how much money to pour into the latest stimulus package, they may take heart from the findings
of a recent study from the University of California San Diego, which suggests that government spending programs can be very useful
in revitalizing the economy. In a year-old study now being updated to reflect the ongoing economic crisis, UCSD economist Valerie
Ramey took a look at government spending programs from the Eisenhower era through the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Her conclusion:
For every $1 the government spent, it generated an average of $1.40 in economic growth. “Raising spending stimulates the
economy,” Ramey said. “On average, government spending raises the gross domestic product and raises employment, although it
sometimes leads to a small decrease in consumer spending, as consumers find themselves in competition with the government.” In
comparison, she said, tax cuts and rebates do little to immediately jolt the economy, though well-designed tax cuts can have a positive
long-term effect. Of course, Ramey's academic report will do little to quash the debate on Capitol Hill. There, the Grand Era of
Bipartisanship that lasted for roughly 30 minutes as President Barack Obama was being inaugurated has deteriorated into a food fight
in which both parties have assumed traditional battle lines. “Both political parties are competing on who can be the most irresponsible
with the money: the Republicans, for wanting to give tax credits to favored constituencies, or the Democrats, for wanting to use
government for their favored constituencies,” said Peter Morici, economist at the University of Maryland. “I'm disappointed.” Over
the past two months, the stimulus package – created to revive an economy laid low by the mortgage crisis – has evolved from a near-
record $700 billion proposal to a leviathan between $819 billion and $888 billion, depending on whether you're looking at the House
or Senate version. Many economists say even that will not be enough to revive the economy. As originally envisioned, the package
was aimed at infrastructure construction and bolstering state and local budgets, with the goal of creating or preserving 3 million jobs
through 2011. That continues to be the core of the bill, but now embedded within in its 647 pages are proposals to devote millions of
dollars to funding the National Endowment for the Arts, revamping the Department of Commerce headquarters, rebuilding restrooms
in national parks and buying new computers for government agencies, among other things. Although critics describe some of those
proposals as “pork” projects, supporters of the bill say they will create jobs and stir economic growth, which is the point of the bill.
To assuage some critics – and to fulfill Obama's campaign promises – the bill also includes $275 billion in tax cuts, including
reductions to the alternative minimum tax, income taxes and corporate taxes. But several studies last week agreed with Ramey's
findings at UCSD: In times like these, the most important step the government can take is to spend. “A massive hole in demand is
emerging as consumers, businesses, and state and local governments are forced to cut back,” said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at
IHT Global Insight, an economic analysis firm in Massachusetts. “The federal government is the only entity that can fill that gap,
either by spending itself or by providing the financing for spending in the rest of the economy.”




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                          The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                   7/121


                                                  CLUSTER GROUPS CP – 1NC 1/2

Counterplan Text: The United States Federal Government should provide tax incentives for the development of Economic
Cluster groups

Contention 1: Competition – the counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2: Solvency

(__) Economy
Clusters are key to broader economic development
Joseph Cortright, Senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, 2006, Making Sense of Clusters: Regional Competitiveness and Economic
Development, http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2006/03cities_cortright.aspx
In recent years, “cluster strategies” have become a popular economic development approach among state and local policymakers and
economic development practitioners. An industry cluster is a group of firms, and related economic actors and institutions, that are
located near one another and that draw productive advantage from their mutual proximity and connections . Cluster analysis can help diagnose
a region’s economic strengths and challenges and identify realistic ways to shape the region’s economic future. Yet many policymakers and practitioners have only a
limited understanding of what clusters are and how to build economic development strategies around them. This discussion paper reviews the academic literature on
industry clusters. It explains what clusters are, why they matter for regional economic development policy, and how to use cluster analysis as a guide to policy and
practice. Overall, the review’s most important findings for policymakers and practitioners are: Clusters are the key organizational unit for understanding
and improving the performance of regional economies. The foundation of a regional economy is a group of clusters, not a collection of
unrelated firms. Firms cluster together within a region because each firm benefits from being located near other similar or related
firms. The firms in a cluster have common competitive strengths and needs. Cluster thinking matters because it orients economic
development policy and practice toward groups of firms and away from individual firms. It is more important and fruitful to work with groups of
firms on common problems (such as training or industrial modernization) than to work with individual firms. The cluster approach leads to little if any reliance on
economic development subsidies and recruitment efforts aimed at individual firms; if these individual, firm-based policies are used at all, they should be focused on
firms that fit within existing clusters. Cluster thinking offers important lessons for economic development policy and practice. Cluster thinking teaches
policymakers and practitioners to: Build on the unique strengths of their regions rather than try to be like other regions. Different
regions have different sets of economic development opportunities. Not every place can or should become another Silicon Valley. Go
beyond analysis and engage in dialogue with cluster members. Many policymakers and practitioners treat research on and analysis of
clusters as the only elements of a cluster strategy. In fact, they are only a starting point for a cluster strategy. Identifying a cluster’s competitive strengths
and needs requires an ongoing dialogue with the firms and other economic actors in the cluster. Although the public sector cannot be the exclusive driver of cluster
policy, it can play a central role in convening cluster members and working with private-sector cluster organizations. Develop different strategies for different clusters.
Clusters vary from industry to industry and from place to place and operate in many different dimensions. Different clusters have different needs . There is no one
set of policies that will make all clusters successful. For example, a technology cluster may require help with research or capital, while
a metals industry cluster may require assistance with job training or technology deployment. Foster an environment that helps new
clusters emerge rather than creating a specific cluster from scratch. It is difficult for public policy to create new clusters deliberately.
Instead, policymakers and practitioners should promote and maintain the economic conditions that enable new clusters to emerge.
Such an environment might, for example, support knowledge creation, entrepreneurship, new firm formation, and the availability of
capital. Cluster policy is not about “picking winners” or excluding industries. Much of the research on clusters has been preoccupied
with debating the precise definition of a cluster, applying a single methodology, or examining whether clusters are good or bad for
various measures of regional economic success. If research is to be more relevant to policy and practice, it should move beyond these
concerns. Researchers should accept that clusters are an umbrella concept, not a precisely defined term, and that clusters vary from
place to place and across industries. They should work toward a more widely shared, multidimensional approach for characterizing
different types of clusters. They should combine quantitative and qualitative methods. Ultimately, cluster research should evolve to
become a creative and informative mixture of art and science that helps academics, policymakers, and citizens better understand the
varied workings of their regional economies.




                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                          8/121


                                        CLUSTER GROUPS CP – 1NC 2/2

(__) Competitiveness
Clusters are key to regional competitiveness – which in turn is key to the economy
Michael E. Porter (professor Harvard business school) 2001: CLUSTERS of INNOVATION: Regional Foundations of U.S.
Competitiveness. http://www.usistf.org/download/documents/Clusters-of-Innovation/Clusters-of-Innovation.pdf
Today, the nation is experiencing an economic downturn. While fiscal and monetary policies pump dollars into the economy to boost
the level of activity, innovation infuses the economy with growth-incubating new ideas, new products, services, and technologies.
National policies and national investment choices have much to do with the growth and capacity of the American economy. For
innovation, however, the real locus of innovation is at the regional level. The vitality of the U.S. economy then depends on creating
innovation and competitiveness at the regional level. In healthy regions, competitiveness and innovation are concentrated in clusters,
or interrelated industries, in which the region specializes. The nation’s ability to produce high-value products and services that support
high wage jobs depends on the creation and strengthening of these regional hubs of competitiveness and innovation.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         9/121


                          CLUSTER GROUPS CP – SOLVENCY (ECONOMY)

Counterplan solves their economy impacts – cluster groups allow industries in regional economies to collaborate and which
leads to greater returns – we isolate two internal links:
         - improves regional economies – by making a region’s economy more productive that solves at the small scale level
         and leads to economic growth because each region can pick the best industry to suit its needs
         - AND global competitiveness – silicon valley is one of the most competitive regions in the global technology market
         and making other regions competitive globally solves back for U.S. competitiveness in the global economy – that’s
         Cortright

Cluster economics contribute to employment in the private sector avoiding stagflation and economic collapse
Scott Stern (professor @ Northwestern et al) January 2008: “Convergence, Clusters and Economic Performance”. Google Scholar
Finally, a region’s strong clusters and the connections among them contribute to the employment and patenting growth of
other traded and local clusters in the region. The ability of a region to perform well in whichever clusters with meaningful
position seems important for regional employment growth. Our findings suggest that the positive influence of cluster
strength on regional employment growth is not driven just by high- tech or fast growing service clusters. The specialization of a
region in non high-tech manufacturing clusters also matters. An interesting extension of the regional model will be to examine
the relationship between region economic performance and the cluster mix of neighbors. Overall, our findings imply that
regional clusters play a central role in the performance of regional economies, but more research is needed in this area.
We plan to improve the analysis by exploring the interactions of cluster-agglomeration forces with key attributes of the region
and the cluster, such as the composition of human capital. Another question that we plan to explore in related work is how the
cluster composition of regions influences wages and productivity in regions and firms.

Clusters key to competition, knowledge creation, innovation and job creation
Michael E. Porter (professor Harvard business school) “ Clusters and Economic Policy 5/18/2009: Aligning Public Policy with the
New Economics of Competition” Google Scholar
Clusters have long been a feature of economic geography, but their influence on competition has grown with the shifting
nature of competition and the restructuring of how companies operate. Competition in advanced economies is increasingly
driven by knowledge and skill, with low cost labor and other resources accessed in cheaper locations. Clusters are important
because they play a fundamental role in knowledge creation, innovation, the accumulation of skills, and the development of
pools of employees with specialized expertise.

Clusters solve economic growth thru increased competition and innovation
The Hill group No Date, provides consulting services to a wide range of clients including large corporations, many of the Fortune
500 and governments “Regional Cluster Strategies” www.workforce-strategy.com/clusterstrategies.pdf)
Each region has its own cluster strength. A region that is able to successfully identity and work with its clusters will reap many
strategic benefits. When examined from a global perspective Porter explains that regions offer significant competitive advantages.
“Regional clusters have the ability to offer local things such as knowledge, relationship, and motivation which can not be matched
by distant rivals.“ 4 Therefore, regions that foster their local cluster based strengths can reap tangible returns. Job creation and new
entrepreneurial innovations are able to flourish in such a collaborative environment. New leaders can develop within this context and
continue to drive the networks and alliances of industry that will serve as power brokers within government and the community to
continue to evolve a demand-driven framework. By working with clusters, community organizations and other support services may
be able to increase their efficiency and effectiveness by directing services toward larger groups of firms. For example, organizations
can enhance an industry's employee retention efforts through their childcare services, transportation services, housing and home
ownership programs, and training programs. By working closely with a cluster, the organizations also have the opportunity to build
relationships with industry that can facilitate the delivery of their services. Community organizations can work together with industry
and public agencies to assist people in moving from welfare-to-work or school- to-work into specific industries with promising
futures. By listening to industry cluster needs, economic developers can develop broad strategies to complement existing industries
in the area As a result, regional focus on such local strengths and industries can effectively and efficiently streamline marketing
efforts, workforce development and produce greater return on regional investments.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        10/121


                  CLUSTER GROUPS CP – SOLVENCY (COMPETITIVENESS)

Counterplan solves competitiveness –economic cluster groups at the regional level are the cornerstone for making local
economies competitive by allowing firms to work together to develop new ideas and share resources – that’s Porter, he’s an
economics professor at Harvard, prefer him. We have empirical examples – silicon valley is one of the most competitive
regions for technology development in the world.

Economic clusters are key to competitiveness – close proximity yields better market insights, larger talent pools, and better
deployment of new knowledge
Michael E. Porter (professor Harvard business school) 2001: CLUSTERS of INNOVATION: Regional Foundations of U.S.
Competitiveness. http://www.usistf.org/download/documents/Clusters-of-Innovation/Clusters-of-Innovation.pdf
Regional economies are the building blocks of U.S. competitiveness. The nation’s ability to produce high-value products and
services depends on the creation and strengthening of regional clusters of industries that become hubs of innovation.
Understanding is growing about how these clusters enhance productivity and spur innovation by bringing together technology,
information, specialized talent, competing companies, academic institutions, and other organizations. Close proximity, and the
accompanying tight linkages, yield better market insights, more refined research agendas, larger pools of specialized talent, and faster
deployment of new knowledge. Utilizing a unique database developed at the Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness at the Harvard
Business School, we are now able to systematically measure the relative strength of regional economies and their clusters and track
their economic and innovation performance over time. In addition, a team consisting of individuals at Monitor Group and its affiliate
ontheFRONTIER, the Council on Competitiveness, and the Institute have conducted surveys, in-depth interviews, and strategic
analyses in order to assess the strengths and challenges of five pilot regions: Atlanta, Pittsburgh, the Research Triangle in North
Carolina, San Diego, and Wichita. This national report draws heavily upon the five regional studies and synthesizes the implications
for any region that seeks to improve its economic performance. The report examines the composition and performance of regional
economies, how industry clusters develop and innovation arises, how clusters affect a region's economic future, and how a region can
establish a strategy and action program to drive its economy and clusters forward. The framework employed and the lessons learned
apply to every region of the country.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                  The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                          11/121


                             CLUSTER GROUPS CP – AT: CLUSTERS FAIL

None of their evidence applies because federal inaction dooms clusters in the SQ. CP is key to economic
competition and uniquely situated to boost growth
Michael E. Porter (professor Harvard business school “ Clusters and Economic Policy) 5/18/2009: “Aligning Public Policy with the
New Economics of Competition” Google Scholar
Yet a crucial locus for economic policy, in between the general economy and individual firms and industries, has been largely
ignored, especially at the Federal level. If we look closely at modern economies we observe another important economic unit,
which is clusters. 2 Clusters are geographic concentrations of firms, suppliers, support services, specialized infrastructure, producers
of related products, and specialized institutions (e.g., training programs and business associations) in a particular field. Clusters often
involve a mix of manufacturing and services, and combine industries in different parts of traditional industrial classification systems.
Clusters as an economic unit, then, are very different from sectors (such as manufacturing) or industries (such as tires). Clusters are
a striking feature of every advanced economy. Examples of U.S. clusters are money management in Boston, light aircraft in
Wichita, entertainment in Los Angeles, information technology in Silicon Valley, and boat building in Maine.            Clusters consist of
dense networks of interrelated firms that arise in a region because of powerful externalities and spillovers across firms (and various
types of institutions) within a cluster. Clusters drive productivity and innovation. Firms that are located within a cluster can transact
more efficiently, share technologies and knowledge more readily, operate more flexibly, start new businesses more easily, and
perceive and implement innovations more rapidly. They can also efficiently access “public goods” such as pools of specialized
skilled employees, specialized infrastructure, technological knowledge, and others. Clusters embody traditional notions such as
input-output linkages, but much more. Because of the importance of physical proximity in reaping cluster benefits, clusters are often
regional instead of national except in small countries such as Singapore. The mix of clusters varies markedly across regions. Each
regional economy normally has a relatively small number of traded clusters in which the region is truly competitive with other
regions and countries. These clusters account for a major portion of the region’s traded goods and services. There is no national
economy, then, but a series of regional economies that trade with each other and the rest of the world, each with its own particular
pattern of cluster specialization. Such regional specialization drives productivity and productivity growth in the national economy.
There is growing statistical evidence that regions with stronger clusters achieve better economic performance and faster innovation. 3
Clusters represent an increasingly important economic unit, then, but one that has been all but ignored in policymaking at the
Federal level in the United States. In this paper, I describe why clusters are a prominent feature of modern economies and why a
role for public policy at the cluster level is justified by economic theory. Cluster-based policies should increasingly replace industry-
level and firm-level policies, because cluster policy is more efficient, minimizes distortions to competition, and is better aligned with
the nature of competition in the modern economy. I then sketch some implications of clusters for policy at the Federal level.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        12/121


                                            INTEREST RATES CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should change interest rates to create payment of negative interest
on bank reserves. Regulation will be placed so that the banks will not hoard excessive amounts of money.

Negative interest forces trickle-up style spending without actually causing inflation – it’s more insulated from political
controversy than the plan.
Tyler Cowen, Prof Economics @ George Mason, 8/1/2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/business/economy/02view.html)
BECAUSE fiscal stimulus has not yet been a striking success, perhaps it’s time to consider new monetary remedies for the economy.
That is the argument of Prof. Scott Sumner, an economist at Bentley College in Waltham, Mass., who is little known outside academic
circles but whose views have been spreading, thanks to his blog, TheMoneyIllusion (blogsandwikis.bentley.edu/themoneyillusion/).
Professor Sumner proposes that the Federal Reserve make a firm commitment to raising expectations of price inflation to 2 to 3
percent annually. In his view, policy makers in Washington are doing too much with fiscal policy — overspending and running excess
deficits — and not doing enough on the monetary side. While his views are controversial, they are based on some assumptions that are
not. It is commonly agreed among economists that deflation brings layoffs and sluggish investment. Yet, energy price shocks aside,
we have been seeing downward pressure on prices. Futures markets and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities — more precisely, the
spread between the yield on TIPS and traditional securities — suggest current expectations that inflation will remain well under 1
percent. Economists generally agree that this is not ideal, and Professor Sumner urges the Fed to try especially hard to overcome the
deflationary pressures. But how would the Fed accomplish this feat? This is where his recommendations get interesting. The Fed has
already taken some unconventional monetary measures to stimulate the economy, but they haven’t been entirely effective. Professor
Sumner says the central bank needs to take a different approach: it should make a credible commitment to spurring and maintaining a
higher level of inflation, promising to use newly created money to buy many kinds of financial assets if necessary. And it should even
pay negative interest on bank reserves, as the Swedish central bank has started to do. In essence, negative interest rates are a penalty
placed on banks that sit on their money instead of lending it. Much to the chagrin of Professor Sumner, the Fed has been practicing the
opposite policy recently, by paying positive interest on bank reserves — essentially, inducing banks to hoard money. The Fed’s
balance sheet need not swell to accomplish these aims. Once people believe that inflation is coming, they will be willing to spend
more money. In other words, if the Fed announces a sufficient willingness to undergo extreme measures to create price inflation, it
may not actually have to do so. Professor Sumner’s views differ from the monetarism of Milton Friedman by emphasizing
expectations rather than any particular measure of the money supply. The Keynesian critique of this remedy is that printing more
money won’t stimulate the economy because uncertainty has put us in a “liquidity trap,” which means that the new money will be
hoarded rather than spent. Professor Sumner responds that inflating the currency is one step that just about every government or
central bank can take. Even if success is not guaranteed, it seems that we ought to be trying harder. Arguably, we can live with 2 or 3
percent inflation, especially if it stems the drop in employment. Consistently, Professor Sumner argues that the Fed should have been
more aggressive with monetary policy in the summer of 2008, before the economy started its downward spiral. Somewhat tongue in
cheek, he once wrote on his blog: “Like a broken clock the monetary cranks are right twice a century; 1933, and today.” It may all
sound too simple to be true, but has the status quo been so good as to silence all doubts? Many advocates expected that the $775
billion allocation to fiscal stimulus would be followed rapidly by generous funding for health care and other reforms. But at the
moment, the American public, rightly or wrongly, is blanching at higher government spending and higher taxes. In contrast, a Fed
stance in favor of mild price inflation need not require higher taxes or larger budget deficits.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                    The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                            13/121


                            INTEREST RATES CP – SOLVENCY (ECONOMY)

CP solves trickle-up – incentivizes spending
Greg Mankiw, Prof Economics @ Harvard, 4/19/2009 http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/04/observations-on-negative-interest-
rates.html
5. If we want to prop up aggregate demand to promote full employment, what is the alternative to monetary policy aimed at producing
negative real interest rates? Fiscal policy. Essentially, the private sector is saying it wants to save. Fiscal policy can say, "No you don't.
If you try to save, we will dissave on your behalf via budget deficits." That fiscal dissaving would push equilibrium interest rates
upward. But is that policy really welfare-improving compared to allowing interest rates to fall into the negative region? If people are
feeling poorer and want to save for the future, why should we stop them? Unless we think their additional saving is irrational, it seems
best to try to funnel that saving into investment with the appropriate interest rate. And given the available investment opportunities,
that interest rate might well be negative.


Negative interest rates would stabilize the economy
Susan Woodward (Former Chief Economist of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Robert Hall, Senior
Fellow @ Hoover Institution of Economics) 2009 http://woodwardhall.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/the-fed-needs-to-make-a-policy-
statement
Raising the reserve interest rate is a contractionary measure. A higher interest rate on reserves makes banks more likely to hold
reserves rather than increasing lending. The Fed’s decision to raise the reserve rate from zero to 75 basis points just as the economy
entered a sharp contraction in activity is utterly inexplicable. Fortunately, the Fed lowered the reserve rate subsequently, but the
continuation of a positive reserve rate in today’s economy is equally inexplicable. Some economists have proposed that the Fed
charge banks for holding reserves, an expansionary policy worth considering. With the Fed funds rate at around 15 basis points, it
would take a charge to restore the differential that drives banks to lend rather than hold reserves. Were the Fed to charge for reserves,
they would become the hot potatoes that they were in the past, when the reserve rate was zero and the Fed funds rate 4 or 5 percent.
Banks would expand lending to try not to hold the hot potatoes and the economy would expand. There is no basis for the claim that the
Fed has lost its ability to steer the economy. (However, the Fed would have to go to Congress to get this power, as it did to get the
power to pay positive interest on reserves.) The basic point emerging from the analysis of the role of the reserve interest rate is simple:
The margin between the Fed funds rate and the reserve rate is a potent new tool for stabilizing the economy. When the Fed wants to
expand, it should raise the margin. In today’s economy, this would call for a negative reserve rate, that is, a charge to banks for
holding reserves. When the time comes to move to a tighter policy, the Fed should lower the margin. At that time, the Fed would raise
the reserve rate for two reason: first to reduce the margin and second to follow increases in market interest rates that will occur in a
recovery.

CP is key to stimulus because the fed has to look consistent with monetary policy – prefer empirical data
Glenn Rudebusch, Senior VP @ Federal Reserve of San Francisco, 5/25/2009
(http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2009/el2009-17.html)
The estimated Taylor rule can also be used in conjunction with economic forecasts to provide a rough benchmark for calibrating the
appropriate stance of monetary policy going forward. The dashed lines in Figure 1 show the latest forecasts for unemployment and
inflation provided by FOMC participants—the Federal Reserve presidents and governors. (The dashed lines are quarterly linear
interpolations of the median forecasts in FOMC, 2009.) Like many private forecasters, FOMC participants foresee persistently high
unemployment and low inflation as the most likely outcome over the next few years. The recommended future policy setting of the
funds rate based on the estimated historical policy rule and these economic forecasts is given as the dashed line in Figure 2. This
dashed line shows that, in order to deliver a degree of future monetary stimulus that is consistent with its past behavior, the FOMC
would have to reduce the funds rate to -5% by the end of this year—well below its lower bound of zero. Alternative specifications of
empirical Taylor rules, described in Rudebusch (2006), also generally recommend a negative funds rate.




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                  The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                          14/121


                       INTEREST RATES CP – AT: HOUSEHOLD HOARDING

They’d invest in other positive assets – bigger returns for them
Matt Nolan, Economist @ Infometrics, 4/23/2009 (http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2009/04/23/from-a-negative-ocr-to-negative-interest-
rates/)
If the return goes negative for banks they may just pass it on to households who will “horde currency”. However, I have to ask – will
household’s just hold currency as savings? Maybe they will go out and buy bonds or gold or copper – or any sort of durable asset
which could double as savings. As long as the asset holder will spend some of the money – then the final impact of the negative OCR
will still be stimulatory (either for prices or output depending on your view of the world). Its like a hot potato situation – banks don’t
want to lose money on reserves so they don’t take deposits and charge a negative interest rate, households don’t want to accept a
negative interest rate so they buy assets driving up asset prices, the ex-asset holders have cash which they spend. Now it is possible
that households won’t do this, and they will put all the money under their bed – but I just don’t buy it. Not when there are other
savings vehicles that will offer a positive rate of return.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                               The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                       15/121


                                      MANUFACTURING REGS CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States should reject new federal regulations that dictate rigid work rules, wages and benefits
and that introduce conflict into employeremployee relations

Contention 1 is Competition – the counteprlan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

China is projected to overtake the U.S. as the world’s leading manufacturer – that threatens the economy, jobs and
competitiveness
Thomas Olson (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review staff writer) July 18, 2010: China poised to take manufacturing crown.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_690887.html#
The American Century is projected to end next year in one key respect: This nation will no longer be the world's largest manufacturer.
The United States, whose manufacturing output topped every nation since the 1890s, is expected to cede that crown to China in 2011,
according to projections by IHS Global Insight, an economics consultancy in Waltham, Mass.
Measured in dollar value, American manufacturers produced about 20 percent of the world's goods last year, and the Chinese made
less than 19 percent worth. IHS expects that will tip next year, assuming China produces $1.87 trillion in goods, slightly ahead of the
United States.
"This is not surprising, given the growth in China is so strong," said Prem Premakumar, IHS senior principal and senior economist.
"Nine to 10 percent a year is not unusual. Whereas, U.S. growth is 2, 3 or 4 percent."
Manufacturing is core to a nation's economy and citizens' prosperity, say experts. The sector provides good-paying jobs and feeds jobs
in transportation and warehousing, sales and marketing, and various business services.
"We've seen a downward pressure on U.S. wages," partly from years of production job losses, said Jack McDougle, senior vice
president of the Council on Competitiveness, comprised of CEOs, academics and labor leaders. "Over time, that begins to influence
other employment areas,"
"It amounts to transferring wealth to other countries" when a nation's manufacturing declines, said John Browne, a financial
analyst in West Palm Beach, Fla. "You'll get a lower standard of living, and a lower standard of services at higher costs."
Browne, a British native and former member of Parliament, likens the impending tipping point in world manufacturing prowess to the
shift of global power from Great Britain to the United States after World War II.
"It's going to be a more dramatic than the tipping point was between Great Britain and America because it will be bigger and faster,"
said Browne.
American manufacturing jobs pay well, as the average manufacturing worker makes $70,666 a year, including benefits, says the
National Association of Manufacturers. Wages alone equate to about $53,000.

Counterplan key to solve manufacturing and competitiveness
John Engler (President and CEO National Association of Manufacturers) 6/29/2010: Manufacturing Strategy For Jobs and a Competitive
America. http://www.nam.org/Communications/Articles/2010/06/~/media/99977BFAD78B4DA1B812C4DD3F3CC94F.ashx
Encourage the dynamic labor market that is one of America’s great competitive advantages. Companies must move quickly to meet
the demands of a rapidly changing marketplace, and the continuing expansion of federal mandates and labor regulations undermines
employer flexibility. In addition, increasing costs discourage the hiring of new employees. To encourage competitiveness, the United
States should: • Reject new federal regulations that dictate rigid work rules, wages and benefits and that introduce conflict into
employeremployee relations.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         16/121


                   MANUFACTURING REGS CP – GOV’T INTERVENTION KEY

Government intervention needed to save the industry
John Engler (President and CEO National Association of Manufacturers) 6/29/2010: Manufacturing Strategy For Jobs and a Competitive
America. http://www.nam.org/Communications/Articles/2010/06/~/media/99977BFAD78B4DA1B812C4DD3F3CC94F.ashx
America’s prosperity and strength are built on a foundation of manufacturing. Manufacturers create, innovate and employ millions of
Americans in some of the best jobs our country has to offer. The United States continues to stand strong as the No. 1 manufacturing
economy in the world, producing 21 percent of global manufacturing wealth. Nearly 12 million Americans work in the manufacturing
sector, earning 22 percent more in wages and benefits than the rest of the workforce. But U.S. leadership in manufacturing is under
fire, facing its toughest competition in the nation’s history. States used to battle each other to recruit new factories and manufacturing
jobs. Today, states go head-to-head against foreign governments that can use all the tools of government to support industry. Our
states—and the United States— are being outgunned. Yet we have no battle plan, no comprehensive approach for making
manufacturing in the United States more competitive, more productive and creating even more high-paying jobs. The unprecedented
challenge to U.S. manufacturing pre-eminence requires clear thinking, a global vision and a plan. The United States needs a
manufacturing strategy—a Manufacturing Strategy for Jobs and a Competitive America. For years, Washington has tried to encourage
industry with legislation, government initiatives and small fixes. Some produced benefits; others caused harm. And the reality is that
the United States lost 2 million manufacturing jobs during the latest recession. A manufacturing strategy will take a comprehensive
view of what is needed for manufacturing in America to succeed in the face of global competition. Such a strategy should set high
goals:




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         17/121


                           MANUFACTURING REGS CP – SOLVENCY (HEG)

Counterplan solves heg and competitiveness – high tech manufacturing key
Thomas Olson (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review staff writer) July 18, 2010: China poised to take manufacturing crown.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_690887.html#
"We need our manufacturing base for our national security, our standard of living and our standing in the world," said Frank Vargo,
the association's vice president of international economic affairs. "We are still the world's largest manufacturer. But China is creeping
up."
Western Pennsylvania still is a hub of manufacturing, although the sector no longer dominates the region's economy as it did decades
ago. Companies vary from basic manufacturing to high-tech manufacturing.
Dynamic Manufacturing LLC, for example, makes circuit boards used for radio control of mining machinery and wind turbine blades.
Based in Freeport, Armstrong County, the company had to lay off a few of its 35 workers last year.
"But we called them all back early this year and have hired five additional people since then," said General Manager Ezra Mihalcin.
Dynamic Manufacturing faces some Chinese competitors but benefits from its specialized niche of circuit boards, which yields
healthier margins.
"Our niche market is low volume, high mix," said Mihalcin. "In China, labor rates are geared toward making millions of things over
and over again."
For instance, Chinese manufacturers supply 10 percent of the world's textiles and apparel, said IHS, while America supplies only 2
percent. Some 15 percent of basic appliances are made in China, versus 11 percent in the United States.
"China has the advantage of lower wages," said IHS' Premakumar. China's huge population well-positions it to take on more high-
volume, low-tech manufacturing, he said.
American manufacturers boast higher productivity than China's, he says, and have larger shares of the production of higher-tech goods
such as aircraft, medical and scientific equipment, and specialized industrial machinery.
But China's manufacturing mix is slowly getting more sophisticated. The country, for instance, currently produces 14 percent of the
world's computers and communication electronics — the same ratio as the United States.
"China is moving in the direction of higher-tech manufacturing," said Premakumar. "But right now, it's in the infant stage."




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         18/121


                     MANUFACTURING REGS CP – SOLVENCY (ECONOMY)

Manufacturing is key to the economy
Jorina Fontelera (Thomas Net News) June 30, 2009: “U.S. Manufacturers Face Critical Threats to Competitiveness,”
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2009/06/new-studies-identify-critical-threats-to-competitiveness-for-us-
manufacturers.html?t=recent
Two new reports identify significant threats that could impede the ability of U.S. manufacturers to successfully compete in the global
economy, including the public perception of pursuing a career in manufacturing.
Americans believe manufacturing as the most important industry for economic prosperity. It is perceived as the backbone of the
economy and the one that contributes the most to the United States' economic success.
In Deloitte LLP and The Manufacturing Institute's new Public Viewpoint on Manufacturing survey, released this month, 82 percent of
respondents agree that America's manufacturing base is key to the country's economic prosperity. The majority of respondents (71
percent) also view manufacturing as a national priority and 59 percent believe that U.S. manufacturing competes effectively on a
global scale.
This should come as little surprise to most, considering the manufacturing sector employs 13 million Americans and drives job growth
in industries such as logistics, marketing, transportation and business services, the American Small Manufacturers Coalition (ASMC)
said in an announcement of its own new findings. Moreover, manufactured goods represent two-thirds of U.S. exports and drive more
net-wealth creation than any other industry.
However, the ASMC has found that more than a quarter of American manufacturers — about 90,000 firms — are at risk of not being
able to compete on the global stage.
The ASMC asked manufacturers where they stood within the "next-generation manufacturing" framework of competitiveness
strategies, which include: 1) customer-focused innovation, 2) systemic continuous improvement, 3) advanced talent management, 4)
global engagement, 5) extended enterprise management and 6) having sustainable products and processes.
Based on the study's findings, a serious gap exists between the strategies U.S. manufacturers believe to be critical to success and their
progress in implementing those strategies. Small and mid-sized manufacturers are especially at risk. One-third of respondents who had
annual revenues less than $10 million are neither at nor near "world-class" in any strategy, according to the research. Of those with
more than $100 million in revenue, merely 14 percent are under-performing.
"In a country where 282,000 small and mid-sized firms comprise the backbone of the industry, this is a significant threat to U.S.
competitiveness and the viability of these companies," according to the study.
The results are "a wake-up call," ASMC Board Chair Michael Klonsinski said. "The consequences of inaction could trigger more job
losses in manufacturing and ultimately a lower standard of living for all Americans."
Likewise, the public viewpoint survey found that 81 percent of respondents believe the manufacturing industry significantly impacts
their standard of living and 74 percent say that the U.S. should further invest in manufacturing industries.

Manufacturing is key to the economy
Bezdek and Wendling, 04 – work for Management Information Services Inc. (Roger and Robert, PUBLIC UTILITIES
FORTNIGHTLY, “The Case Against Gas Dependence”, April, lexis)
Despite all of the hype in recent years about the new economy, the information economy, the service economy, etc., manufacturing is,
by far, the most critical sector of the U.S. economy, and it creates the broad foundation upon which the rest of the economy grows.20
Manufacturing drives the rest of the economy, provides a disproportionate share of the nation's tax base, generates innovation, and
disseminates new technology throughout the economy. The average manufacturing job creates 4.2 jobs directly and indirectly
throughout the economy, whereas the average service and retail job generates about one other job, directly and indirectly.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                  The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                          19/121


                                             STATES BAILOUT CP – 1NC

CP Text: The United States federal government should commit 1 trillion dollars in aid to the 50 states over the next 2 years.

Contention 1 is Competition: The Counterplan Competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

(__) State Economies
1 trillion dollars in aid to the states would solve economic recession
Mattoon, senior economist and economic advisor @ Chicago Federal Reserve. August 2009.
Richard. “Should the Federal Government Bail Out the States? Lessons from Past Recessions.” Chicago Federal Reserve Bank
Essay Number 265. http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedletter/cflaugust2009_265.pdf [Mardjuki]
Like the economy in general, individual state economies are struggling in this recession. State governments face significant
constraints in raising additional revenues. Most states are required to balance their budgets regardless of the economic
environment. This article considers the role of the federal government in helping the states to manage their finances. State
government budget woes have been much in the news. Recently, California projected a $21 billion deficit after failing to get
voter approval for a series of budget balancing fiscal measures.1 In January of this year, five prominent Democratic governors
suggested that the federal government should commit $1 trillion in aid to the states over the next two years.2 The rationale for
such financial support is that states (which are generally prohibited from running deficits) need the money to maintain key
programs, such as Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and work force training, for which demand rises during a recession. Also,
this aid might help states avoid enacting spending cuts or tax increases that could deepen or prolong the economic downturn.

Federal dollars are key to preventing pro-cyclical actions that harm the economy
Lav, Gold award for contribution to state fiscal policy, state budget and tax expert, McNichol, state budget and tax senior fellow.
6/29/09. Iris and Elizabeth. “State Budget Troubles Worsen.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711 [Mardjuki]
The current situation has been made more difficult because many states never fully recovered from the fiscal crisis of the early part of
the decade. This heightens the potential impact on public services of the shortfalls states now are projecting. State spending fell
sharply relative to the economy during the 2001 recession, and for all states combined it still remains below the fiscal year 2001 level.
In 18 states, general fund spending for fiscal year 2008 — six years into the economic recovery — remained below pre-recession
levels as a share of the gross domestic product. In a number of states the reductions made during the downturn in education, higher
education, health coverage, and child care remain in effect. These important public services were suffering even as states turned to
budget cuts to close the new budget gaps. Spending as a share of the economy declined in fiscal year 2008 and is projected to decline
further in 2009 and again in 2010. One way states can avoid making deep reductions in services during a recession is to build up rainy
day funds and other reserves. At the end of fiscal year 2006, state reserves — general fund balances and rainy day funds — totaled
11.5 percent of annual state spending. Reserves can be particularly important to help states adjust in the early months of a fiscal crisis,
but generally are not sufficient to avert the need for substantial budget cuts or tax increases. In this recession, states have already
drawn down much of their available reserves; the available reserves in states with deficits are likely to be depleted in the near future.
Federal assistance Crucial. Federal assistance can lessen the extent to which states need to take pro-cyclical actions that can further
harm the economy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act recognizes this fact and includes substantial assistance for states.
The amount in ARRA to help states maintain current activities is about $135 billion to $140 billion — or less than half of projected
state shortfalls. Most of this money is in the form of increased Medicaid funding and a “Fiscal Stabilization Fund.” This money has
reduced to a degree the depth of state spending cuts and moderated state tax and fee increases. There are also other streams of funding
in the economic recovery act flowing through states to local governments or individuals, but this will not address state budget
shortfalls.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                                                                     The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                             20/121


                                                                                             ODNI CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should give the Office of the Director on National Intelligence clear
legal and budgetary authority over all intelligence agencies in the United States.

Contention 1 is Competition – the counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency –

Lack of intelligence coordination among the agencies prevents effective counterterrorism – synchronizing the system solves
Dana Priest (The Washington Post's intelligence, Pentagon and health-care investigative reporter. She has won numerous awards, including the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for beat reporting for her work on CIA secret prisons
and counterterrorism operations overseas)      and William M. Arkin (a columnist and reporter with The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com since 1998. He has worked on the subject of government secrecy
and national security affairs for more than 30 years. He has authored or co-authored more than a dozen books about the U.S. military and national security) 7/19/2010: A Hidden World Growing Beyond Control.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/
These are not academic issues; lack of focus, not lack of resources, was at the heart of the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting that left 13
dead, as well as the Christmas Day bomb attempt thwarted not by the thousands of analysts employed to find lone terrorists but by an
alert airline passenger who saw smoke coming from his seatmate. They are also issues that greatly concern some of the people in charge of the nation's
security. "There has been so much growth since 9/11 that getting your arms around that - not just for the DNI (Director of National Intelligence), but
for any individual, for the director of the CIA, for the secretary of defense - is a challenge," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in an interview with The Post last
week. In the Department of Defense, where more than two-thirds of the intelligence programs reside, only a handful of senior officials - called Super
Users - have the ability to know about all the department's activities. But as two of the Super Users indicated in interviews, there is simply no
way they can keep up with the nation's most sensitive work. "I'm not going to live long enough to be briefed on everything" was how one Super User put it. The other
recounted that for his initial briefing, he was escorted into a tiny, dark room, seated at a small table and told he couldn't take notes. Program after program began flashing on a screen, he said,
                                                                     Underscoring the seriousness of these issues are the conclusions of retired
until he yelled "Stop!" in frustration. "I wasn't remembering any of it," he said.
Army Lt. Gen. John Vines, who was asked last year to review the method for tracking the Defense Department's most sensitive
programs. Vines, who once commanded 145,000 troops in Iraq and is familiar with complex problems, was stunned by what he discovered. "I'm not aware of
any agency with the authority, responsibility or a process in place to coordinate all these interagency and commercial activities," he
said in an interview. "The complexity of this system defies description." The result, he added, is that it's impossible to tell whether the
country is safer because of all this spending and all these activities. "Because it lacks a synchronizing process, it inevitably results in message
dissonance, reduced effectiveness and waste," Vines said. "We consequently can't effectively assess whether it is making us more safe." The Post's investigation is based on government
documents and contracts, job descriptions, property records, corporate and social networking websites, additional records, and hundreds of interviews with intelligence, military and corporate officials and former officials.
Most requested anonymity either because they are prohibited from speaking publicly or because, they said, they feared retaliation at work for describing their concerns. Gates, in his interview with The Post, said he does not
believe the system has become too big to manage but getting precise data is sometimes difficult. Singling out the growth of intelligence units in the Defense Department, he said he intends to review those programs for waste.
"Nine years after 9/11, it makes a lot of sense to sort of take a look at this and say, 'OK, we've built tremendous capabilit y, but do we have more than we need?' " he said. CIA Director Leon Panetta, who was also interviewed
by The Post last week, said he's begun mapping out a five-year plan for his agency because the levels of spending since 9/11 are not sustainable. "Particularly with these deficits, we're going to hit the wall. I want to be
prepared for that," he said. "Frankly, I think everyone in intelligence ought to be doing that." In an interview before he resigned as the director of national intelligence in May, retired Adm. Dennis Blair said he did not believe
there was overlap and redundancy in the intelligence world. "Much of what appears to be redundancy is, in fact, providing tailored intelligence for many different customers," he said. Blair also expressed confidence that
subordinates told him what he needed to know. "I have visibility on all the important intelligence programs across the community, and there are processes in place to ensure the different intelligence capabilities are working
together where they need to," he said. Weeks later, as he sat in the corner of a ballroom at the Willard Hotel in Washington waiting to give a speech, he mused about The Post's findings. "After 9/11, when we decided to attack
violent extremism, we did as we so often do in this country," he said. "The attitude was, if it's worth doing, it's probably worth overdoing." Outside a gated subdivision of mansions in suburban McLean, Va., a line of cars
idles every weekday morning as a new day in Top Secret America gets under way. The drivers wait patiently to turn left, then crawl up a hill and around a bend to a destination that is not on any public map and not announced
by any street sign. Liberty Crossing tries to hide from view. But in the winter, leafless trees can't conceal a mountain of concrete and windows the size of five Walmart stores stacked on top of one another rising behind a
grassy berm. One step too close without the right badge, and men in black jump out of nowhere, guns at the ready. Past the armed guards and the hydraulic steel barriers, at least 1,700 federal employees and 1,200 private
contractors work at Liberty Crossing, the nickname for the two headquarters of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and its National Counterterrorism Center. The two share a police force, a canine unit and
thousands of parking spaces. Liberty Crossing is at the center of the collection of U.S. government agencies and corporate contractors that mushroomed after the 2001 attacks. But it is not nearly the biggest, the most costly or
                                           Every day across the United States, 854,000 civil servants, military personnel and private contractors
even the most secretive part of the 9/11 enterprise.
with top-secret security clearances are scanned into offices protected by electromagnetic locks, retinal cameras and fortified walls that
eavesdropping equipment cannot penetrate. This is not exactly President Dwight Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," which emerged with the Cold War and centered
on building nuclear weapons to deter the Soviet Union. This is a national security enterprise with a more amorphous mission: defeating transnational
violent extremists. Much of the information about this mission is classified. And that lack of specifics is one reason it is so difficult to
gauge the success and identify the problems of Top Secret America, including whether money is being spent wisely . The U.S. intelligence
budget is vast, publicly announced last year as $75 billion, which is 2-1/2 times the size it was on Sept. 10, 2001. But the figure doesn't include many military activities or domestic
counterterrorism programs.     At least 20 percent of the government organizations that exist to fend off terrorist threats were established or
refashioned in the wake of 9/11. Many that existed before the attacks grew to historic proportions as the George W. Bush administration and
Congress gave agencies more money than they were capable of responsibly spending. In all, at least 263 organizations have been created or reorganized
as a response to 9/11. Each has required more people, and those people have required more administrative and logistic support : phone
operators, secretaries, librarians, architects, carpenters, construction workers, air-conditioning mechanics and, because of where they work, even janitors with top-secret clearances. With so
many more employees, units and organizations, the lines of responsibility began to blur. To remedy this, at the recommendation of the
bipartisan 9/11 Commission, the Bush administration and Congress decided to create an agency in 2004 with overarching responsibilities
called the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to bring the colossal effort under control. While that was the idea, Washington has its
own ways. The first problem was that the law passed by Congress did not give the director clear legal or budgetary authority over
intelligence matters, which meant he wouldn't have power over the individual agencies he was supposed to control . The second problem: Even
before the first director, Ambassador John Negroponte, was on the job, the turf battles began. The Defense Department shifted billions of dollars out of one budget and into another so the
ODNI could not touch it, according to two senior officials who watched the process. The CIA reclassified some of its most sensitive information at a higher level so the National
Counterterrorism Center staff, part of the ODNI, would not be allowed to see it, said former intelligence officers involved.
                                              For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         21/121


                                     ODNI CP – SOLVENCY (TERRORISM)

Lack of centralization in intelligence leaves us vulnerable to terrorism – overload of evidence and lack of control
Irish Times 7/24/2010: Information overload threatening to choke response to terror.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0724/1224275392743.html
AMERICA: A report on the colossal counter-terrorism intelligence industry in the US shows that it may be drowning in an ocean of
raw data THIS, I suspect, is how empires die: over-extended, asphyxiated by bureaucracy, drowning in information they cannot
adequately assess or act upon. The Washington Post published a stunning, three-day series totalling 11 pages this week on “Top Secret
America”. It was the result of an investigation over two years by Dana Priest and William Arkin into the explosion of the intelligence
industry since September 11th, 2001. Consider the statistics: 1,271 government organisations and 1,931 private companies are now
devoted to counter-terrorism, “homeland security” and intelligence, in 10,000 locations across the US. An estimated 854,000
Americans – 1.5 times the population of Washington DC – hold top secret security clearances. Nearly one-third of them are private
contractors. About half of Top Secret America is concentrated in a swathe of land running diagonally from Virginia to the southwest,
across Washington DC and into Maryland to the northeast. In the Washington area alone, 33 top-secret building complexes, some of
them unmarked and windowless behind high fences, have been or are being built since 9/11. They total 1.6 million sq m (17 million sq
ft), the equivalent of 22 US Capitol buildings. Turf battles between intelligence agencies, the habit of holding information close to the
chest and the impossibility of co-ordinating so much activity makes for huge amounts of duplication. For example, 51 federal
organisations and military commands are dedicated to tracking the money of terrorists. The volume of reporting generated by Top
Secret America – 50,000 intelligence reports each year – means no one has a full grasp of what is known. As James Clapper, President
Obama’s nominee for director of national intelligence, told the Post : “There’s only one entity in the entire universe that has visibility
on all (top secret programmes) – that’s God.” “The complexity of this system defies description,” said another high-ranking source,
retired army Lt Gen John Vines, commissioned to track intelligence at the Department of Defence. The Post concluded that despite a
250 per cent increase in intelligence spending since 9/11, despite the creation or restructuring of 263 organisations, “the problems that
gusher of money and bureaucracy were meant to solve . . . have not been alleviated”. Agencies are still failing to share information or
“connect the dots”. America may not be measurably safer for the more than $75 billion (€58 billion) it spends each year on
intelligence. The National Security Agency intercepts and stores 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other communications daily. But
the NSA and other agencies doing similar work don’t have enough analysts and translators to process the information they cull.
One could argue that the absence of large-scale, lethal attacks on the US continent since 9/11 shows the system is working. But three
recent cases show how Top Secret America failed to forestall real threats. Last November, US army Maj Nidal Hasan went on a
shooting rampage at Fort Hood Texas, killing 13 people and wounding 30 others. When he was training as a psychiatrist at Walter
Reed Army Medical Centre, Hasan had warned his superiors of “adverse events” if Muslims were not allowed to leave the army. And
he exchanged e-mails with Anwar Awlaki, a radical cleric based in Yemen whom the US has targeted for assassination.
But the army’s intelligence unit did not notice Hasan’s behaviour. Its programme, called RITA for Radical Islamic Threat to the
Army, was too busy replicating work by the Department of Homeland Security and FBI on Islamist student groups in the US.
Last autumn, President Obama signed a secret order to send dozens of commandos to Yemen, where they set up an intelligence centre
bristling with hi-tech equipment. Their voluminous reports were bundled into the 5,000 pieces of data sent daily to the National
Counter-terrorism Centre in Washington. Buried in the deluge was the news that a radical Nigerian student had visited Yemen, that a
Nigerian father was worried about his son who’d gone to Yemen. But when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow himself up on a
flight to Detroit on Christmas Day, the aircraft was saved by a passenger who saw smoke coming from Abdulmutallab’s underwear
and tackled him, preventing him from detonating the device. Likewise, it was a vendor in Manhattan who alerted police to a home-
made car bomb on Times Square at the beginning of May. Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-born American citizen who concocted the
mix of fertiliser and bleach, was also in contact with Anwar Awlaki. The Post reports that analysts working on the “priority countries”
of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan know little about them and do not speak their languages, yet produce an “overwhelming”
number of reports. The many-tentacled intelligence community in the US seems blighted by two of the same woes as US journalism:
the same information is rehashed over and over, and recipients are powerless to sift through the glut of material.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                    The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                            22/121


                                            ONDI CP – SOLVENCY (TERRORISM)

Lack of knowledge of interagency codes prevents coordination and causes overlap of intelligence gathering – that lets
terrorists slip through
Dana Priest (The Washington Post's intelligence, Pentagon and health-care investigative reporter. She has won numerous awards, including the 2006 Pulitzer Prize
for beat reporting for her work on CIA secret prisons and counterterrorism operations overseas) and William M. Arkin (a columnist and reporter with The
Washington Post and washingtonpost.com since 1998. He has worked on the subject of government secrecy and national security affairs for more than 30 years. He has
authored or co-authored more than a dozen books about the U.S. military and national security) 7/19/2010: A Hidden World Growing Beyond Control.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/
Last fall, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly opened fire at Fort Hood, Tex., killing 13 people and wounding 30. In the days
after the shootings, information emerged about Hasan's increasingly strange behavior at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he
had trained as a psychiatrist and warned commanders that they should allow Muslims to leave the Army or risk "adverse events." He
had also exchanged e-mails with a well-known radical cleric in Yemen being monitored by U.S. intelligence. But none of this reached
the one organization charged with handling counterintelligence investigations within the Army. Just 25 miles up the road from Walter
Reed, the Army's 902nd Military Intelligence Group had been doing little to search the ranks for potential threats. Instead, the 902's
commander had decided to turn the unit's attention to assessing general terrorist affiliations in the United States, even though the
Department of Homeland Security and the FBI's 106 Joint Terrorism Task Forces were already doing this work in great depth.
The 902nd, working on a program the commander named RITA, for Radical Islamic Threat to the Army, had quietly been gathering
information on Hezbollah, Iranian Republican Guard and al-Qaeda student organizations in the United States. The assessment "didn't
tell us anything we didn't know already," said the Army's senior counterintelligence officer at the Pentagon. Secrecy and lack of
coordination have allowed organizations, such as the 902nd in this case, to work on issues others were already tackling rather than
take on the much more challenging job of trying to identify potential jihadist sympathizers within the Army itself. Beyond
redundancy, secrecy within the intelligence world hampers effectiveness in other ways, say defense and intelligence officers. For the
Defense Department, the root of this problem goes back to an ultra-secret group of programs for which access is extremely limited and
monitored by specially trained security officers. These are called Special Access Programs - or SAPs - and the Pentagon's list of code
names for them runs 300 pages. The intelligence community has hundreds more of its own, and those hundreds have thousands of sub-
programs with their own limits on the number of people authorized to know anything about them. All this means that very few people
have a complete sense of what's going on. "There's only one entity in the entire universe that has visibility on all SAPs - that's God,"
said James R. Clapper, undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the Obama administration's nominee to be the next director of
national intelligence. Such secrecy can undermine the normal chain of command when senior officials use it to cut out rivals or when
subordinates are ordered to keep secrets from their commanders. One military officer involved in one such program said he was
ordered to sign a document prohibiting him from disclosing it to his four-star commander, with whom he worked closely every day,
because the commander was not authorized to know about it. Another senior defense official recalls the day he tried to find out about a
program in his budget, only to be rebuffed by a peer. "What do you mean you can't tell me? I pay for the program," he recalled saying
in a heated exchange. Another senior intelligence official with wide access to many programs said that secrecy is sometimes used to
protect ineffective projects. "I think the secretary of defense ought to direct a look at every single thing to see if it still has value," he
said. "The DNI ought to do something similar." The ODNI hasn't done that yet. The best it can do at the moment is maintain a
database of the names of the most sensitive programs in the intelligence community. But the database does not include many
important and relevant Pentagon projects. Because so much is classified, illustrations of what goes on every day in Top Secret
America can be hard to ferret out. But every so often, examples emerge. A recent one shows the post-9/11 system at its best and its
worst. Last fall, after eight years of growth and hirings, the enterprise was at full throttle when word emerged that something was
seriously amiss inside Yemen. In response, President Obama signed an order sending dozens of secret commandos to that country to
target and kill the leaders of an al-Qaeda affiliate. In Yemen, the commandos set up a joint operations center packed with hard drives,
forensic kits and communications gear. They exchanged thousands of intercepts, agent reports, photographic evidence and real-time
video surveillance with dozens of top-secret organizations in the United States. That was the system as it was intended. But when the
information reached the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington for analysis, it arrived buried within the 5,000 pieces of
general terrorist-related data that are reviewed each day. Analysts had to switch from database to database, from hard drive to hard
drive, from screen to screen, just to locate what might be interesting to study further. As military operations in Yemen intensified and
the chatter about a possible terrorist strike increased, the intelligence agencies ramped up their effort. The flood of information into the
NCTC became a torrent. Somewhere in that deluge was even more vital data. Partial names of someone in Yemen. A reference to a
Nigerian radical who had gone to Yemen. A report of a father in Nigeria worried about a son who had become interested in radical
teachings and had disappeared inside Yemen. These were all clues to what would happen when a Nigerian named Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab left Yemen and eventually boarded a plane in Amsterdam bound for Detroit. But nobody put them together because, as
officials would testify later, the system had gotten so big that the lines of responsibility had become hopelessly blurred. "There are so
many people involved here," NCTC Director Leiter told Congress. "Everyone had the dots to connect," DNI Blair explained to the
lawmakers. "But I hadn't made it clear exactly who had primary responsibility."


                                For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         23/121


                          ONDI CP – SOLVENCY (PRESIDENTIAL POWERS)

Current secrecy and lack of centralization means not even the president can control his own agencies – kills prez powers
Jonathan Bernstein (journalist) 7/22/2010: Presidential power, national security, and "Top Secret America".
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/07/22/presidential_power_top_secret/
OK, now...not to be a jerk about this, but...last time I wrote about the limits of presidential powers, a whole bunch of people responded
by asserting that, of course presidents can do whatever they want in the realm of national security. I think any fair reading of the Post
series will show that much of the bureaucracy Priest and Arkin write about is beyond the immediate control of anyone -- the Director
of National Intelligence (DNI), the Secretary of Defense, whoever. Any bureaucracy that size is too large and too sprawling to make
direct control easy; add secrecy, and it becomes all the more difficult. Here's Glenn Greenwald (last seen in these parts chiding me for
saying that Barack Obama had no magic wand that could change policy at his whim):
"We chirp endlessly about the Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, the Democrats and Republicans, but this is the Real
U.S. Government: functioning in total darkness, beyond elections and parties, so secret, vast and powerful that it evades the control or
knowledge of any one person or even any organization."
As much as I'd like to see Greenwald reconcile that with his penchant for ridiculing anyone who believes that presidents have limited
powers, I think instead I'll just point to this excellent post by presidency and bureaucracy scholar Matthew Dickinson, and then go on
to make a few points.
First, I suspect that a lot of the waste, inefficiency, incompetence and other problems that Priest and Arkin are detailing is yet another
example of what a lousy president George W. Bush was. It will be years, maybe decades, before historians will be able to really sort
through the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, and come to solid conclusions about what was done well, what was done badly,
and what the president's role in all of it was, but from what we do know of Bush so far it would be consistent for him to have been
passive, uninvolved, and far too easily manipulated by various players in the White House and the bureaucracy because he entered the
White House with shockingly little knowledge or interest in government or public affairs, and then failed to realize or try to make up
for that poor preparation. (And, yes, that's only based on what we know so far, and I'm open to any new evidence to the contrary. By
the way, Dickinson disagrees on Bush's background. I think he's wrong, but we'll see what the evidence winds up showing).




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                    The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                            24/121


                                                     PATENTS CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should give the patent office a $1 billion dollar surge to restore it to
proper functioning and pass pending legislation that would prohibit diverting of patent fees and give the office the authority to
set its own fees.

Contention 1 is competition – the counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is solvency –

Issuing new patents is key to securing venture capital for startups – and that’s key to 2.5 million new jobs
Paul R. Michel (former chief judge of United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which handles patent appeals) and
Henry R. Nothhaft (the chief executive of a technology miniaturization firm) 8/6/2010: Inventing Our Way Out of Joblessness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06nothhaft.html
AS President Obama and Congress search for ways to jump-start job creation in our stalled economy, their best strategy may be right
under their noses — in the voluminous backlogged files of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
This is the agency, after all, that issues the patents that technology startups and other small businesses need to attract venture capital to
pay salaries. Three-fourths of executives at venture capital-backed startups say patents are vital to getting financing, according to the
2008 Berkeley Patent Survey, a national study of patents and entrepreneurship. And startups are responsible for almost all the new
jobs created in the United States since 1977, according to a study by the Kauffman Foundation.
Unfortunately, since 1992, Congress has diverted more than $750 million in patent fees to other purposes. That has left the patent
office itself underfinanced and burdened with a backlog of 1.2 million applications awaiting examination, more than half of which
have not had even a first review.
To revitalize America’s engine of entrepreneurship — and create as many as 2.5 million jobs in the next three years — Congress
should, first, give the patent office a $1 billion surge to restore it to proper functioning. This would enable the agency to upgrade its
outmoded computer systems and hire and train additional examiners to deal with the threefold increase in patent applications over the
past 20 years. Congress should also pass pending legislation that would prohibit any more diverting of patent fees and give the office
the authority to set its own fees.
Once the patent office is back to operating effectively, the backlog of 1.2 million applications should yield, judging from history,
roughly 780,000 issued patents, about 137,000 of which would go to small businesses. Then, going forward, the agency could grant an
additional 88,000 patents within three years. By 2013, small businesses would have received some 225,000 patents that they could
then use to secure financing to build their businesses and hire more workers.
To be sure, not every patent creates a job or generates economic value. Some, however, are worth thousands of jobs — Jack Kilby’s
1959 patent for a semiconductor, for example, or Steve Wozniak’s 1979 patent for a personal computer. It’s impossible to predict how
many new jobs or even new industries may lie buried within the patent office’s backlog. But according to our analysis of the data in
the Berkeley Patent Survey, each issued patent is associated with 3 to 10 new jobs.
So our guess is that restoring the patent office to full functionality would create, over the next three years, at least 675,000 and as
many as 2.25 million jobs. Assuming a mid-range figure of 1.5 million, the price would be roughly $660 per job — and that would be
525 times more cost effective than the 2.5 million jobs created by the government’s $787 billion stimulus plan.




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        25/121


                                                  JV2020FLP CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States Department of Defense should fund the Joint Vision 2020 Focused Logistics Program
using Electric Product Code automatic identification.

Contention 1 is Competition: The counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

(__) Readiness
And, an EPC program solves every internal link to readiness-Visibility and Supply Chains are key to maintaining readiness on
the battlefield
Daniel Engels et al 4 (May-June 2004 volume Army Logistician, journal concerning the the U.S. Army's logistics plans, policies,
doctrines, procedures, and operations., "Improving visibility in the DOD supply chain",
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAI/is_3_36/ai_n6129799/)
The EPC system is being adopted as a standard in the commercial sector and could be applicable to the military as well. A military-
commercial interface would allow all military suppliers to use the same standardized system to identify objects. Use of the EPC
system would help improve the U.S. military's readiness for war by providing DOD with unprecedented visibility and control of the
supply chain. DOD Supply Chain In many ways, the DOD supply chain is similar to the supply chains of commercial suppliers
because many of the products and supplies contained within the DOD supply chain are also available commercially. However,
differences in optimization criteria lead to a number of characteristics that set the DOD supply chain apart from the commercial supply
chain. Some of the most important of these differentiating characteristics follow. Readiness. The primary purpose of optimizing the
military supply chain is to enhance readiness for war. Knowing the location and status of all materials needed to support operations is
an essential component of readiness. Long supply lines. War is an international activity, which means that lines of supply to support
operations are long. Without auto-ID technology that provides real-time visibility of items moving from the suppliers to the front-line
troops, it is extremely difficult to maintain accurate knowledge of supply-chain-wide inventories. Variety of items. Military operations
require a large number of items, ranging from everyday supplies to food and clothing to specialized equipment. Different categories of
items have different standards for inventory accuracy and visibility. Unstable demand. Military demand is often variable and
unpredictable because conflicts can happen anywhere in the world at any time. When a conflict occurs, demand for supplies increases
dramatically and existing stockpiles of materiel are depleted quickly. Accurate inventories are critical to maintaining readiness in the
presence of variable demand. Moving end points. The end, or destination, points of the military supply chain generally move forward
with advancing troops and are either terminated or transformed, creating additional difficulties for transportation and inventory
management. Priority. The military supply chain operates on priorities set by unit commanders based on urgency of need. Equipment
reliability and maintenance. Military operations take place in all types of environments and on all kinds of terrain. Under battle
conditions, it is important that all identification technologies work effectively and that system maintenance is minimal. Detection. In a
theater of operations, the military must always be careful not to divulge information about its position that would be advantageous to
the enemy. The problems that have resulted in the past from these characteristics of the DOD supply chain often were exacerbated by
poor inventory visibility. The use of auto-ID systems that are customized to accommodate the peculiar aspects of the DOD supply
chain can significantly reduce the recurrence of these problems.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        26/121


                                JV2020FLP CP – SOLVENCY (READINESS)

Counterplan Solves Readiness Comparatively Better- than the Case-we solve your IL

    1.   Visibility-Knowledge of Supply Lines Locations is key to providing troops with the needed equipment rapidly-long
         supply lines crush readiness and make it possible to fight asymmetrical warfare
    2.   Stealth-Identification Technology is key to maintain secrecy of operations-this moots all military muscle because the
         enemy can prepare strategic counter-attacks
    3.   We Solve Your Internal Link-Long supply lines lead to stagnation of soldiers-waiting due to supply shortages crushes
         troop morale

     4. Equipment Repair
Daniel Engels et al 4       (May-June 2004 volume Army Logistician, journal concerning the the U.S. Army's logistics plans, policies,
doctrines, procedures, and operations., "Improving visibility in the DOD supply chain",
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAI/is_3_36/ai_n6129799/)

Any large-scale repair Operation is complex because it is difficult to predict demand for spare parts. In military repair operations,
expensive parts are given high priority and customer wait time is usually very short. However, inexpensive parts are often critical to
completing a repair. These parts are usually assigned a lower priority, which often causes them to be delayed in shipment. In turn, this
causes delays in the entire repair cycle. Military planners often increase the total fleet size to compensate for lengthy repair
times.Readiness and MobilityCombat forces must be ready to engage in a conflict and they must be able to move to the conflict
location quickly. Troop readiness is determined in part by equipment readiness, and equipment readiness hinges on proper repair and
maintenance. Mobility is determined primarily by the quantity of materiel that must be moved and the number of transport vehicles
available to carry it. In general, the smaller the inventory required to travel with a force, the greater its mobility. Accurate data on
inventory quantities and locations enables logistics support systems to transport a greater quantity of items, thereby reducing the
inventory of forward-positioned troops while increasing their mobility.


     5. Tracking
Daniel Engels et al 4         (May-June 2004 volume Army Logistician, journal concerning the the U.S. Army's logistics plans,
policies, doctrines, procedures, and operations., "Improving visibility in the DOD supply chain",
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAI/is_3_36/ai_n6129799/)

The lack of a single, standardized auto-ID system severely limits the tracking of assets as they move through the supply chain from the
supplier to the troops. Similarly, the visibility of objects flowing back through the supply chain is limited. The inability to track
individual items negatively affects all supply-chain-related applications, including repair and maintenance, identification of failure-
prone parts, and the ability to perform predictive maintenance.

     6. Military-Civilian Cooperation
Daniel Engels et al 4         (May-June 2004 volume Army Logistician, journal concerning the the U.S. Army's logistics plans,
policies, doctrines, procedures, and operations., "Improving visibility in the DOD supply chain",
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAI/is_3_36/ai_n6129799/)

 By using the same standard as industry, DOD will be able to communicate with commercial vendors and have direct visibility of
inventories at civilian locations. An active military-civilian interface also will give vendors and military planners the opportunity to
collaborate on ways to enhance readiness for war. Precise inventory levels by version will be possible with the EPC system. (A part
number is not unique because a new number is not assigned each time an engineering change is made. Therefore, an inventory of
spare parts for equipment that has a long life cycle often includes many different versions of a part as changes are made over the life
of the equipment.) Civilian warehouses will be able to assist the military in stockpiling enough supplies to sustain several
simultaneous war scenarios. This could take the form of maintaining "warm" inventories that are reserved for military operations, yet
continue to cycle into normal shipments. This practice would reduce losses resulting from exceeding shelf-life limits. Using inventory
pooling between civilian and military organizations would significantly reduce waste and improve readiness.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                  The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                          27/121


                                JV2020FLP CP – READINESS KEY TO HEG

Military readiness key to heg
Jack Spencer, policy analyst at Heritage, 9/15/2000, http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG 1394.cfm
The evidence indicates that the U.S. armed forces are not ready to support America's national security requirements. Moreover,
regarding the broader capability to defeat groups of enemies, military readiness has been declining. The National Security
Strategy, the U.S. official statement of national security objectives, 3 concludes that the United States "must have the capability
to deter and, if deterrence fails, defeat large-scale. cross- border aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping time frames." 4
According to some of the military's highest-ranking officials, however, the United States cannot achieve this goal. Commandant
of the Marine Corps General James Jones, former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson, and Air Force Chief of Staff
General Michael Ryan have all expressed serious concerns about their respective services' ability to carry out a two major theater
war strategy. 5 Recently retired Generals Anthony Zinni of the U.S. Marine Corps and George Joulwan of the U.S. Army have
even questioned America's ability to conduct one major theater war the size of the 1991 Gulf War. 6 Military readiness is vital
because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United s.tates is not prepared to defend its
interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests. inevitably
leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from
acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest. thereby preserving peace.

Readiness is key to U.S. hegemony.
Donnelly, 2003---Resident Scholar at AEI (Thomas, Resident Scholar at AEI, 2/1. ttp://www.aei.org/publications
/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp)
The preservation of today's Pax Americana rests upon both actual military strength and the perception of strength. The variety
of victories scored by U.S. forces since the end of the cold war is testament to both the futility of directly challenging the United
States and the desire of its enemies to keep poking and prodding to find a weakness in the American global order. Convincing
would-be great powers, rogue states, and terrorists to accept the liberal democratic order--and the challenge to autocratic forms of
rule that come with it--requires not only an overwhelming response when the peace is broken, but a willingness to step in when
the danger is imminent. The message of the Bush Doctrine--"Don't even think about it!"--rests in part on a logic of preemption that
underlies the logic of primacy.

Recruits and personnel are the basis of US readiness- solves nuclear war
CNAS, 2008 (Center for a New American Security, “Strengthening the Readiness of the U.S. Military”, Prepared Statement of
Michèle A. Flournoy)
At the same time, the United States must prepare for a broad range of future contingencies, from sustained, small-unit irregular
warfare missions to military-to-military training and advising missions to high-end warfare against regional powers armed with
weapons of mass destruction and other asymmetric means. Yet compressed training times between deployments mean that many
of our enlisted personnel and officers have the time to train only for the missions immediately before them—in Iraq and
Afghanistan—and not for the missions over the horizon. These just-in-time training conditions have created a degree of strategic
risk, which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff noted in his recent posture statement. As we at the Center for a New
American Security wrote in our June, 2007 report on the ground forces, the United States is a global power with global interests,
and we need our armed forces to be ready to respond whenever and wherever our strategic interests might be threatened. The
absence of an adequate strategic reserve of ready ground forces must be addressed on an urgent basis. Readiness is the winning
combination of personnel, equipment, and training in adequate quantity and quality for each unit. Each of these components of
readiness has been under sustained and increasing stress over the past several years. For the ground forces, the readiness picture
is largely—although not solely—centered on personnel while the Navy and the Air Force’s readiness challenges derive primarily
from aging equipment. The Army continues to experience the greatest strain and the greatest recruitment challenges.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         28/121


                                       OFFSHORE BALANCING – 1NC 1/2

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should adopt offshore balancing as its grand strategy for military
deployment as per the suggestions by Christopher Layne

Solves heg – first, the current strategy of US military posturing is collapsing and unsustainable
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and
Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute) May 27 2009: America’s Middle East grand
strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived, British International Studies Association,
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FRIS%2FRIS35_01%2FS0260210509008304a.pdf&code=6fd7a58f378a137ce6
bbfbf916a408e1
The US has reached a watershed in Iraq and the Middle East. Washington needs to revamp its overall regional grand strategy
because the current strategy is in shambles. Although the security situation in Iraq has improved since late 2006, the nation
remains extremely fragile politically and its future is problematic. On the other hand, things are unravelling in Afghanistan,
where the insurgency led by the revitalized Taliban is spreading. The US and Iran remain on a collision course over Tehran’s
nuclear weapons programme – and its larger regional ambitions. Moreover, the summer 2006 fighting in Lebanon weakened US
Middle Eastern policy in four ways. First, it enhanced Iran’s regional clout. Second, it intensified anti-American public opinion in the
Middle East. Third, it fuelled a populist Islamic groundswell in the region that threatens to undermine America’s key Middle East
allies: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. Fourth, American policy in the Middle East has increased the terrorist threat to the US.

AND, The U.S. should adopt an offshore balancing strategy – reduces hostilities
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and
Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute) May 27 2009: America’s Middle East grand
strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived, British International Studies Association,
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FRIS%2FRIS35_01%2FS0260210509008304a.pdf&code=6fd7a58f378a137ce6
bbfbf916a408e1
In this paper, I argue that there is an emerging consensus among realists that the U.S. should abandon its hegemonic strategy and
adopt an offshore balancing strategy. Here, Iraqand the so called war on terrorism (or “long war,” or “globalcounter-insurgency,” as
some American officials sometimes referto it) have been the catalysts. Increasingly, it is recognized that U.S. aims in the Persian
Gulf/Middle East - and the American military presence in the region - have fueled terrorism, and caused Iran to self-
defensively seek to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. A number of leading realists now argue that the best strategy for the
U.S. is to extricate itself from Iraq, reduce its regional footprint, and adopt an offshore balancing strategy.
In this paper, I make the case for offshore balancing asAmerica’s next grand strategy. In so doing, I argue thatoffshore balancing can
be considered as a “wedge” (or wedge-like)strategy for two reasons. First, at the great power level, it can be used to break up
potential alliances directed against the United States, and also to force possible future rivals of the United States to focus their
security policies on each other rather than on counterbalancing the U.S.Second, in the MiddleEast an offshore balancing
posture would help drain away much of the opposition to American policies that fosters Islamic terrorism directed at the
United States.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        29/121


                                    OFFSHORE BALANCING CP – 1NC 2/2

AND, Offshore balancing prevents the need for a large military – forward deployment ans an increase of military troops is
unnecessary
Charles PEÑA (Senior Fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, adviser to the Straus Military Reform Project, and
analyst for MSNBC) 2006: “A Smaller Military To Fight the War on Terror," Orbis, Volume 50, Issue 2, Spring, ScienceDirect
Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the total number of U.S. active-duty military personnel was more than 1.4 million troops, of which
237,473 were deployed in foreign countries.10 Assuming twice as many troops need to be deployed in the United States in order to
rotate those deployments at specified intervals,11 then more than 700,000 active-duty troops, along with their associated force
structure, are required to maintain a global military presence. Since the United States does not in fact have to maintain its current
worldwide deployments, U.S. security against nation-state threats can be achieved at significantly lower costs. Instead of a
Cold War–era extended defense perimeter and forward-deployed forces, today's nation-state threat environment affords the
United States the opportunity to adopt a “balancer-of-last-resort” strategy. Such a strategy would place greater emphasis on
allowing countries to build regional security arrangements, even in important areas such as Europe and East Asia. In 2001,
Ivan Eland argued: The regional arrangements could include a regional security organization (such as any newly formed defense
subset of the European Union), a great power policing its sphere of influence, or simply a balance of power among the larger nations
of a region. Those regional arrangements would check aspiring hegemonic powers and thus keep power in the international system
diffuse.12 Ted Galen Carpenter at the Cato Institute also argues in favor of a balancer-of-last-resort strategy: The United States no
longer faces a would-be hegemonic rival, nor is any credible challenger on the horizon. That development should
fundamentally change how we view regional or internecine conflicts. In most cases such disorders will not impinge on vital
U.S. interests. Washington can, therefore, afford to view them with detachment, intervening only as a balancer of last resort
when a conflict cannot be contained by other powers in the affected region and is expanding to the point where America's
security is threatened.13 Stephen Walt of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University echoes Eland and Carpenter in
his argument for an offshore balancing strategy: The final option is offshore balancing, which has been America's traditional grand
strategy. In this strategy, the United States deploys its power abroad only when there are direct threats to vital American interests.
Offshore balancing assumes that only a few areas of the globe are of strategic importance to the United States (that is, worth fighting
and dying for). Specifically, the vital areas are the regions where there are substantial concentrations of power and wealth or critical
natural resources: Europe, industrialized Asia, and the Persian Gulf. Offshore balancing further recognizes that the United States does
not need to control these areas directly; it merely needs to ensure that they do not fall under the control of a hostile great power and
especially not under the control of a so-called peer competitor. To prevent rival great powers from doing this, offshore balancing
prefers to rely primarily on local actors to uphold the regional balance of power. Under this strategy, the United States would
intervene with its own forces only when regional powers are unable to uphold the balance of power on their own.14 Therefore,
instead of being a first responder to every crisis and conflict, the U.S. military would only intervene when truly vital U.S.
security interests were at stake. That would allow U.S. forces to be expeditionary—i.e., mostly stationed in the United States,
rather than being forward-deployed in other countries around the world. Such a posture might require prepositioning of supplies and
equipment and negotiating access and base rights, but would not require large numbers of troops to be stationed in foreign
countries.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                            The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                    30/121


                                  OFFSHORE BALANCING CP – SOLVENCY (HEG)

Offshore Balancing solves U.S. interests best – stops political backlash
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and Research Fellow with the Center on
Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute) May 27 2009: America’s Middle East grand strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived, British
International Studies Association,
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FRIS%2FRIS35_01%2FS0260210509008304a.pdf&code=6fd7a58f378a137ce6bbfbf916a408e1
Primacy’s neorealist critics have outlined an alternative grand strategy that increasingly resonates with the American public:
offshore balancing. Its proponents believe that offshore balancing can do a better job than primacy of enhancing American
security and matching US foreign policy objectives with the resources available to support them. The driving factor behind
offshore balancing is its proponents’ recognition that the US has a ‘hegemony’ problem. America’s strategy of primacy increases
US vulnerability to a geopolitical backlash – whether in the guise of countervailing great power coalitions, or terrorist attacks
– and alienates public opinion in large swaths of the globe, including Europe and the Middle East.

Counterplan key to protecting U.S. interests – empirically proven
John J. Mearsheimer (the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the
Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago) December 31, 2008: A Return to Offshore Balancing,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177380/page/1
As the new President takes office, the United States is in deep trouble in the Middle East. Despite Obama's promises to withdraw from Iraq, the debacle there shows no
sign of ending soon, and it has made America's terrorism problem worse, not better. Meanwhile, Hamas rules in Gaza, Iran's stature is on the rise and Tehran is quickly
moving to acquire a nuclear deterrent—which, despite a lot of tough talk, the United States and its allies have been unable to prevent. And America's image
throughout the Middle East is at an all-time low. All this is a direct result of the Bush administration's misguided policy of
regional transformation. George W. Bush hoped he could implant democracy in the Middle East by using the U.S. military to
topple the unfriendly regime in Baghdad—and maybe those in Damascus and Tehran, too—and replace them with friendly, democratic governments. Things didn't
work out well, of course, and it's now vital that the new president devise a radically different strategy for dealing with this
critical part of the world. Fortunately, one approach has proved effective in the past and could serve America again today:
"offshore balancing." During the cold war, this strategy enabled Washington to contain Iran and Iraq and deter direct Soviet
intervention in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. As a Middle East policy, offshore balancing may be less ambitious than Bush's grand
design was—no one promises it will lead to an "Arab spring"—but it will be much more effective at protecting actual U.S.
interests. So what would it look like? As an offshore balancer, the United States would keep its military forces—especially its ground
and air forces—outside the Middle East, not smack in the center of it. Hence the term "offshore." As for "balancing," that would mean
relying on regional powers like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia to check each other. Washington would remain diplomatically engaged,
and when necessary would assist the weaker side in a conflict. It would also use its air and naval power to signal a continued U.S.
commitment to the region and would retain the capacity to respond quickly to unexpected threats, like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in
1990. But—and this is the key point—the United States would put boots on the ground in the Middle East only if the local balance of
power seriously broke down and one country threatened to dominate the others. Short of that, America would keep its soldiers and
pilots "over the horizon"—namely at sea, in bases outside the region or back home in the United States. This approach might strike some as cynical after
Bush's lofty rhetoric. It would do little to foster democracy or promote human rights. But Bush couldn't deliver on those promises anyway, and it is ultimately up to
individual countries, not Washington, to determine their political systems. It is hardly cynical to base U.S. strategy on a realistic appraisal of American interests and a
clear-eyed sense of what U.S. power cannot accomplish.

Offshore Balancing solves for bloody wars like Iraq and mitigates the deficit
John J. Mearsheimer (the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the
Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago) December 31, 2008: A Return to Offshore Balancing,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177380/page/1
Offshore balancing has three particular virtues that would be especially appealing today. First, it would significantly reduce
(though not eliminate) the chances that the United States would get involved in another bloody and costly war like Iraq.
America doesn't need to control the Middle East with its own forces; it merely needs to ensure that no other country does.
Toward that end, offshore balancing would reject the use of military force to reshape the politics of the region and would rely
instead on local allies to contain their dangerous neighbors. As an offshore balancer, the United States would husband its own
resources and intervene only as a last resort. And when it did, it would finish quickly and then move back offshore. The
relative inexpensiveness of this approach is particularly attractive in the current climate. The U.S. financial bailout has been
hugely expensive, and it's not clear when the economy will recover. In this environment, America simply cannot afford to be
fighting endless wars across the Middle East, or anywhere else. Remember that Washington has already spent $600 billion on the
Iraq War, and the tally is likely to hit more than $1 trillion before that conflict is over. Imagine the added economic consequences of a
war with Iran. Offshore balancing would not be free—the United States would still have to maintain a sizable expeditionary force
and the capacity to move it quickly—but would be a lot cheaper than the alternative.


                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                             The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                     31/121


                          OFFSHORE BALANCING CP – SOLVENCY (HEG)

The U.S. has not adopted offshore balancing – failure to do so unifies nation - states against the U.S. – fuels hostilities
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and
Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute) May 27 2009: America’s Middle East grand
strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived, British International Studies Association,
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FRIS%2FRIS35_01%2FS0260210509008304a.pdf&code=6fd7a58f378a137ce6
bbfbf916a408e1
The US, of course, has not acted as an offshore balancer. Rather, for more than sixty years it consciously has sought extra-regional
hegemony in Europe, East Asia and the Middle East.14 Rather than acting as a ‘wedge’ strategy, American primacy – especially now
that the Cold War has ended – now threatens to act more like a kind of glue that unifies other states, and, increasingly, non-state
actors like Al- Qaeda, in resistance to America’s expansive geopolitical and ideological ambitions. The operational differences
between the strategies of primacy and offshore balancing can be illustrated by examining how each would deal with the most pressing
foreign policy issue facing the US today: the Middle East.

Offshore Balancing increases U.S. security – deflects attention – allows competing powers to fight against each other, not with
the US
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and
Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute) May 27 2009: America’s Middle East grand
strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived, British International Studies Association,
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FRIS%2FRIS35_01%2FS0260210509008304a.pdf&code=6fd7a58f378a137ce6
bbfbf916a408e1
While not generally conceived of as a wedge strategy, offshore balancing is a way that an insular great power can neutralize
threats to its security.By acting as an offshore balancer, an insular great power can accomplish two vital grand strategic tasks.
First, because its would-be adversaries invariably live in dangerous neighbourhoods, by truly being ‘offshore’ and non-
threatening, an insular great power can deflect the focus of other states’ security policies away from itself. Simply put, if an
offshore power stands on the sidelines, other great powers will compete against each other, not against it. It can thus enhance
its securitysimply because the dynamics of balance-of-power politics invariably will draw would-be competitors in other
regions into rivalries with each other. The fact that non-insular states must worry constantly about possible threats from
nearby neighbours is a factor that historically has worked to increase the relative power position of insular states. Thus, as Paul
Kennedy notes, after 1815 a major reason that Britain’s interests were not challenged by an overwhelming coalition was due to ‘the
preoccupation of virtually all European statesman with continental power politics’ because it ‘was the moves of their neighbors, not
the usually discreet workings of British sea power, which interested them’.12




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                                                         32/121


                                                     OFFSHORE BALANCING CP – SOLVENCY (HEG)

Offshore Balancing would reduce the risks associated with US heg – distances the US from turbulent regions
Christopher Layne (associate professor in the School of International Studies at the University of Miami) 2002 Offshore Balancing Revisited, Washington
Quarterly, 2/25, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v025/25.2layne.html
                                                                                                                              the big
In the longer term, regardless of future developments in the war on terrorism, the paradox of U.S. power will not disappear. Looking beyond the war,
question confronting U.S. strategists in coming years is how to reduce the risks of U.S. hegemony. To lower the risk, the United States
must change its grand strategy. One grand strategic alternative to primacy is offshore balancing. Like primacy, offshore balancing is a strategy
firmly rooted in the Realist tradition. Primacy adherents regard multipolarity--an international system comprised of three or more great powers--as a strategic threat to
the United States, while offshore balancers see it as a strategic opportunity for the United States. Offshore balancing is predicated on the assumption that attempting to
maintain U.S. hegemony is self-defeating because it will provoke other states to combine in opposition to the United States and result in the futile depletion of the
United States' relative power, thereby leaving it worse off than if it accommodated multipolarity. Offshore balancing accepts that the United States cannot prevent the
rise of new great powers either within (the EU, Germany, and Japan) or outside (China, a resurgent Russia) its sphere of influence. Offshore balancing would
also relieve the United States of its burden of managing the security affairs of turbulent regions such as the Persian Gulf/Middle East
and Southeast Europe. Offshore balancing is a grand strategy based on burden shifting, not burden sharing. It would transfer to others
the task of maintaining regional power balances; [End Page 245] checking the rise of potential global and regional hegemons; and
stabilizing Europe, East Asia, and the Persian Gulf/Middle East. In other words, other states would have to become responsible for providing their own
security and for the security of the regions in which they live (and contiguous ones), rather than looking to the United States to do it for them. The events of September
11 make offshore balancing an attractive grand strategic alternative to primacy for two reasons. First, looking beyond the war on terrorism, the Persian
Gulf/Middle East region is clearly, endemically unstable. If the United States attempts to perpetuate its hegemonic role in the region
after having accomplished its immediate war aims, the probability of a serious geopolitical backlash within the region against the
United States is high.Second, because the U.S. victory in the war on terrorism will underscore U.S. predominance in international
politics, victory's paradoxical effect will be to heighten European, Russian, and Chinese fears of U.S. power. By adopting an offshore
balancing strategy once the war on terrorism ends, the United States would benefit in two ways. First, others have much greater
intrinsic strategic interests in the region than does the United States. For example, Western Europe, Japan, and, increasingly, China are far more
dependent on the region's oil than the United States. Because they live next door, Russia, China, Iran, and India have a much greater long-term
security interest in regional stability in the Persian Gulf/Middle East than the United States. By passing the mantle of regional
stabilizer to these great and regional powers, the United States could extricate itself from the messy and dangerous geopolitics of the
Persian Gulf/Middle East and take itself out of radical Islam's line of fire. Second, although a competitive component to U.S. relations with the other great powers in a multipolar world would be
inescapable, multipolar politics have historically engendered periods of great-power cooperation. On the cooperative side, an offshore balancing strategy would be coupled with a policy of spheres of influence, which have always been an important item in the toolbox of

great-power policymakers.
             By recognizing each other's paramount interests in certain regions, great powers can avoid the kinds of
misunderstandings that could trigger conflict. Moreover, the mere act of signaling that one country understands another's larger security stake in a particular
region, a stake that it will respect by noninterference, allows states to communicate a nonthreatening posture to one another. By recognizing the legitimacy of other
interests, a great power also signals that it accepts them as equals. An offshore balancing strategy would immunize the United States against a post-
war-on-terrorism backlash against U.S. hegemony in one other way. By accepting the emergence of new great powers and
simultaneously pulling back from its primacy-driven military posture, the United States would reduce perception of a "U.S. threat,"
thereby lowering the chances that others will view it as an [End Page 246] overpowerful hegemon. In this sense, offshore balancing is
a strategy of restraint that would allow theUnited States to minimize the risks of open confrontation with the new great powers.




                                                     For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                      33/121


                        OFFSHORE BALANCING CP – SOLVENCY (PROLIF)

Offshore Balancing solves for nuclear weapons – removes motivation for seeking wmds
John J. Mearsheimer (the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the
Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago) December 31, 2008: A Return to Offshore Balancing,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177380/page/1
Third, offshore balancing would reduce fears in Iran and Syria that the United States aims to attack them and remove their regimes—a
key reason these states are currently seeking weapons of mass destruction. Persuading Tehran to abandon its nuclear program will
require Washington to address Iran's legitimate security concerns and to refrain from issuing overt threats. Removing U.S. troops from
the neighborhood would be a good start. The United States can't afford to completely disengage from the Middle East, but offshore
balancing would make U.S. involvement there less threatening. Instead of lumping potential foes together and encouraging them to
join forces against America, this strategy would encourage contending regional powers to compete for the United States' favor,
thereby facilitating a strategy of divide-and-conquer. A final, compelling reason to adopt this approach to the Middle East is that
nothing else has worked. In the early 1990s, the Clinton administration pursued a "dual containment" strategy: instead of using Iraq
and Iran to check each other, the United States began trying to contain both. This policy guaranteed only that each country came to
view the United States as a bitter enemy. It also required the United States to deploy large numbers of troops in Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia. The policy fueled local resentment, helped persuade Osama bin Laden to declare war on America and led to the bombing of
the Khobar Towers in 1996, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and, eventually, 9/11.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                               The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                       34/121


                       OFFSHORE BALANCING CP – SOLVENCY (TERROR)

Offshore Balancing solves terrorism
John J. Mearsheimer (the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the co-director of the
Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago) December 31, 2008: A Return to Offshore Balancing,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177380/page/1
Second, offshore balancing would ameliorate America's terrorism problem. One of the key lessons of the past century is that
nationalism and other forms of local identity remain intensely powerful, and foreign occupiers generate fierce local resentment. That
resentment often manifests itself in terrorism or even large-scale insurgencies directed at the United States. When the Reagan
administration put U.S. troops in Beirut following Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, local terrorists responded by suicide-bombing
the U.S. Embassy in April 1983 and the U.S. Marine barracks in October, killing more than 300. Keeping U.S. military forces out of
sight until they are needed would minimize the anger created by having them permanently stationed on Arab soil.

Offshore Balancing would lessen the threat of terrorism – military presence causes anti-Americanism sentiments
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and
Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at The Independent Institute) May 27 2009: America’s Middle East grand
strategy after Iraq: the moment for offshore balancing has arrived, British International Studies Association,
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FRIS%2FRIS35_01%2FS0260210509008304a.pdf&code=6fd7a58f378a137ce6
bbfbf916a408e1In the Middle East, an offshore balancing strategy would break sharply with the Bush administration’s approach to the
Middle East. As an offshore balancer, the US would redefine its regional interests, reduce its military role, and adopt a new regional
diplomatic posture. It would seek to dampen the terrorist threat by removing the on-the ground US military presence in the region, and
to quell rampant anti-Americanism in the Islamic world by pushing hard for a resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The
strategy would also avoid further destabilisation of the Middle East by abandoning the project of regional democratic transformation.
Finally, as an offshore balancer, Washington would seek a diplomatic accommodation of its differences with Iran.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         35/121


                      OFFSHORE BALANCING CP – AT: TRANSITION WARS

Transition will be peaceful- the international system accommodates rising powers
John Ikenberry (Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton) 2008: “The Rise of China and the Future of the West.”
Foreign Affairs, 00157120, Vol. 87, Issue 1
THE MOST important benefit of these features today is that they give the Western order a remarkable capacity to accommodate rising
powers. New entrants into the system have ways of gaining status and authority and opportunities to play a role in governing the order.
The fact that the United States, China, and other great powers have nuclear weapons also limits the ability of a rising power to
overturn the existing order. In the age of nuclear deterrence, great-power war is, thankfully, no longer a mechanism of historical
change. War-driven change has been abolished as a historical process. The Western order's strong framework of rules and institutions
is already starting to facilitate Chinese integration. At first, China embraced certain rules and institutions for defensive purposes:
protecting its sovereignty and economic interests while seeking to reassure other states of its peaceful intentions by getting involved in
regional and global groupings. But as the scholar Marc Lanteigne argues, "What separates China from other states, and indeed
previous global powers, is that not only is it 'growing up' within a milieu of international institutions far more developed than ever
before, but more importantly, it is doing so while making active use of these institutions to promote the country's development of
global power status." China, in short, is increasingly working within, rather than outside of, the Western order.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                               The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                       36/121


                                               ARMS SALES CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should end all arms sales to Taiwan.

Contention 1 is competition – the counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is solvency –

China wants the US to end arms sale to Taiwan; this is the key barrier to relations
Associated Press, Jan. 10, 2010, “China urges U.S. to end arms sales to Taiwan,”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705357419/China-urges-US-to-end-arms-sales-to-Taiwan.html
China has reiterated its opposition to American arms sales to Taiwan, calling them an interference in Beijing's internal affairs
that could undermine relations with the United States. Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei's comments — the sixth official
announcement in a week against the arms sales, according to the state-run news agency — underscore Beijing's sensitivity to the
idea Washington may be conferring legitimacy on the island's government while boosting its defenses. Communist-ruled China
split with Taiwan amid civil war in 1949 and continues to regard the self-governing democracy as part of its territory, triggering
frequent diplomatic spats with the United States, which pledged to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself in 1979. In the
most recent announcement Saturday, He said China expressed its strong dissatisfaction to recent moves by the U.S. government
to award contracts for Taiwan-bound weapons to Raytheon Company and Lockheed Martin Corp., according to the Xinhua
News Agency.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                           The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                   37/121


                  ARMS SALES CP – SOLVENCY (U.S. CHINA RELATIONS)

Arms sales are a major barrier to Sino-US relations
Thomas Lum, Specialist in Asian Affairs, Congressional Research Service, March 12, 2010, “U.S.-China Relations: Policy Issues,”
pg 16. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a915184713
U.S. arms sales to Taiwan continue to pose a major obstacle to better U.S.-China relations. The three joint communiqués (1972,
1979, and 1982) and the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979 guide U.S.-China relations and U.S. policy toward Taiwan. While
the third communiqué provides that the United States “intends to reduce gradually its sales of arms to Taiwan,” the TRA, which
the PRC does not recognize, commits the United States to supplying weapons to Taiwan “in such quantity as may be necessary
to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.” On October 3, 2008, the George W. Bush Administration
notified Congress of its intent to sell defense articles and services to Taiwan. In January 2010, President Obama notified
Congress of further arms sales. On January 30, Vice-Foreign Minister He Yafei announced that China would postpone some
military exchanges, suspend meetings on international security, and punish U.S. companies involved in the arms sales.




                         For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                               The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                       38/121


                  ARMS SALES CP – SOLVENCY (CHINESE EXPANSIONISM)

Ending arms sales allows China to be more confident and expand
Thomas J. Christensen, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University, 2005, “Will China Become a
“Responsible Stakeholder”? The Six Party Talks, Taiwan Arms Sales, and Sino- Japanese Relations,” pgs 6-7,
http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Hale/Special Reports%5CCommunist China%5CWill China Become a Responsible Stakeholder --
2005.pdf
As discussed in the earliest editions of CLM, one of the most important factors in Chinese security analysts’ view
of the region and the world is their assessment of the relationship between Washington and Taipei at any
given time. When that relationship is very close, mainland security analysts worry deeply. This is particularly
true when Taiwan’s government seems to be pushing toward juridical independence for the island. When
U.S.-Taiwan relations seem strained, particularly when Taiwan independence advocates seem unable to pursue their
agenda at home, Beijing’s analysts seem more confident and less worried. Applying this standard, one can only code
recent trends in Taiwan and U.S.-Taiwan relations as quite positive from Beijing’s perspective. Since the 2004
Legislative Yuan elections, in which the anti-independence pan-Blue parties maintained a majority of the seats, there seems to
have been little chance for pro- independence politicians to pursue their goals through the ongoing constitutional reform process.
Moreover, the island seems unable to respond effectively to the growing military challenge posed by PLA
modernization The pace of that modernization has been quite impressive since 1999 and will provide the
mainland added leverage over the island in the future. The inability and refusal of Taiwan’s government to
purchase several weapons systems offered to the island in April 2001 by the Bush Administration not only renders the
island’s military weaker over the long run, but also damages Taipei’s relations with the United States. All of
this means that trends in the cross-Strait balance of power seem to favor the mainland quite heavily. This
reduces the likelihood that Taiwan will take actions that would be viewed on the mainland as necessitating the coercive use of
force. Mainland observers have viewed with some glee the recent low popularity ratings of President Chen and the lack of public
or legislative support for the expensive arms procurement bills he is sponsoring. 24




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                   The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                           39/121


                                             LEGALIZE DRUGS CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should permanently abolish its prohibition on illegal drugs

Counterplan competes through net benefits

Legalizing drugs solves terrorist WMDs
Eugene Oscapella -- Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, October 29, 2001 “How Drug Prohibition Finances and Otherwise
Enables Terrorism” http://www.cfdp.ca/eoterror.htm
Some terrorism costs relatively little to accomplish. Carrying out the September 11 attacks in the United States may have cost only
a few million dollars.(2) However, many of the most feared forms of terrorism, the so-called weapons of mass destruction -
biological, chemical and nuclear - can be very expensive to produce and deliver. For example, Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese cult, put
about 30 people and an estimated $30m into producing the chemical sarin that was released in the Tokyo subway in 1995.(3)
Profits from the production and sale of prohibited drugs can therefore be useful to terrorists planning these more expensive forms
of terrorism. Attempts by governments to limit the financing of terrorist organizations generally focus on two main themes:           *
eliminating sources of financing, and * reducing the capacity of terrorists to keep and move and launder money about the globe.
This paper deals principally with the first theme - eliminating the sources of financing for terrorists. Specifically, it deals with drug
prohibition as an important source of money for terrorism. It explains how drug prohibition - not simply the drug trade, but rather
the drug trade under a system of prohibition - has become a major, if not the major, source of funding for many terrorist groups. It
argues further that focusing on traditional measures to suppress the drug trade, including law enforcement, crop substitution and
measures to reduce the movement and laundering of drug money, will fail to significantly reduce the flow of drug money to
terrorists. The analysis concludes that because these other methods of attacking the drug trade are ineffective - and cannot be
made to be effective - governments must reconsider and, ultimately, dismantle prohibitionist drug laws. Refusing to address the
role of prohibition in financing terrorism will enable terrorist groups to continue to build the resources they need to engage in even
more extensive acts of terrorism than we have witnessed to date.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                    The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                            40/121


                          LEGALIZE DRUGS CP – SOLVENCY (TERRORISM)

Absence prohibition—terrorists no longer have money
Eugene Oscapella, Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy ‘01“The Links Between Drug Prohibition and Terrorism”
http://www.cfdp.ca/terror.htm
   * 1. Laws prohibiting drugs ("drug prohibition") have enriched criminal organizations around the world by creating an
enormously lucrative illegal market ("black market") in drugs. Prohibition has also often helped finance terrorist groups. In 1994,
Reuters News Agency quoted Interpol's chief drugs officer, Iqbal Hussain Rizvi, as saying that "Drugs have taken over as the chief
means of financing terrorism."62 (However, Reuters did not report whether Mr. Rizvi gave a source for his estimate, so it cannot
be said with certainty that it is the main source of financing, although it is clearly a major source for many groups.) Terrorists and
criminals, sometimes both made wealthier by prohibition, may also join forces if their interests coincide, creating an even greater
threat to the countries they target.
Remember that it is drug prohibition that generates huge profits for these groups. Without prohibition, the drug trade could not
finance terrorism to any significant degree, since profits from the legal sale of drugs would be a small fraction of the profits that
are generated in the black market created by prohibition. Politicians and policymakers typically don't appear to understand -- or
they deliberately choose to ignore -- this central point about how prohibition creates such a lucrative black market in drugs. They
often simply make the claim that the drug trade, or drug use, supports terrorism, without further explanation. They completely
ignore the role of the laws they enact to prohibit drugs in making the selling of drugs so profitable to terrorists in the first place.
The following are examples of this blindness:

 Conventional policy makers overlook legalizing
Eugene Oscapella -- Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, October 29, 2001 “How Drug Prohibition Finances and Otherwise
Enables Terrorism” http://www.cfdp.ca/eoterror.htm
The media, police, policymakers and politicians often describe the problem simply as the financing of terrorism through the drug
trade. Their analysis stops there. They ignore the role of drug prohibition. Prohibition alone is what makes the drug trade so
profitable for terrorists.

We access the best internal link to international security
Eugene Oscapella -- Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, October 29, 2001 “How Drug Prohibition Finances and Otherwise
Enables Terrorism” http://www.cfdp.ca/eoterror.htm
Drug trafficking has, throughout this century, been an international enterprise and hence an international problem. However, the
ever increasing scale of the traffic, the apparent efficiency of organization and sophistication, the vast sums of money involved and
the increasing links with transnational organized crime and terrorist organizations constitute a threat which is increasingly serious
in both its nature and extent. Illicit drug trafficking now threatens peace and security at a national and international level. It affects
the sovereignty of some states, the right of self-determination and democratic government, economic, social and political stability
and the enjoyment of human rights.(21)




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        41/121


                       LEGALIZE DRUGS CP – SOLVENCY (AFGHANISTAN)

Legalization solves Afghanistan’s economy and stability
Reza Aslan, fellow at the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy, Middle East analyst for CBS News,
12/19/2008, “How opium can save Afghanistan”, the daily beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-12-19/how-
opium-can-save-afghanistan/
It is time to admit that the struggle to end poppy cultivation in Afghanistan is a losing battle. The fact is that opium has long been
Afghanistan’s sole successful export. Poppy seeds cost little to buy, can grow pretty much anywhere, and offer a huge return on a
farmer’s investment. Only the Taliban has ever managed to significantly reduce opium production in the country (as it did during
its late-1990s rule)—a feat managed by executing anyone caught growing poppies. It is no exaggeration to say that we have a
better chance of defeating the Taliban than putting a dent in Afghanistan’s opium trade. So then, as the saying goes: if you can’t
beat them, join them. The International Council on Security and Development (ICOS), a policy think-tank with offices in
London and Kabul, has proposed abandoning the futile eradication efforts in Afghanistan and instead licensing farmers to legally
grow poppies for the production of medical morphine. This so-called “Poppy for Medicine” program is not as crazy as it may
sound. Similar programs have already proven successful in Turkey and India, both of which were able to bring the illegal
production of opium in their countries under control by licensing, regulating, and taxing poppy cultivation. And there is every
reason to believe that the program could work even in a fractured country like Afghanistan. This is because the entire production
process—from poppies to pills—would occur inside the village under strict control of village authorities, which, in Afghanistan,
often trump the authority of the federal government. Licensed farmers would legally plant and cultivate poppy seeds. Factories
built in the villages would transform the poppies into morphine tablets. The tablets would then be shipped off to Kabul, where
they would be exported to the rest of the world. These rural village communities would experience significant economic
development, and tax revenues would stream into Kabul. (The Taliban, which taxes poppy cultivation under their control at 10
percent, made $300 million dollars last year.) The global demand for poppy-based medicine is as great as it is for oil. According
to the International Narcotics Control Board, 80 percent of the world’s population currently faces a shortage of morphine;
morphine prices have skyrocketed as a result. The ICOS estimates that Afghanistan could supply this market with all the
morphine it needs, and at a price at least 55 percent lower than the current market average.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                  The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                          42/121


                 LEGALIZE DRUGS CP – AT: THIS COUNTERPLAN IS STUPID

That logic justifies 9/11
Eugene Oscapella -- Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, October 29, 2001 “How Drug Prohibition Finances and Otherwise
Enables Terrorism” http://www.cfdp.ca/eoterror.htm
The events of September 11 have made it abundantly clear that we must do more than we have been doing to address the causes
and mechanisms of terrorism. Relying on the same ideas, showing the same reluctance to look at the real impact of drug
prohibition, will only continue to facilitate the terrorism that has rocked countries in other continents, and that may have just begun
to rock our own.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                      43/121


                                                       PRESSURE ISRAEL CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should pressure Israel to disclose and eliminate its nuclear weapons
program.

Contention 1: Competition – the counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2: Solvency

Pressuring Israel resolves the perception of a US double standard on proliferation
Stout, staff writer for the International Herald Tribune, 11/30/2007 (David, “A Mideast nuclear crisis,” lexis)
Although Israel has never publicly acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons, scientists and arms experts have no doubt that it has them,
and the U.S. reluctance to pressure Israel to disarm has made the United States vulnerable to accusations that it is a preacher
with a double standard when it comes to stopping the spread of weapons in the Middle East. Kissinger's memo, written barely two years
after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and while memories of the Holocaust were still vivid among the first Israelis, implicitly acknowledged Israel's right to defend itself, as
subsequent U.S. administrations have done. But Kissinger reflected at length on the quandary faced by the United States. ''Israel will not take
us seriously on the nuclear issue unless they believe we are prepared to withhold something they very much need,'' he wrote,
referring to a pending sale of U.S. Phantom fighter jets to Israel.

Eliminating that perception is key to global nonproliferation
Hyo’n-to, columnist for the Nodong Sinmun newspaper, 11/16/2007
(Ri, “Unfair Double Standard Policy Which Increases the Risk of Nuclear War,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, lexis)
As is known, the United States has actively encouraged and cooperated with Israel's nuclear armament plan since long ago. In the
late 1960s, the US Nixon administration provided large computers and various types of nuclear facilities to Israel, and in the late 1980s, the first Bush administration
sold 1,500 pieces of nuclear weapons development equipment to Israel behind the scenes. In the 1990s, the United States reportedly gave Israel a
guarantee that it would ward off international pressures on [Israel's] development of nuclear weapons. The United States also tacitly approved
and encouraged Japan's manoeuvres to stock up on plutonium. This is not all. When the nuclear issue occurs with the countries following [the United States], making
the entire world abuzz, the United States looks the other way and just strokes its own beard. Bolton, a representative character of the US hard-line
conservative elements, dismissed the possibility of Israeli nuclear threat, saying, "Israel is in special relationship with the United States. I think what
is of utmost importance is that we are convinced there is no threat of Israel's use of nuclear weapons. We view that Israel will not use nuclear weapons against any
country in the region. It is because that country is a democratic state and also because it is in a relationship of alliance with the United States." Without
the United States' patronage and cooperation, it is impossible to think that Japan has ended up possessing enough plutonium to manufacture thousands of nuclear
weapons, and that Israel has secretly stepped up the manoeuvres for nuclear armament to be able to produce and possess hundreds of nuclear weapons. Despite this fact,
the United States picks the countries that have no problems, brands them as some "nuclear criminals" for the sole reason that they are not its allies, and exerts pressures,
threats, and blackmails. The declassified US documents have revealed that in the mid-1970s, the US companies proposed to supply uranium enrichment and
reprocessing plant equipment to Iran. At the time, the United States carried out uranium enrichment and fuel negotiations with Iran's pro-US Pahlavi regime, followed
by an attempt to build reprocessing facilities. Today, however, the United States is making a big thing out of the peaceful nuclear activities by Iran, which goes forth on
the anti-US, independent path, playing the game of taking it to the United Nations and imposing sanctions, and even scheming military attacks. As is shown by these
facts, the United States turns a blind eye to some countries' nuclear weapons development and possession, signs nuclear agreements with them, and intends to promote
nuclear technology cooperation, but for the countries that rub it the wrong way [the United States] viciously manoeuvres to take away even their rights to peaceful
nuclear activities. The US newspaper Washington Post asked why the Bush administration excitedly makes a big thing out of Iran's
nuclear issue but deals with Israel's nuclear weapons possession in a different manner. It went on to point out that this was a clear
application of double standards. The former US President Carter said that the current US administration's double-standard nuclear
policy hampers the world's stability and guarantee for peace, and criticized that "the United States is the culprit of the NPT collapse ."
If the United States maintained a fair stance, it should duly take issue with the nuclear armament manoeuvres of Japan and Israel and stop the double-faced unfair policy
of trying to block peaceful nuclear activities by the countries that have fallen out of [the US] favour while extending nuclear cooperation with some countries. The
United States' unfair conduct results in weakening the binding power of the NPT and driving the world towards a nuclear arms race.
The United States' nuclear arm-twisting policy rendered the NPT useless and pushed the non-nuclear-possessing countries to acquire nuclear means. The United States
steps up the buildup and modernization of the nuclear armed force and blatantly pursues nuclear war while talking about "non-nuclear proliferation." It is because [the
United States] harbours a heinous motive to turn anti-imperialist, independent countries into the sacrificial lambs of its nuclear arm-twisting policy. Eliminating
double standards and abiding by the principle of fairness on the nuclear issue is an important condition to prevent a nuclear
arms race, realize nuclear disarmament, and guarantee the world's peace, security, and safety. Absolutely no one has the authority to
exert dogmatism and tyranny, and this never works in today's world. If the United States threatens and blackmails other countries with its nuclear weapons and opts for
the path of nuclear war, many countries will take measures in response, which will intensify nuclear confrontation and cover the earth with more nuclear weapons. In
such a case, it is clear that the United States' safety will be at risk as well. The United States' security lies in nuclear disarmament, not in nuclear arms
buildup. If the United States truly intends to prevent nuclear proliferation and make efforts for peace, it must stop the application of
double standards and abide by the principle of fairness on the nuclear issue and convert its policy to the abolition of nuclear weapons. The United States must heed
the voice of fair international opinion and get rid of its anti-peace nuclear policy before loudly talking about other countries' fictional "nuclear threat."



                                   For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                           The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                   44/121


                          PRESSURE ISRAEL CP – SOLVENCY (PROLIFERATION)

Lack of pressure on Israel collapses the NPT, paralyzes nonprolif efforts, and causes war
Chong-son, columnist for Nodong Sinmun newspaper, 2/9/2007
(Kim, “The Unjust Double-Standard Policy That Can Never Be Tolerated,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, lexis)
The United States should have taken issue with the Israel's possession of nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, the United States has put
absolutely no pressure on Israel. The United States officially decided to adopt a "Do Not Ask, Do Not Tell" policy regarding the Israeli nuclear issue and has
said absolutely no word about the Israel's development of nuclear weapons. Even when the Israeli parliament was openly discussing a nuclear weapon programme, the
United States turned a blind eye to it and remained silent. The United States even gave assurances that it would thwart international pressure over the Israel's
development of nuclear weapons. In this way, the United States' stance on nuclear issues is duplicitous. What is also unfair is the fact that
the United States is blatantly implementing a double-standard policy by promising that it would cooperate with some countries -
which are not NPT signatories - for nuclear technology or by adopting an attitude to conditionally allow peaceful nuclear activities by
some countries. A case in point is the fact that an Asian country's newspaper, saying that the United States' double standards to nuclear
issues is condemned by people, added that the United States is threatening Iran with force of arms, while encouraging Israel. After all,
the United States' stance on nuclear issues is determined by whether other countries are its allies or not. If the question of whether
countries are US allies or not is a standard to determine a position on nuclear issues, the NPT is only a scrap of paper. It is extremely
ridiculous that the United States finds fault with the "nuclear issues" of the countries - which get on its nerves - , kicks up the commotions of applying pressure, and acts
as a "nuclear judge," while overlooking and helping in a unilateral and biased position the development and possession of nuclear weapons by pro-US forces and its
allies. In resolving nuclear issues, there must be only one principle of justice that is equally applied to all countries. With double standards, however, the United States
interprets and handles the issues that arise from resolving nuclear issues to its advantage and tries to impose its demands on other countries. The United States is trying
to apply pressure on the countries - which act against its interests - to achieve its treacherous objectives by using double standards - by applying this standard when it
seems advantageous to it and by applying that standard when it seems unfavourable to it. The attitude the United States adopts towards the nuclear issue of the Korean
peninsula clearly shows where its act of applying double standards has reached. The United States' unjust double standard policy only paralyses
the global nuclear nonproliferation system and destroys international stability. It also makes justice mistakenly perceived as injustice, and
injustice as justice and makes the principle of equality and the principle of fairness unable to stay alive in international relations. The United States' unjust double-
standard policy must never be tolerated.

This destroys US nonprolif credibility – Arab statements prove
Xinhua 9/22/2007
(“Arab nations slam West's double standard on nuclear non-proliferation,” lexis)
Representatives of Arab nations to an IAEA conference on Friday criticized the double standard applied by some western countries on
nuclear non-proliferation. Delegates of Arab countries, including Egypt, Syria and Iraq, said a televised statement by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that
Israel possessed nuclear weapons had exerted a negative impact on peace, security and stability in the Middle East. It's nuclear activities and establishments have gone
beyond the control of the UN atomic watchdog and thwarted efforts on nuclear non-proliferation, they said. A German television aired a statement by Olmert on Dec.
11, 2006, in which the Israeli prime minister announced that his nation now possessed nuclear weapons. Some countries have provided a political shield
for Israel by applying a double standard on regional security and nuclear non-proliferation, and this had affected the reliability of the
international nuclear non-proliferation system, said the Arab delegates. They called for countries to be aware of Israeli nuclear
capacities, and urged them to pressure for it to abandon the nuclear weapons. The conference failed to pass a resolution on Israels
nuclear capabilities due to opposition from the United States and other western countries.




                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                          The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                  45/121


                                       PRESSURE ISRAEL CP – SOLVENCY (NPT)

Every recent example proves the NPT stops prolif
Mark Bromley, British-American Security Information Council, ““Planning to be Surprised”:
The US Nuclear Posture Review and its Implications for Arms Control”, BASIC Paper, April 2002,
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/BP39.htm
While the current situation regarding nuclear proliferation is far from perfect, it is worth remembering how much worse the
situation would be without the NPT in place. In recent years this has been emphasised by the number of states who have
abandoned their nuclear weapons programmes and joined the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states, including Argentina, Belarus,
Brazil, Kazakhstan, South Africa, and Ukraine. In addition, while many view the examples of North Korea and Iraq as
indicative of the failings of the NPT, it was only through the norms and mechanisms laid down by the Treaty that their nuclear
programmes were first discovered and then halted. A recent report from the US Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
supports this assessment. It concludes that the collapse of the NPT would encourage “states to review their nuclear policies and to
adopt more aggressive policies. In the long run, this strategic environment would likely foster vertical and horizontal
proliferation of nuclear weapons.”[22] The dangers posed by a weakened NPT are real and universally recognised.


NPT collapse causes rapid global proliferation.
Mark Bromley et al, British American Security Information Council analyst, July 2002 [Bunker Busters: Washington’s Drive for
New Nuclear Weapons, p. 71 http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2002BB.pdf]
Of all the international regimes to be affected by the NPR, the NPT may suffer the greatest blow. Already an unstable international regime, the
NPT was implicitly or overtly damaged by several of the NPR’s recommendations While the Bush administration has voiced doubts about several multilateral arms
control agreements since its first days in Washington, it has reiterated its strong support for the NPT, a treaty with the purpose of curtailing the spread of nuclear know-
how and cutting existing arsenals. For example, the United States backed the final communiqué from the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in May 2001 which stated,
“We reaffirm our determination to contribute to the implementation of the conclusions of the 2000 NPT Review Conference”.128 In addition, a joint communiqué
issued by Bush and Putin on November 13, 2001 committed the United States to undertake “efforts to strengthen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”.129 Ambassador
Norm Wulf restated Washington’s support for the NPT during the April 2002 Preparatory Committee meeting for the NPT’s 2005 Review Conference when he said,
“The United States continues to view the NPT as the bedrock of the global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.”130
Among Washington’s reasons for supporting the NPT is the treaty’s valuable role in preventing proliferation. Since the NPT’s entry
into force in 1970, a number of states have abandoned their nuclear weapons programmes and joined the NPT as non-nuclear states,
including Argentina, Belarus, Brazil, Kazakhstan, South Africa, and Ukraine. While North Korea and Iraq may be seen as failures of
the NPT, it was only through the mechanisms established by the treaty that their nuclear programmes were first discovered and then
halted. A report from the US Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) supports this assessment. It concludes that the collapse of the
NPT would encourage “states to review their nuclear policies and to adopt more aggressive policies. In the long run, this strategic
environment would likely foster vertical and horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons.”131 The dangers posed by a weakened NPT
are real and universally recognised.




                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                      46/121


                               PRESSURE ISRAEL CP – SOLVENCY (NPT)

Statistical evidence proves our argument
Jim Walsh, Director of the Managing the Atom Project and Fellow in the International Security Program at the Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, “Learning from Past Success: The NPT and
the Future of Non-proliferation”, The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, October 2005,
http://www.wmdcommission.org/files/no41.pdf
There are several types of arguments that support the view that the NPT has been a success. The first type is statistical.
Statistical One set of statistics looks at nuclear outcomes in the aggregate. In particular, one can point to a) the declining rate of
proliferation over time, b) the small percentage of countries that became nuclear weapons states compared with the number of
countries that considered doing so, and c) the declining number of countries interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. Proponents
cite this record of restraint and make the additional point that these positive developments follow or coincide with the
establishment of the treaty. Consider, for example, the rate of proliferation. Measured as number of new nuclear weapons states per
decade, the rate of proliferation peaked in the 1960s and began to decline in the 1970s. Perhaps not coincidentally, the NPT
came into force in 1970. Sceptics could rightly point out that the chart does not include North Korea. Moreover, it might be argued
that the chart, while dramatic, is an artefact of small numbers. With so few cases, one cannot be especially confident in the
conclusions. North Korea is not reflected in the chart, in part, because their nuclear status is unclear. Most analysts believe that,
consistent with North Korean claims, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) possesses at least one device. On the other
hand, some long-time observers would not be surprised if it turned out that Pyongyang, in fact, had no nuclear weapons. More
importantly, the DPRK has repeatedly suggested that it is willing to renounce its arsenal, in which case the corrected chart would
nevertheless exhibit a declining rate of proliferation. Indeed, as Matthew Bunn has observed, even if one includes the DPRK as a
weapons state, there are the same number of nuclear weapons states today as there were 15 years ago.21 It is certainly true that
the chart reflects a small number of cases, but that, of course, is the point. The very fact that there are a small number of cases
suggests that the treaty has been successful. Regardless, one has to use the data that is available, and it points to a thirty-year
decline in the rate of proliferation. As discussed above, the number of countries that became nuclear weapons states is relatively
small, but evidence of nuclear restraint is not only found in this small number of states but in the modest percentage of
countries that acquired nuclear weapons. A much larger number of countries considered, inherited, or acquired a nuclear option but
maintained or reverted to a nonnuclear status. Indeed, 75% of countries that could have become nuclear weapons states are instead
non-nuclear weapons states. A final statistical measure is the number of countries that aspire to become nuclear weapons states.
Contemporary analysts focus on North Korea and Iran, but how does that compare with previous decades? There are, in fact, fewer
states seeking nuclear weapons today than at any point since WWII. The 1960s had the most nuclear aspirants. Indeed, the number of
countries that were interested in acquiring nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s is roughly double the total number of countries
seeking nuclear weapons for the subsequent three decades combined. As threatening as it may seem that a DPRK or Iran might seek to
be nuclear weapons states, policy makers from decades past found themselves in a far more threatening situation in terms of
proliferation.22 Simply put, since the NPT, fewer countries have had nuclear ambitions.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         47/121


                       PRESSURE ISRAEL CP – SOLVENCY (SOFT POWER)
Our double standard on Israel destroys hegemony, soft power, and global nonproliferation
Bisharat, professor of law at Hastings College, 12/11/2005
(George, “Should Israel Give Up its Nukes?,” http://www.serve.com/~vanunu/nukes/20051211common.html)
Limiting the spread of nuclear weapons is a pivotal U.S. foreign policy objective. As the sole nation ever to have employed them, we
bear a special responsibility to prevent their use in the future. With regard to the Middle East, we rightly worry not only about the
potential use of the weapons themselves but about the political leverage bestowed on those who would possess them. However, there
is an Achilles heel in our nonproliferation policy: the double standard that U.S. administrations since the 1960s have applied with
respect to Israel's weapons of mass destruction. Israel's suspected arsenal includes chemical, biological and about 100 to 200 nuclear
warheads, and the capacity to deliver them. Initially, the United States opposed Israel's nuclear weapons program. President Kennedy
dispatched inspectors to the Dimona generating plant in Israel's south, and he cautioned Israel against developing atomic weapons.
Anticipating the 1962 visit of American inspectors, Israel reportedly constructed a fake wall at Dimona to conceal its weapons
production. Since then, no U.S. administration has effectively pressured Israel to either halt its program or to submit to inspections
under the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nor has Israel been required to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The
apparent rationale: Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an ally are simply not an urgent concern. Yet this rationale neglects a
fundamental law of arms proliferation. Nations seek WMD when their rivals already possess them. Israel's nuclear capability has
clearly fueled WMD ambitions within the Middle East. Saddam Hussein, for example, in an April 1990 speech to his military,
threatened to retaliate against any Israeli nuclear attack with chemical weapons - the "poor man's atomic bomb." Washington's
inconsistency on the nuclear issue in the Middle East has been terribly corrosive of American legitimacy throughout the world,
and a reversal of our policy would be widely noted regionally. Nor is our international legitimacy all that is at stake. During the 1973
Arab-Israeli war, a panicky Israel, facing early battlefield losses, threatened a nuclear strike. This evoked a massive arms shipment
from the United States, eventually permitting Israel to turn the tide of the war - demonstrating the kinds of pressures that nuclear
powers can apply, even on allies. Although many view Israel's victory with favor, it surely enabled subsequent decades of Israeli
intransigence over the fate of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and has contributed to the impasse afflicting the region. The study's
authors include retired Israeli Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom and Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the pro-Israeli Washington Institute
for Near East Policy - in short, no enemies of Israel. Their suggestion is comparatively mild: Israel should take small, reversible steps
toward nuclear disarmament to encourage Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Nonetheless, Israeli leaders reportedly have already
demurred. One can anticipate the bipartisan stampede of U.S. lawmakers to denounce the recommendation should it win official U.S.
backing. That would be a shame. Sooner or later, common sense must prevail in our Middle East policy. Otherwise, we will continue
to run our global stature into the ground.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                         The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                 48/121


          PRESSURE ISRAEL CP – AT: CP DESTROYS ISRAELI RELATIONS 1/2

US-Israel relations resilient
Mitchell G. Bard, Exec. Dir. Am-Israeli Coop Enterprise, 1997, ME Q., June
These pervasive ties create a durable context which absorb many of the vagaries of current politics. Take the election of
Binyamin Netanyahu as prime minister of Israel in May 1996, an event might have augered a deterioration in U.S.-Israel relations.
Netanyahu's platform on the peace process was at odds with American policy. Within weeks of Netanyahu's victory it became
clear that the overall relationship was as close as ever. Netanyahu visited the United States in a near triumphal tour, charming
Clinton, addressing a joint session of Congress, and causing gridlock on the streets of Manhattan. Differences between leaders in
Israel and the United States are relatively narrow, being primarily about disagreements over the means to common ends.
Certain issues, such as unilateral Israeli actions in Jerusalem and building settlements, have consistently provoked tensions --
most recently the building at Har Homa. These spats produce some public and private recriminations, but do not much affect the
overall relationship. In the worst case, an American administration may seek to pressure the Israelis and might even reduce
the level of cooperation (for example, by suspending arms deliveries or reducing strategic cooperation), but the ties today are so
broad and deep that the alliance is unlikely to crack. Unlike Dwight Eisenhower in 1956-57, no president today can credibly
threaten a cutoff of aid, for Congress would not support such action. Economic, academic, and personal relations between
citizens of the two countries are largely immune to political vagaries. Further development of this remarkable relationship
might be retarded, but not reversed.

US-Israeli relations motivate Bin Laden and other terrorists
Mearsheimer, professor of political science at UChicago, and Walt, professor of government at Harvard, 2006
(John J. and Stephen M., “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” working paper for John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/ksg001/israel_lobby_and_US.pdf, accessed July 7, 2007)
More importantly, saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards:
rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. U.S.
support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror
more difficult.15 There is no question, for example, that many al Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s
presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. According to the U.S. 9/11 Commission, bin Laden explicitly sought to
punish the United States for its policies in the Middle East, including its support for Israel, and he even tried to time the attacks to
highlight this issue.16 Equally important, unconditional U.S. support for Israel makes it easier for extremists like bin Laden to rally
popular support and to attract recruits. Public opinion polls confirm that Arab populations are deeply hostile to American support for
Israel, and the U.S. State Department’s Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim world found that “citizens in
these countries are genuinely distressed at the plight of the Palestinians and at the role they perceive the United States to be
playing.”17

Weak U.S.-Israeli relations are critical to gain vital Muslim support for the war on terrorism
Stratfor ‘01
(Sea Change in US-Israeli Relations Global Policy Forum, 9-18,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2001/0928stratfor.htm)
In responding to the Sept. 11 attacks, Washington needs Muslim cooperation, especially in obtaining intelligence on fundamentalist groups. A
coalition with Muslim support would also give the United States political cover in carrying out operations against countries like Afghanistan. But
Washington's close ties with Israel make such cooperation difficult. Some Muslim states are holding Washington's feet to the fire,
hoping to reduce U.S. concessions to Israel. Other regimes such as Egypt and Jordan face massive domestic pressure from
fundamentalists, and in order to cooperate, need Washington to visibly reduce its support for Israel in order to avoid destabilization.




                             For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                   The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                           49/121


         PRESSURE ISRAEL CP – AT: CP DESTROYS ISRAELI RELATIONS 2/2

Extinction
Alexander ‘03
(Yonah, Prof, Dir – Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Washington Times, 8-28, Lexis)
Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and
unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have
entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning
national, regional and global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective
counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be developed [e.g., strengthening international cooperation]. The first illusion is that
terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic -
are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be justified by oppressed people seeking to achieve their goals and
consequently the argument advanced by "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should be tolerated
if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain
political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For
instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr
Brigades]] wish not only to resolve national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right of return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy
the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the
Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the
Caliphs." The second myth is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training,
weapons, operational command and control] will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and
military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail, particularly
in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past
experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an
effective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron
commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza
Strip who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem - disrupted potential
terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror.
Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to
the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may
be: For without victory, there is no survival."

Close US-Israeli ties cause Egyptian instability
Stratfor ’01 (Sea Change in US-Israeli Relations Global Policy Forum, 9-18,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2001/0928stratfor.htm)
In responding to the Sept. 11 attacks, Washington needs Muslim cooperation, especially in obtaining intelligence on fundamentalist
groups. A coalition with Muslim support would also give the United States political cover in carrying out operations against countries
like Afghanistan. But Washington's close ties with Israel make such cooperation difficult. Some Muslim states are holding
Washington's feet to the fire, hoping to reduce U.S. concessions to Israel. Other regimes such as Egypt and Jordan face massive
domestic pressure from fundamentalists, and in order to cooperate, need Washington to visibly reduce its support for Israel in
order to avoid destabilization.

Results in nuclear war
St. Louis Post Dispatch ’92 (11-19, Lexis)
The government cannot provide the kind of services - health care, food, transportation and even education - that the fundamentalists
have provided to Egypt's poor. The renegade actions of the fundamentalists matter because Egypt is the largest Arab nation, with a
great following in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Were its government to fall in a coup and the National Democratic Party deposed
after 40 years of one-party rule, the Middle East would tremble in a way not felt since the fall of the shah of Iran. Egypt's treaty with
Israel would be swept aside, and a brutal, possibly nuclear war could be the outcome. The Middle East would be thrown into great
upheaval, as states, rulers and people absorb the shocks and react accordingly. Fundamentalists in moderate Arab countries such as
Jordan would be inspired to revolt too. The impact would be devastating for stability in the short and long run. World leaders can help
to prevent these events by focusing on Egypt and helping it with its grave problems of overpopulation, underemployment and poverty.
It is too glib to say that relative prosperity will keep Egypt out of the coup makers' reach.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        50/121


                                               CONFERENCE CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States Federal Government should invite countries lacking in economic freedoms to attend a
Global Economic Freedom Forum, a Liberty Forum for Human Rights and insist that the community of democracies focus on
supporting real democracy

Contention 1 is Competition: The Counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

(__) Democracy
Counterplan solves democracy– only by promoting democracy globally can we ultimately solve the impact – wars can still
occur and spread among non-democracies – the counterplan is the only action that ensures spillover
Kim R. Holmes (one of Washington's foremost policy experts. He is the Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at The
Heritage Foundation PhD) 2008: Liberty’s Best Hope: Why American Leadership is needed for the 21st Century.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/WorldwideFreedom/hl1069.cfm
We cannot possibly revive the brand of liberty unless America takes a more proactive role in refashioning the international system.
In addition to a Global Freedom Alliance dedicated to security, we should form a Global Economic Freedom Forum of free economies
to champion and highlight the success of markets and economic freedom;
We should establish a Liberty Forum for Human Rights to work around the embarrassingly failed United Nations Human Rights
Council; and
We should insist that the community of democracies focus on supporting real democracy and not be a shield behind which
authoritarian regimes hide their contempt for freedom.
There is more to restoring American leadership than simply refashioning institutions. We also need to do a better job of reshaping the
perceptions of the United States of America. First and foremost--and this is very important--we must be seen as a winner. No one
wants to follow a loser. Some people think that if we simply walk away from Iraq, the world will miraculously embrace us and forgive
us for our sins. I don't believe that for a minute. Few things are held in such contempt as a fallen great power.
But prevailing in wars is not enough. We also have to learn to better calibrate our diplomacy and our military power. To paraphrase
Teddy Roosevelt, we need to "speak more softly but get a bigger stick." Words matter--they matter a great deal; but actions need to be
consistent with our words. I would go so far as to say that our actions should even speak louder than our words.
We have to do a much better job of persuading people that we are a leader who cares as much about our friends and as much about our
allies as we do about ourselves--about how to integrate the interests of other peoples into a global vision of interests and values that
we, and only we the United States as a global leader, can best represent. This is partly the challenge of a more effective public
diplomacy, but it also is about a President being capable of articulating a grand vision that is as inspiring as it is convincing.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                      51/121


                           CONFERENCE CP – SOLVENCY (DEMOCRACY)

Global democracy promotion is key to solve back their impacts – we have the greater internal link because Diamond is talking
about the importance of spurring democracy in developing nations – and we solve – by bringing other countries here for a
summit and showing them the benefits of a free market economy, we send them back to their own countries with a vision in
mind of how they can better their nations – that’s Holmes

Counterplan Solves democracy – economic freedom spurs democratic growth
Anthony B. Kim (Policy Analyst in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation) 2008: Economic
Freedom Underpins Human Rights and Democratic Governance
Greater economic freedom can also provide more fertile ground for effective and democratic governance. It empowers people to
exercise greater control over their daily decision-making processes. In doing so, economic freedom ultimately nurtures political
reform as well. Economic freedom makes it possible for independent sources of wealth to counterbalance political power and
encourages the cultivation of a pluralistic society.
Debate over the direction of causality between economic freedom and democracy has been somewhat controversial due to the
complex interplay between the two freedoms. However, the positive relationship is undeniable. Chart 2 shows the relationship
between economic freedom and democratic governance measured by the Economist Intelligence Unit's democracy index.[7] They are
clearly interrelated and together form a coherent whole.
It is undeniable that freedom has reached every area of the world over the past century. Economic freedom is a powerful building
block for advancing effective and democratic governance. Yet the world needs to be mobilized behind that cause more effectively, and
it needs to confront those who advocate ideologies of repression and extremism.
In his recent book, Liberty's Best Hope: American Leadership for the 21st Century, Heritage Foundation Vice President Kim Holmes
highlights the need to build coalitions of freedom-loving countries around the world. He suggests inviting countries to join a common
alliance of liberty through a "Global Economic Freedom Forum" and a "Liberty Forum for Human Rights" that would enshrine the
powerful interplay of economic freedom, human rights, and political freedom.[8]
Conclusion
As President George W. Bush once noted, "Freedom can be resisted, and freedom can be delayed, but freedom cannot be denied."[9]
This is why the United States should continue to stress freedom as a liberating moral force and the foundation of America's leadership
for the future. It is the compelling force of economic freedom that empowers people, unleashes powerful forces of choice and
opportunity, and nourishes other liberties. As the 21st century progresses, freedom's champions must join to advance their common
cause of freedom, peace, and prosperity.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                               The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                       52/121


                                                 SATALITES CP – 1NC

CP Text: The United States federal government should fund collaborative efforts between the Center for Earth Observing and
Space Research and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to establish disease surveillance satellites that use
remote sensing data monitoring

Counterplan competes through net benefits

Disease surveillance key to minimize outbreaks
Gilberto Vicente et al 2002 “The Role of a satellite intelligent system in the development of a dedicated health and environment space
based mission” http://www.isprs.org/commission1/proceedings02/paper/00087.pdf

Satellite remote sensing for disease surveillance will play a major role in public health in the coming years. Although the ability to
predict epidemic outbreaks is still limited by current research and technology, satellite remote sensing has the potential to become an
important tool for assisting epidemiologists in locating areas where disease outbreaks are likely to occur. This will permit the
optimization of resources and save lives, especially in developing countries where health related resources are limited and disease
outbreaks have far-reaching social and economic consequences. In order to make satellite sensors reliable tools for epidemiological
research, we need to improve upon the capabilities of the current sensors, which are providing data on key epidemiological variables.
The most useful remote sensing systems for public health applications will require instruments which can integrate data and
information among spectral, spatial and temporal characteristics of remotely-sensed images and disease vector profiles. The ultimate
goal of an optimal sensor system, however, is to achieve the capability of using remote sensed data to monitor areas in real time and
predict disease outbreaks so that effective preventive actions may be taken. This goal could be accomplished through the creation of a
dedicated mission comprised of a collection of instruments and sensors tuned to acquire information directly related to the disease
organisms, vectors, reservoirs, hosts, geographic specifications, and environmental variables associated with health problems. To take
advantage of the intelligent space-based remote sensing systems potentially available by 2010 and beyond, we propose to initiate the
process of selecting the ideal suite of measurements needed for the development of a dedicated Health and Environment satellite
mission. The project will combine the flexibility and expertise in data management and product generation provided by the Center for
Earth Observing and Space Research (CEOSR) in the George Mason University (GMU) and its long-standing relation with the NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC).




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         53/121


                       SATALITES CP – SOLVENCY (DISEASE/BIOTERROR)

Remote sensing stops pandemics before they occur
Jennifer Bender 6-Nov-2007 “NASA technology helps predict and prevent future pandemic outbreaks”
Research presented at the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Meeting in Philadelphia.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/asot-nth110607.php
With the help of 14 satellites currently in orbit and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Applied Sciences
Program, scientists have been able to observe the Earth’s environment to help predict and prevent infectious disease outbreaks around
the world. The use of remote sensing technology aids specialists in predicting the outbreak of some of the most common and deadly
infectious diseases today such as Ebola, West Nile virus and Rift Valley Fever. The ability of infectious diseases to thrive depends on
changes in the Earth’s environment such as the climate, precipitation and vegetation of an area. Through orbiting satellites, data is
collected daily to monitor environmental changes. That information is then passed on to agencies such as the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the Department of Defense who then apply the data to predict and track disease outbreaks and assist in
making public health policy decisions. “The use of this technology is not only essential for the future of curbing the spread of
infectious diseases,” explains John Haynes, public health program manager for the NASA Earth Science Applied Sciences Program.
“NASA satellites are also a cost-effective method for operational agencies since they are already in orbit and in use by scientists to
collect data about the Earth’s atmosphere.” Remote sensing technology not only helps monitor infectious disease outbreaks in highly
affected areas, but also provides information about possible plague-carrying vectors -- such as insects or rodents -- globally and within
the U.S. The Four Corners region, which includes Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, is a highly susceptible area for plague
and Hanta virus outbreaks, and by understanding the mixture of vegetation, rainfall and slope of the area, scientists can predict the
food supply of disease transmitting vectors within the region and the threat they cause to humans. Because plague is also considered a
bioterrorism agent, NASA surveillance systems enable scientists to decipher if an outbreak was caused by natural circumstances or
was an act of bioterrorism. A particular infectious disease being targeted by NASA is malaria, which affects 300-500 million persons
worldwide, leaving 40 percent of the world at risk of infection. The Malaria Modeling and Surveillance Project utilizing NASA
satellite technology is currently in use by the Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences in Thailand and the U.S. Naval
Medical Research Unit located in Indonesia. Data collected at these locations is combined and used to monitor environmental
characteristics that effect malaria transmission in Southeast Asia and other tropical and subtropical regions. Malaria surveillance
provides public health organizations with increased warning time to respond to outbreaks and assistance in the preparation and
utilization of pesticides, which leads to a reduction in drug resistant strains of malaria and damage to the environment. “NASA
satellite remote sensing technology has been an important tool in the last few years to not only provide scientists with the data needed
to respond to epidemic threats quickly, but to also help predict the future of infectious diseases in areas where diseases were never a
main concern,” says Mr. Haynes. “Changing environments due to global warming have the ability to change environmental habitats so
drastically that diseases such as malaria may become common in areas that have never been previously at-risk.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                   The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                           54/121


                                     SATALITES CP – NEW SYSTEMS KEY

New Systems key to public health management
Gilberto Vicente et al 2002 “The Role of a satellite intelligent system in the development of a dedicated health and environment space
based mission” http://www.isprs.org/commission1/proceedings02/paper/00087.pdf

The key to using RS in future human health studies are having accurate, affordable, reliable, and accessible sources of satellite derived
geophysical parameters. At the same time there is a need to continue developing and deploying new instrument technology that
provide better insight into problems. New instrument technology, including hyper- spectral, SAR interferometers, and motion sensing
synthetic aperture radar need to be analyzed for application in human health research. Systems such as EOS and NPOESS that
incorporate multi-satellite systems, data production facilities and data archive and distribution abilities, need to continue. There is also
a need to continue working with the historical satellite data, such as AVHRR, improving the accuracy of products and merging them
with data from the newer satellites. In both cases the distribution of the data needs to be flexible enough to support different data
formats and map projections. Cross calibration of instruments and algorithms is critical to these efforts and should be a key area of
research for future instrument development. The ability to cross calibrate with respect to instrument, spatial resolution, and time
would allow comparison of data that is now very difficult if not impossible. While the development of a completely dedicated health
and environment space-based mission may not be possible by 2010, much can be done to extract the necessary information from the
current and future satellite missions. This include linking basic research, processing capabilities, training and outreach with
operational health and environmental applications and establishing stronger connections between the RS data/product generation
centers and decision support systems like the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO).
Such actions will permit the optimization of the resources currently available for health and environmental applications and allow
necessary changes in the planning phase of the coming missions to accommodate the needs of operational applications in these fields.
On the other hand, the experience gained in the management, organization and delivery of remote sensing data as well as product
generation and integration by institutions like the Center for Earth Observing and Space Research (CEOSR) in the George Mason
University (GMU) are crucial. By focusing on research done from satellite platforms, including data, associated information
technologies and applications as well as fundamental science, CEOSR works as an interdisciplinary research center. It provides
needed infrastructure, including organizational and logistic support to research projects falling naturally within the focus of health and
environmental issues




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                    The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                            55/121


                                             PHYTOPLANKTON CP – 1NC

Counterplan text: The United States federal government should dump “X” amount of iron into its territorial waters for the
purpose of increasing phytoplankton growth

Contention 1: Competition – competes through net benefits

Contention 2: Solvency
Dumping increases phytoplankton, which solves warming 80 times over
Environmental News Network, 6/15/98, Iron plays key role in ocean CO2 absorption,
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9806/15/co2.yoto/
(ENN) -- Iron deficiency, known to cause anemia in humans, disables the ability of coastal water to store the greenhouse gas
carbon dioxide, according to research published in the current issue of the journal Nature. Iron gives a boost to microscopic ocean
plants called phytoplankton which use the sun's energy to draw carbon dioxide from the air. The process allows the oceans to store
up to 80 times more carbon dioxide than found in the atmosphere.

Contention 3: Net Benefit

Phytoplankton prevent ocean biodiversity loss
Environmental News Network, 6/15/98, Iron plays key role in ocean CO2 absorption,
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9806/15/co2.yoto/
In addition to carbon-cycle impacts, a lack of iron in coastal waters may impact the entire marine food chain. Phytoplankton are the
"grass" of the sea, he notes, and their photosynthesis supports "almost all of the rest of the oceans' creatures, directly or indirectly."
Fewer phytoplankton, resulting from a lack of iron, means that "less energy gets passed up to higher-level creatures," such as
commercially important fish or marine mammals, he said.

Biodiversity extinction causes human extinction
Rhett A. Butler, mongabay.com “Just how bad is the biodiversity extinction crisis?” 2/6/07,
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0206-biodiversity.html
In recent years, scientists have warned of a looming biodiversity extinction crisis, one that will rival or exceed the five historic
mass extinctions that occurred millions of years ago. Unlike these past extinctions, which were variously the result of catastrophic
climate change, extraterrestrial collisions, atmospheric poisoning, and hyperactive volcanism, the current extinction event is one of
our own making, fueled mainly by habitat destruction and, to a lesser extent, over-exploitation of certain species. While few
scientists doubt species extinction is occurring, the degree to which it will occur in the future has long been subject of debate in
conservation literature. Looking solely at species loss resulting from tropical deforestation, some researchers have forecast
extinction rates as high as 75 percent. Now a new paper, published in Biotropica, argues that the most dire of these projections
may be overstated. Using models that show lower rates of forest loss based on slowing population growth and other factors, Joseph
Wright from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama and Helene Muller-Landau from the University of Minnesota
say that species loss may be more moderate than the commonly cited figures. While some scientists have criticized their work as
"overly optimistic," prominent biologists say that their research has ignited an important discussion and raises fundamental
questions about future conservation priorities and research efforts. This could ultimately result in more effective strategies for
conserving biological diversity, they say Overall, Wright and Muller-Landau forecast little net change in forest cover between now
and 2030. "Specifically, we expect that in the next 25 years the rate of net tropical deforestation will slow on all continents.
Further, we predict a switch to a net increase in forest area in Latin America and Asia if not within 25 than at least within 50 years,
and in Africa within 100 years. The fundamental causes of such changes will be stabilizing human populations and thus stabilizing
demand for agricultural commodities, increased nonagricultural economic opportunities in developing countries, and increased
agricultural land use efficiency due to continuing technological improvements and their more widespread use. Our optimism is
consistent with past changes in population size, agricultural yields, and cropland area in developing countries. . . . Finally, there is
reason to believe that in tropical countries in the future, as in developed temperate countries in the past, increasing per capita
income will eventually bring increasing demand for environmental goods, including native forest protection."




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                      56/121


                PHYTOPLANKTON CP – SOLVENCY (DUMPING  BLOOMS)

Iron Dumping key to phytoplankton growth
Beth Daley, staff writer for the Boston Globe, 10/1/07, Seeds of a solution Could iron dropped in the ocean combat climate change?,
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/10/01/seeds_of_a_solution/
Iron seeding is a particularly attractive proposal to fight global warming because a small amount of the inexpensive nutrient could
result in enormous blooms of microscopic vegetation known as phytoplankton. Iron already fertilizes portions of the world's seas,
carried there by dust storms. But the vast Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica, as well as other regions of the world, are
missing the iron dust. Throw enough in during the right season, scientists largely agree, and phytoplankton will grow to absorb
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        57/121


                    PHYTOPLANKTON CP – SOLVENCY (CLIMATE CHANGE)

Phytoplankton increase photosynthesis, decreasing warming
John Roach, staff writer for National Geographic, 6/9/04, Can Iron-Enriched Oceans Thwart Global Warming?,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0609_040609_carbonsink.html
Iron Hypothesis
Buesseler recently applied his study of the nutrient flow to the so-called iron hypothesis. Some scientists argue that by adding iron
to areas of the ocean that are iron deficient, populations of iron-starved phytoplankton would blossom.
In turn, these robust phytoplankton populations would help fight global warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
via increased photosynthesis. (The process entails plants using energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide and nutrients into
complex organic compounds to form new plant material.)
Some of this carbon sinks to the deep ocean along with other nutrients as phytoplankton die. As a result, some scientists
hypothesize that increased phytoplankton would isolate additional carbon in the deep ocean for hundreds or thousands of years.
"These particles carry carbon and other associated elements from the surface to the deep sea," Buesseler said. "If the newly formed
carbon—essentially organic matter—were to remain in the surface ocean, marine bacteria would simply consume this organic
matter and convert it back to carbon dioxide."

Phytoplankton create chemicals and increase sea sequestration that helps curve warming
Randall Parker, staff writer for future pundit, an environmental news blog, 5/5/04,
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002094.html
Phytoplankton are tiny, single-celled floating plants. They inhabit the upper layers of any natural body of water where there is
enough light to support photosynthetic growth. They are the base of the ocean's food web, and their production helps to regulate
the global carbon cycle. They also contribute to the global cycling of many other compounds with climate implications.
One of these compounds is a volatile organic sulfur gas called dimethyl sulfide or DMS. Scientists had previously theorized that
DMS is part of a climate feedback mechanism, but until now there had been no observational evidence illustrating how reduced
sunlight actually leads to the decreased ocean production of DMS. This is the breakthrough in Toole and Siegel's research.
Ultraviolet radiation causes the phytoplankton to release DMS.
According to their research, it appears that phytoplankton produce organic sulfur compounds as a chemical defense from the
damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation and other environmental stresses, in much the same way as our bodies use vitamins E and
C to flush out molecules that cause cellular damage.
Siegel and Toole found that ultraviolet radiation explained almost 90 percent of the variability in the biological production of
DMS. They showed that summertime DMS production is "enormous," and that the entire upper layer of DMS content is replaced
in just a few days. This demonstrates a tight link between DMS and solar fluxes.
"The significance of this work is that it provides, for the first time, observational evidence showing that the DMS-anti-oxidant
mechanism closes the DMS-climate feedback loop," said Siegel. "The implications are huge. Now we know that phytoplankton
respond dramatically to UV radiation stresses, and that this response is incredibly rapid, literally just days."




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                   The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                           58/121


                                PHYTOPLANKTON CP – EVIDENCE INDICT

Their evidence is flawed – their authors are attempting to prevent the spread of plankton for their own interests
Matt Richtel, New York Times Staff Writer, 5/1/07, Recruiting Plankton to Fight Global Warming,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/business/01plankton.html
Enter Mr. George, 57, the founder of Planktos, based in Foster City, Calif., just south of San Francisco. After working as an
environmental consultant in Canada, Mr. George came up with the Planktos concept in 1997, the same year as the adoption of the
Kyoto Protocol, the treaty that the United States declines to participate in, that has driven most carbon-reduction regulations so far.
In addition to the iron fertilization project, Planktos also has a subsidiary, KlimaFa, which has begun a 10-year project to plant a
quarter of a million acres of new forest in Hungary.
Mr. George said his goal was broader than mitigating carbon emissions. He said he also wanted to restore stores of plankton that
had been lost as climate change led to less iron being deposited from the land into oceans.
The efforts of the WeatherBird II, he said, do not assume that the science is ready for commercialization, but they are intended to
provide research that could prove its effectiveness. And he agrees with many scientists and environmentalists that carbon
sequestration is only one element in the effort to mitigate global warming, an effort that will still require lowering the use of fossil
fuels.
Still, he asserts that many of his scientific critics are expressing doubts about the commercialization of ocean fertilization because
of their own self-interest in maintaining a steady flow of research dollars for their own projects.
The scientists “have an enormous vested interest in preserving this as a research topic alone,” he said. “If this subject remains in
academia for the next 10 or 20 years, it will certainly get a bunch of senior scientists on to retirement age, but it won’t do much for
the planet.”




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                      59/121


            PHYTOPLANKTON CP – AT: U.S. WILL PREVENT IRON DUMPING

1. This argument is flawed, because fiat means that we debate about whether the plan or counterplan should happen, not
whether it will

2. The US can’t prevent iron dumping from occurring – no jurisdiction
Beth Daley, staff writer for the Boston Globe, 10/1/07, Seeds of a solution Could iron dropped in the ocean combat climate change?,
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/10/01/seeds_of_a_solution/
While the United States could require a US-flagged ship to conduct an environmental review of any iron seeding project, a
company could merely re-flag the vessel from a country that is unlikely to require the same. An international anti-dumping treaty
known as the London Convention issued a statement of concern in June about iron fertilization, calling for more research.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                             The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                     60/121


                                    GEOPOLYMERIC CEMENT CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should offer the necessary incentives to encourage the use of
Geopolymeric cement in the United States.

Counterplan competes though net benefits

That’s key to reducing emissions
Dr. Joseph Davidovits, 1997 “A practical New Way to Reduce Global Warming” June 30, 1
http://www.welcomenews.net/geopolymer.html
One reason that the U.S. has made little progress in meeting commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is that some new
technologies designed to mitigate the problem have not been afforded the priority that would allow them to compete in the market.
An example is a remarkable cement/concrete technology called geopolymeric cement that can significantly reduce global CO2
(carbon dioxide) emissions, while solving a host of other problems without creating new ones.
Emissions of CO2 from cement production is increasing at a much more rapid rate than all other industrial sources put together.
Few outside of the construction industry are aware that the manufacture of Portland cement based concrete, the material seen
everywhere in buildings and pavements, emits greenhouse gases, especially CO2. By the year 2000, almost 10% of all global
greenhouse gases will come from new construction with Portland cement based concrete. As countries develop, they build
infrastructure and housing that utilize abundant quantities of concrete. As global development increases, Portland cement
manufacturers can be expected to exert an increasingly greater influence on governmental policies regulating CO2 emissions, a
situation that needs to be corrected as soon as possible. By the year 2015, global CO2 emissions from the manufacture of Portland
cement is expected to be 3,500 million tonnes annually. This vast amount is equivalent to Europe’s total current annual CO2
emissions. This equals 67% of present annual U.S. CO2 emissions (5,160 million tonnes). Clearly, these figures show the dramatic
benefit that would be realized if all countries converted to geopolymeric concrete.
Manufacturing geopolymeric cement generates five (5) times less CO2 than does the manufacture of Portland cement. Any country
that converts to the manufacture of geopolymeric cement/concrete would eliminate 80% of the emissions generated from the
cement and aggregates industries. Newly developing countries that elect to utilize geopolymeric concrete could increase their
construction rate five times without increasing present CO2 emissions.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                   The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                           61/121


                    GEOPOLYMETRIC CEMENT CP – SOLVENCY (WARMING)

Switch from Portland to Geopolymetric is key to solve warming
Dr. Joseph Davidovits, 1997 “A practical New Way to Reduce Global Warming” June 30, 1
http://www.welcomenews.net/geopolymer.html
Even if a technology is clearly superior, it is very difficult for it to displace an entrenched technology. Thus special priority should
be given to proven technologies that can dramatically mitigate the tragedies resulting from the severe floods and droughts expected
from global warming. Priority status is especially needed in this case because the cement industry has been unwilling to embrace
geopolymeric concrete or any other concrete that might threaten to displace Portland cement/concrete. While President Clinton is
probably so far unaware of this matter, the replacement of Portland cement with geopolymeric cement will substantially reduce
global greenhouse gas emissions, and should be among the measures expected to be recommended by him.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                                                                                                     The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                                                             62/121


                                                                                   CHINA-U.S. WARMING CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should engage in cooperation with the Chinese government in clean
coal and CCS technologies as per the recommendations of the Desai-Podesta report.

Counterplan solves for implementation of CCS and clean coal
Vishakha N. Desai and John Podesta 2009 (President of the Asia Society) and (President for the Center for American Progress) November: A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
A successful partnership on CCS should advance long-term research, development, and deployment of commercial-scale CCS, while
at the same time laying the foundation for potential emissions reductions. The three-pronged recommendation below identifies near
term opportunities where collaboration can begin immediately and produce early milestones, while simultaneously advancing the longer-term goals of retrofitting existing plants
and developing new financing architecture for wider CCS deployment. 1. Sequester the pure CO2 streams on existing commercial plants China has installed more than

100 coal gasifiers that produce as a byproduct pure streams of CO2 that are currently vented directly into the atmosphere. Emissions from these gasifier plants are more straightforward and less costly to capture than emissions from combustion plants
and should therefore be the immediate focus of collaboration . The United States and China should work together during the first phase of CCS collaboration on developing rapid, large-scale demonstrations of
geological sequestration for these pure streams of CO2 that exist today in China. These existing streams are relatively easier to capture and should provide an early successful collaboration between the United States and China. The United States and China should

                                                                                                                                                                       Such collaboration could test and compare various
identify a set of projects at multiple sites in China, and the United States should make substantial contributions to those projects in practice, equipment, and science.

sequestration technologies while building the regulatory and financial infrastructure and protocols needed for widespread deployment.
Building up these technologies in China would allow the projects to be completed at less cost than would be possible independently, and such experience could be brought back to the
United States to accelerate domestic implementation. Each project would cost $50- $100 million total, with a potential U.S. contribution of $20-$40 million. The timeframe would likely be two to five years from
planning to implementation, upon agreement. 2. Invest in research and development on retrofitting older power plants The second prong should focus on spearheading research, development, and

demonstration for post-combustion CCS technologies that can be used to retrofit older coal-fired plants over the medium and long term. While opportunities exist for collaboration on new

coal-fired plants (and China has demonstrated interest in outfitting its new plants with pre-combustion capture capabilities, mostly through Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle technologies), collaborating on new plants alone

will not be sufficient to meet global abatement targets because it does nothing to “clean” existing plants. Both countries must
ultimately deal with their existing fleet of coal-fired conventional plants in order to meet global targets, either by shutting these down
or retrofitting them for CCS. This effort would identify plants in both countries for large-scale retrofit demonstrations that would help develop and test different new capture technologies to improve effectiveness and lower costs. It would also
outline a long-term strategy for retrofitting coal-fired power plants in both the United States and China that respects the political, industrial, and financial dispositions of each. The research and development center (which might be set up within existing U.S. Department
of Energy calls for a collaborative research center) should begin operation immediately. Retrofit demonstration projects would take longer to begin—likely five years from inception to breaking ground (three years for identifying a project and two additional years of

       3. Catalyze markets for CCS In the absence of a market mechanism for carbon reduction in China, the United States and China
preparation).

will have to provide financial incentives for private capital to invest in carbon capture and sequestration projects. Motivating such private capital will require
catalytic public funding as long as there is no private market for carbon abatement or an international structure that can be used to monetize such investments with sufficient offsets. The United States should consider developing government-backed public finance

                                                                                                                                                                    Such support could serve as an
structures, such as risk insurance or guarantees of CO2 prices for a set amount of successfully abated carbon similar to those proposed by the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, H.R. 2454.

initial bridge to market mechanisms. The United States can in parallel move for the inclusion of CCS-abated carbon in future regimes such as the Clean Development Mechanism (the Kyoto Protocol’s carbon offset system that allows
developed countries to offset their emissions by paying for cleanenergy projects in developing countries.) This would help establish a medium-term path for private capital to seek returns on investments in first generation CCS projects. This can also help liquidate the

                            This initial groundwork can form the basis for a domestic or regional market for abated CO2 to support
initial U.S. government-backed public finance measures.

longer-term capital investments and the commercialization of U.S. and developed world technologies. Nonetheless, one thing is self-evident: the United States and
China will have to eventually build an international mechanism to reduce the costs of second and third generation technologies aimed at meeting global 2020 and 2050 CO2 output targets.



Counterplan is the only way to solve warming – cooperation of both China and the U.S. is key. Other efforts fail – also,
externally solves relations
Vishakha N. Desai and John Podesta 2009 (President of the Asia Society) and (President for the Center for American Progress) November: A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
Global greenhouse gas emissions are fast approaching unsustainable and alarming levels. There is broad consensus that these emissions, caused primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, have led to global warming. It is increasingly evident that maintaining the current

                                                                                                                                               an unprecedented level of global cooperation will be
trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions poses wide-ranging and potentially catastrophic risks to natural systems and human welfare. It is also clear that

necessary to successfully confront the immense challenge of reversing the effects of climate change. The United States and China are
the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters. Collaboration between the two nations, therefore, offers the greatest opportunity for
achieving meaningful reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions. The time is ripe for such collaboration . The two countries have participated in various
global commitments on technology cooperation, including the 2007 Bali Action Plan and the Major Economies Forum declarations on Energy and Climate after the G-8 summit in Italy this July. The United States and China also

made joint commitments at the July 2009 U.S. -China Strategic and Economic Dialogue in the form of a “Memorandum of Understanding
to Enhance Cooperation on Climate Change, Energy and the Environment ,” and during U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s recent trip to China. The United States can
translate this political goodwill into concrete action, but it will need to begin laying out a roadmap for progress on areas of mutual
concern. U.S. leadership in this critical area would strengthen bilateral relations between the United States and China , while building momentum
towards a successful outcome at the United Nations multilateral climate change negotiations in Copenhagen this December. One critical pathway for collaboration specifically identified in the United States and China’s recent joint

commitments is carbon capture and sequestration technology, or CCS, which has the potential to mitigate emissions from coal-fired power plants. The United States and China’s continued reliance on

coal-fired power to generate electricity is a reality that must be addressed in any comprehensive climate change policy. CCS is a process that
separates and captures carbon dioxide, or CO2, from industrial and power plant flue streams, then compresses the gas and stores it underground, most likely in geological formations. The process essentially captures the greenhouse gas emissions before they enter the

                                          technology has advanced significantly over the past decade and components of CCS have already proven
atmosphere and stores them underground. The

successful in projects around the world. While CCS still faces considerable technological, financial, and regulatory hurdles, it offers a
potential pathway for helping achieve the scientifically-required reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions that energy efficiency,
conservation and renewable energies are unlikely to meet on their own. Nothing in our report should be interpreted as suggesting that any one carbon abatement option is more important than any
other. It is clear, however, that neither country can achieve the emissions reductions it needs to make without addressing its heavy reliance on coal.

CCS should therefore be included in a portfolio of climate change mitigation efforts , if it is demonstrated to offer effective and meaningful reductions in carbon emissions. While the
general purpose of this report is to help bring about a new partnership between the U.S. and China, the immediate aim is to help catalyze U.S. leadership to action by sketching out a concrete, collaborative new plan of action on carbon capture and sequestration that the

United States government can adopt as it confronts the twin challenges of    addressing climate change and strengthening Sino-U.S. relations.
                                                       For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         63/121


                 CHINA-U.S. WARMING CP – SOLVENCY (COLLABORATION)

Counterplan spills over to other collaborative efforts
Vishakha N. Desai and John Podesta 2009 (President of the Asia Society) and (President for the Center for American Progress)
November: A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
4. Increase Chinese CCS expertise U.S. -China cooperation will provide China with access to new advanced CCS technology, so it too
stands to gain the requisite expertise to become even more competitive in a burgeoning future green tech market. 5. Facilitate
additional collaboration in preferred Chinese areas Collaborating with the United States on CCS will give China more political capital
to press for collaborative efforts in other preferred areas, such as technology transfer and investment in the fields of renewable energy
and energy efficiency.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         64/121


              CHINA-U.S. WARMING CP – SOLVENCY (SEQUESTRING TECH)

Counterplan is the only way to ensure market penetration of clean coal and sequestering tech
Vishakha N. Desai and John Podesta 2009 (President of the Asia Society) and (President for the Center for American Progress)
November: A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
1. Accelerate U.S. technology American expertise in sequestration technology and research is well developed and ready to be
immediately applied in China as part of a new program. Cooperation between the two countries would accelerate the market
penetration of this technology. Conducting initial sequestration projects using the high-purity CO2 streams more readily available in
China will allow both sides to benefit from the faster execution and lower costs that China offers. Proving technologies as quickly as
possible is critical to accelerate development of cost assessments, technical findings, risk profiles, and regulatory frameworks. The
working knowledge of CCS practices and protocols gained from initial demonstrations in China would also be available to the United
States and would help to accelerate the deployment of CCS facilities in the United States by five to 10 years, with benefits to utility,
energy, and technology companies.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         65/121


         CHINA-U.S. WARMING CP – SOLVENCY (WARMING AND RELATIONS)

Counterplan is the only way to solve warming – without the cooperation of both China and the U.S., other efforts will fail –
also, externally solves relations
Vishakha N. Desai and John Podesta 2009 (President of the Asia Society) and (President for the Center for American Progress)
November: A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
Global greenhouse gas emissions are fast approaching unsustainable and alarming levels. There is broad consensus that these
emissions, caused primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, have led to global warming. It is increasingly evident that maintaining the
current trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions poses wide-ranging and potentially catastrophic risks to natural systems and human
welfare. It is also clear that an unprecedented level of global cooperation will be necessary to successfully confront the immense
challenge of reversing the effects of climate change. The United States and China are the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters.
Collaboration between the two nations, therefore, offers the greatest opportunity for achieving meaningful reductions in global
greenhouse gas emissions. The time is ripe for such collaboration. The two countries have participated in various global commitments
on technology cooperation, including the 2007 Bali Action Plan and the Major Economies Forum declarations on Energy and Climate
after the G-8 summit in Italy this July. The United States and China also made joint commitments at the July 2009 U.S. -China
Strategic and Economic Dialogue in the form of a “Memorandum of Understanding to Enhance Cooperation on Climate Change,
Energy and the Environment,” and during U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s recent trip to China. The United States can translate
this political goodwill into concrete action, but it will need to begin laying out a roadmap for progress on areas of mutual concern.
U.S. leadership in this critical area would strengthen bilateral relations between the United States and China, while building
momentum towards a successful outcome at the United Nations multilateral climate change negotiations in Copenhagen this
December. One critical pathway for collaboration specifically identified in the United States and China’s recent joint commitments is
carbon capture and sequestration technology, or CCS, which has the potential to mitigate emissions from coal-fired power plants. The
United States and China’s continued reliance on coal-fired power to generate electricity is a reality that must be addressed in any
comprehensive climate change policy. CCS is a process that separates and captures carbon dioxide, or CO2, from industrial and power
plant flue streams, then compresses the gas and stores it underground, most likely in geological formations. The process essentially
captures the greenhouse gas emissions before they enter the atmosphere and stores them underground. The technology has advanced
significantly over the past decade and components of CCS have already proven successful in projects around the world. While CCS
still faces considerable technological, financial, and regulatory hurdles, it offers a potential pathway for helping achieve the
scientifically-required reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions that energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energies are
unlikely to meet on their own. Nothing in our report should be interpreted as suggesting that any one carbon abatement option is more
important than any other. It is clear, however, that neither country can achieve the emissions reductions it needs to make without
addressing its heavy reliance on coal. CCS should therefore be included in a portfolio of climate change mitigation efforts, if it is
demonstrated to offer effective and meaningful reductions in carbon emissions. While the general purpose of this report is to help
bring about a new partnership between the U.S. and China, the immediate aim is to help catalyze U.S. leadership to action by
sketching out a concrete, collaborative new plan of action on carbon capture and sequestration that the United States government can
adopt as it confronts the twin challenges of addressing climate change and strengthening Sino-U.S. relations.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         66/121


                        CHINA-U.S. WARMING CP – SOLVENCY (WARMING)

Counterplan solves warming
Vishakha N. Desai and John Podesta 2009 (President of the Asia Society) and (President for the Center for American Progress)
November: A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
9. Rapid emissions reductions If this roadmap is implemented, the first phase could result in the indefinite storage of nearly 10 million
tons of CO2 (which would otherwise enter the atmosphere) each year beginning two to five years after project initiation. This
reduction in emissions would be the equivalent of taking 2.5 million cars off the road or shutting down three 500 megawatt coal-fired
power plants every year. The global climate crisis demands bold leadership, new partnerships, and the transition to a low-carbon
economy. Whatever the outcome of Copenhagen, the solution to global climate change will most likely be borne as much from myriad
national and bilateral efforts as from any grand, multinational agreement. It is in recognition of this likelihood that we offer this
roadmap.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                      67/121


      CHINA-U.S. WARMING CP – SOLVENCY (COMPETITIVENESS AND JOBS)

Counterplan solves competitiveness and jobs – heavy equipment purchase and testing
Vishakha N. Desai and John Podesta 2009 (President of the Asia Society) and (President for the Center for American Progress)
November: A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
2. Create U.S. jobs
By taking advantage of U.S. technology and heavy equipment purchases and testing, projects in both the United States and in China
would help to improve the competitiveness of U.S. firms in a global market, while also supporting industry and creating jobs in the
United States. Although China is developing much cutting-edge technology of its own in this field, a significant amount of the most
advanced technology and research and development in the world would logically end up being exported to China to supply its new
CCS market. Such collaborative projects would also spur U.S. domestic job growth again through acceleration of wide-scale
deployment of CCS technology. Our estimates show that in a baseline scenario, the CCS sector would create 127,000 direct and
indirect net new jobs in the United States by 2022. A five-year acceleration increases that to 430,000 in 2022, and a 10-year
acceleration gets us 943,000 in 2022.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        68/121


              CHINA-U.S. WARMING CP – SOLVENCY (ELECTRICITY PRICES)

Counteprlan dramatically lowers electricity prices
Vishakha N. Desai and John Podesta 2009 (President of the Asia Society) and (President for the Center for American Progress)
November: A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
3. Lower U.S. electricity prices
As CCS is increasingly viewed as a critical part of global carbon abatement efforts, the acceleration of the development of this
technology could yield significant reductions in the ensuing electricity rates. Some of the costs of abatement will be borne by utility
companies, and some of those costs could be passed on to ratepayers depending on the structure of the pricing mechanism on carbon.
CCS collaboration would add value by reducing CCS costs and thus ensuring electricity rates remain lower than might otherwise be
the case. McKinsey & Company estimates the global potential of scalable CCS by 2030 to be 3.65 gigatons per year of CO2-
equivalent abatement, which we estimate will cost $959 billion globally to achieve over the 20 year period. If we are able to accelerate
CCS initiatives by five years through cooperation with China, we estimate that the same abatement could be achieved at a cost of $934
billion, saving $25 billion. If the collaboration accelerated CCS deployment by 10 years, we estimate the same abatement could be
achieved for $859 billion, saving $100 billion. The U.S. share of the cost savings is approximately $5 billion in the scenario with a
five-year acceleration, and $18 billion with a 10-year acceleration.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                               The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                       69/121


                             CHINA-U.S. WARMING CP – CHINA SAYS YES

China will say yes – Chinese stakeholders are open to CCS collaboration and Chinese leadership is becoming more proactive
in climate efforts
Vishakha N. Desai and John Podesta 2009 (President of the Asia Society) and (President for the Center for American Progress)
November: A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
Any prospective CCS collaboration must recognize China’s underlying priorities of economic development and energy security, and
successfully address the challenges of costs and other uncertainties in deployment. However, there are reasons to believe that various
Chinese stakeholders would be receptive to collaborative overtures in the field of CCS, especially if these overtures are made with the
right incentives and with the U.S. explicitly taking responsibility for its fair share of the historic burden. Opportunities for China
include transfers of cutting-edge technology and technical expertise in a future market, external financial support, future green
collaboration in other preferred areas,78 as well as improved U.S. -China relations. Demonstrating and developing CCS technology
could also help establish China as a leader in innovation, technology and climate change mitigation efforts. China has become
increasingly proactive in addressing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Across the political, academic, and civic
spectrums, Chinese leaders have begun to acknowledge both publicly and privately that climate change is a problem that must be
taken seriously.79 China has set aggressive targets for renewable energy, energy efficiency, nuclear power and transportation, and has
been working to meet many of these domestic targets.80 Although precise allocations of China’s 4 trillion yuan stimulus package
announced last year have been difficult to determine, one government source says roughly 580 billion yuan (just under $100 billion)
was allocated for climate change mitigation projects.81 What’s more, China has been rapidly pioneering new technologies in solar,
wind, and hydro power, and has become the world’s largest user of hydro power and solar thermal heating and the fourth largest user
of wind power in the world.82 Indeed, China is moving at a remarkable pace in becoming a world leader in low-carbon power, all the
while creating a large number of new green jobs.83 These national priorities have at last begun influencing decision making at
regional levels, as Beijing has begun to change the metrics by which it evaluates local leaders—mixing economic growth indices with
environmental ones—thus incubating a new kind of environmental local leadership.84 A recent and quite hopeful report
commissioned by China’s National Development and Reform Commission and the State Council suggests that CO2 emissions in
China could slow by 2020 and peak by 2030 rather than 2050 with the right energy policies in place. The report also shows that this
goal does not have to come at the cost of lowered economic growth. In fact, the report suggests that requisite investments to make
China a global leader in low-carbon technologies could simultaneously help remedy climate change and boost domestic economic
growth.85 Such reports are only some of many examples of Chinese officials’ willingness to address CO2 emissions more
proactively,86 even while global conversations often remain quite politicized and polarized. The 10th Standing Committee of China’s
Eleventh National People’s Congress on August 27, 2009 confirmed a new call to arms on greenhouse gas emissions. The Standing
Committee recognized that a response to climate change is “vital to human survival,” and called on “the whole society to participate in
a wide range of actions to address climate change.”87 Most recently on September 22, 2009, President Hu Jintao pledged at the United
Nations General Assembly to reduce CO2 emissions per unit of GDP from 2005 to 2020, one of the clearest indications to date of
China’s willingness to assume greater responsibility in global emissions reductions.88
China will collaborate because they don’t want to be seen as the evil rising dragon everyone makes them out to be
Vishakha N. Desai and John Podesta 2009 (President of the Asia Society) and (President for the Center for American Progress)
November: A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
China aspires to enhance its global reputation as a responsible and peaceful rising power. Collaborating with the United States as an
equal partner to help solve one of the world’s most ominous crises would give China an unparalleled opportunity to assume global
leadership. Indeed, a new chapter is opening both in China’s own development and U.S. –China relations with the 60th anniversary of
the People’s Republic of China and its three decades of “reform and opening” just passed. A joint project on CCS provides a logical
and meaningful place to begin weaving a new narrative for Sino-U.S. relations over the next decade.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         70/121


                           CHINA-U.S. WARMING CP – COOPERATION KEY

U.S. China cooperation is key to demonstrate leadership on warming and encourage other countries to solve – we’re the two
largest emitters
Vishakha N. Desai and John Podesta 2009 (President of the Asia Society) and (President for the Center for American Progress)
November: A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
The world has long needed the United States to demonstrate bold leadership on anthropogenic climate change. This report seeks to
illuminate one pathway to catalyze United States leadership through a bilateral framework. The simple reality is that for any remedy
for global climate change to be meaningful, the United States and China—the world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gasses—
must find a way to stand together, collaboratively, at the center of a global effort. As previous reports from both the Asia Society and
Center for American Progress have articulated, elevating energy and climate in the U.S. -China agenda would not only demonstrate
leadership in addressing the climate imperative, but has the potential to fundamentally reshape the dynamics between the two
countries in a positive and comprehensive way.12 Yet these two countries still find themselves in a state of paralysis on this critical
issue. Many U.S. stakeholders worry that the United States will be at a disadvantage if it signs any domestic legislation or
international agreements committing to limits on greenhouse gas emissions unless developing countries such as China agree to similar
measures. The Chinese government, on the other hand, firmly opposes placing an absolute limit on its own emissions, pointing to
developed countries’ responsibility to remedy the effects of their historic cumulative emissions that have led to global warming.
Meanwhile, the United States and China continue to rely heavily on coal to produce energy; it accounts for 50 percent and 80 percent
of current electricity generation, respectively. If these two countries cannot find a way to come together to jointly address the
problems caused by these emissions, it is highly unlikely that the world will be able to agree on a strategy for effective mitigation any
time soon or that the UNFCCC negotiations in Copenhagen this December will arrive at any meaningful outcome. Thus, cooperation
between the United States and China is a critical and requisite step to gain the kind of confidence and trust needed to spearhead
progress toward an effective global solution. Fortunately, with a new U.S. presidential administration and an increasingly
environmentally-conscious Chinese government, this moment is replete with possibility for these two countries to jointly alter the
current state of reluctance that has prevailed until now.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        71/121


                        CHINA-U.S. WARMING CP – SEQUESTRATION KEY

Sequestration is the only sustainable solution to warming
Vishakha N. Desai and John Podesta 2009 (President of the Asia Society) and (President for the Center for American Progress)
November: A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
CCS technology has been gaining ground as an important potential element in remedying climate change. Several institutions have
recently carried out studies examining the technical viability and abatement potential of CCS, including the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Stanford University, and the Electric Power Research Institute. Their findings have led to a number of conclusions: 1._CCS appears
technically sound and feasible, as demonstrated by analogous long-lived industrial processes, as well as a handful of successful
projects already implemented in different parts of the world. 2._Deploying CCS will decrease the cost of achieving stabilization of
atmospheric concentrations of carbon in a range of scenarios by 50 percent to 80 percent. 3._It is highly unlikely that stabilization
below 550 parts per million (ppm) of CO2-equivalent in the atmosphere can be achieved without CCS. 18 Energy efficiency
efforts, while low in cost, achieve roughly a quarter of the global need required for emissions reductions. CCS and renewable energy
efforts, on the other hand, can address roughly three-quarters of the global need for emissions reductions.19 Rapid action is required
of both the U.S. and China in the coal sector for climate stabilization




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                               The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                       72/121


                    CHINA-U.S. WARMING CP – ELECTRICITY SECTOR KEY

The Electricity sector is the largest contributor to warming – only the counterplan solves
Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant
Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for
New Energy Choices (Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew
School of Public Policy and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS), Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf)
Yet carbon-intensive fuels continue to dominate electricity generation in the United States. By 2005, almost 90 percent of the
country’s greenhouse gas emissions were energy-related, with the electric utility industry outpacing all other sectors (including
transportation) with 38 percent of national carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Fossil-fueled power plants in the U.S. emitted 2.25 billion
metric tons of C02 in 2003, more than 10 times the amount of C02 compared to the next-largest emitter, iron and steel production.301
Put simply, of all U.S. industries, electricity generation is—by substantial margins—the single largest contributor of the pollutants
responsible for global warming.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                               The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                       73/121


                         CHINA-U.S. WARMING CP – POLITICS (POPULAR)

Unions and environmental groups like the counterplan
Vishakha N. Desai and John Podesta 2009 (President of the Asia Society) and (President for the Center for American Progress)
November: A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.
Large unions (such as the United Mine Workers of American and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers), as well as
labor union federations (such as the AFLCIO ), have strong interest in seeing coal-fired power generation and related technologies to
help gain a new life for coal-dependent jobs in a carbon-constrained world. There are approximately 397,000 permanent, full-time
jobs in electric power generation and distribution in the United States and an additional 78,800 jobs in the coal mining sector.53
Approximately 19 percent of workers in the mining industry were unionized in 2006.54 M oreover, a study completed by BBC
Research and Consulting found that constructing one CCS plant would directly create between 13,000 and 14,000 job-years and
36,000 to 38,000 subsidiary job-years. Ongoing operation and maintenance functions promise to create an additional 1,200 to 1,300
more job-years throughout the economy. And a study completed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory calculates that the
development and deployment of advanced coal technologies would create up to 75,000 new job-years, primarily in manufacturing—
growing to 200,000 per year by 2020. Given the effects of the recent recession, the promise of clean coal as a new technology
understandably garners significant support from multiple sectors. This support is augmented by environmental groups such as the
Clean Air Task Force and Natural Resources Defense Council and commerce groups such as the Apollo Alliance and the Council for
American Competitiveness.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                    The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                            74/121


                                            BIOFORTIFICATION CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should allocate all necessary resources for the research and
application of plant breeding biofortification technologies.

Contention 1 is Competition: The Counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency:

(__) Hunger
Government investments in bio-fortification solves world hunger
David Kern 2006, Drexel University “The Role of Genetically Modified Food” http://www.udel.edu/GPPC/kern2006.htm
Investments in plant breeding research and dissemination are far lower and potentially long lasting. Benefits of agricultural
research at a central location can be spread throughout the world and across time. Breeding for staple plants with high
micronutrient content in their seeds, referred to as ‘biofortification’, treats the underlying cause of lack of nutrients. Although plant
breeding can involve relatively long lead times of 8–10 years before nutritious varieties can be developed and their adoption by
farmers can be initiated, such a strategy is sustainable once breeding has been completed, and seeds have been dispersed and
adopted by farmers. During the research and development stage the US can continue with their present system of providing help.
Biofortification has the potential to provide coverage for remote rural populations, which present supplementation and fortification
programs may not reach, and it inherently targets the poor who consume high levels of staple foods and not much else.
Development of varieties of rice or wheat high in iron and zinc using conventional breeding might cost as much as $42 million
over 10 years, including the costs of nutrition safety and efficacy tests, the costs of distribution in selected regions, and the costs of
an evaluation of nutritional and economic impact. Such an investment is projected to have far reaching impacts if efficacy and
effectiveness are achieved. A large part of the costs will shrink over time as the major research and development will occur in the
very beginning and then as time goes on less money needs to go into these processes as the GM foods are fine tuned. The $42
million cost over 10 years is a $1.25 billion difference compared to our current strategy. In one scientific model it was
conservatively estimated that in the long run (11-25 years) a total of 44 million cases of anemia would be prevented if nutritionally
improved varieties were to be adopted on 10% of rice and wheat areas in Bangladesh and India (Hunt 2002). That is a very big
step in the direction to relieving world hunger.




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                     The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                             75/121


                      BIOFORTIFICATION CP – SOLVENCY (FOOD IMPACTS)

Research for bio-fortification of genetically modified foods is key to solving back global hunger – genetically modified foods
have greater a significantly greater nutritional value than they normally would have – breeding processes for staple foods such
as rice then get used in other countries, solving not just U.S. but global hunger – that’s Kern.

GMO’s key to solve nutrition and world hunger
David Kern 2006, Drexel University “The Role of Genetically Modified Food” http://www.udel.edu/GPPC/kern2006.htm
The debate surrounding genetically modified foods much of the time comes down to the subject of confronting world hunger. A
main goal of GM foods is that they make it possible to solve world hunger. Critics of this theory, though, believe that the reality of
GMOs is that they will become, or already are, a victim of our corporate world, and that the world hunger issue will never be
approached. This, though, isn’t an accurate criticism and I will explain why shortly. First I want to concentrate on how genetically
modified foods can help alleviate famine in third world countries.
As stated before many countries depend on grains, specifically rice, as their main source of food. Many of these countries, the ones
we are concerned with here, are poverty stricken third world countries. Because these people rely on rice for such a big part of
their diets, it is important that there is actually nutritional value in the rice. The problem is that there naturally isn’t a whole lot of
nutritional nourishment in rice and other grains. The biggest malnutrition problem in these countries is iron deficiency and lack of
Vitamin A. People may not feel hungry, because they are eating, but their bodies are breaking down from anemia, which can lead
to poor eye sight, impaired growth, cognitive development, higher rate of sickness, and even high mortality. It’s because of all this
that the general problem of poor dietary quality has been dubbed ‘hidden hunger’. Genetic modification can solve this problem.
The potential benefits of improving the nutritional quality of foods are higher for low-income countries, where food budgets
account for two-thirds or more of total expenditures and where poor dietary quality and micronutrient malnutrition are widespread
(Shunker 2003). Most consumers in rich countries have access to a relatively inexpensive supply of safe and healthy food.




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                          The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                  76/121


                                                                      ITER CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should restore its funding to the ITER project.

ITER will collapse now because of lack of funding
Christoph Seidler 5/26/2010: Spiraling Costs Threaten International Fusion Reactor Project. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,696922,00.html
The planned ITER fusion reactor in France is supposed to replicate conditions inside the Sun to produce limitless clean energy. But
skyrocketing costs are putting the international project at risk. Now Germany's research minister has said Berlin will not write a blank check
for the technology. From the air, the construction site looks like a sandbox for giants. The meticulously leveled area, which is located in the middle of lush pine
forests near the southern French town of Saint-Paul-les-Durance, is waiting for the ground-breaking ceremony in July. Here, on yellowish-red Provencal soil, the
international nuclear fusion reactor ITER is supposed to be built in what will be one of the largest research projects in the world. In recent months, construction workers
are said to have moved soil with the total volume of the Great Pyramid at Giza. And that is just the beginning. The first buildings will soon be erected here, forming the
site's own small town. The largest building will house the reactor, where as of 2026 the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium will be fused in a controlled reaction to
form helium, delivering energy on the scale of a power plant. It's the same process that operates within the sun, and temperatures in the interior of the reactor could
reach 100 million degrees Celsius (180 million degrees Fahrenheit). Proponents of the project argue that what is at stake is nothing less than the
energy of the future -- a process of energy production that uses a fuel that is available in almost infinite quantities, and that produces
nearly no waste. For the first time, a fusion reactor would produce more energy than is necessary for its operation. Opponents, however, see the multi-
billion euro project as a modern white elephant. Now it has been revealed that ITER's construction costs are exploding. In a worst case
scenario, the whole project could be at risk.

Restoring funding to ITER is the key internal link to restore science diplomacy globally and U.S. Russian relations
Dr. Nina Federoff 8 (USAID Administrator) April 2: International Science And Technology Cooperation, Statement before the
Committee on House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, CQ Congressional Testimony)
Finally, some types of science – particularly those that address the grand challenges in science and technology – are inherently
international in scope and collaborative by necessity. The ITER Project, an international fusion research and development
collaboration, is a product of the thaw in superpower relations between Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President
Ronald Reagan. This reactor will harness the power of nuclear fusion as a possible new and viable energy source by bringing a star to
earth. ITER serves as a symbol of international scientific cooperation among key scientific leaders in the developed and developing
world – Japan, Korea, China, E.U., India, Russia, and United States – representing 70% of the world’s current population.. The recent
elimination of funding for FY08 U.S. contributions to the ITER project comes at an inopportune time as the Agreement on the
Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project had entered
into force only on October 2007. The elimination of the promised U.S. contribution drew our allies to question our commitment and
credibility in international cooperative ventures. More problematically, it jeopardizes a platform for reaffirming U.S. relations with
key states. It should be noted that even at the height of the cold war, the United States used science diplomacy as a means to maintain
communications and avoid misunderstanding between the world’s two nuclear powers – the Soviet Union and the United States. In a
complex multi-polar world, relations are more challenging, the threats perhaps greater, and the need for engagement more paramount.

US Russia Relations Key to prevent Accidentla Nuke war
Newsweek 2010 – 9/1 (“How to Manage Moscow”, http://www.newsweek.com/id/154906/page/1)
Or take existing nuclear weapons. U.S. and Russian stockpiles remain dangerously high, as does the chance of accidental or un-
authorized use. We want to move to a world of fewer nuclear weapons in fewer hands. Bilateral negotiations between the United States and Russia
remain the best and only way to get from here to there . The Bush administration has said that so long as Russia occupies parts of Georgia there will be
no return to "business as usual" in U.S.–Russian relations. This suggests a form of linkage, a policy from the cold war, where bilateral ties across the board
are adversely affected because of disagreement over a particular issue, in this case Georgia . This is a questionable strategy for the United
States at a time when so much else on our agenda involves Russia. Instead, U.S. policy ought to be for the two countries to cooperate where they
can—and to disagree and compete within constraints where they must.

And, Accidental War causes Extinction
Babst 2002 (Dean, retired government research scientist and Coordinator of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Accidental Nuclear
War Studies Program, "Preventing an Accidental Armageddon", http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/babst-armageddon.html)
Although international relations have changed drastically since the end of the Cold War, both Russia and the U.S. continue to keep the bulk of their
nuclear missiles on high-level alert. The U.S. and Russia remain ready to fire a total of more than 5,000 nuclear weapons at each other within
half an hour. These warheads, if used, could destroy humanity including those firing the missiles. A defense that destroys the defender makes no
sense. Why then do Russia, the U.S., and other countries spend vast sums each year to maintain such defenses? Since 400 average size strategic nuclear weapons
could destroy humanity, most of the 5,000 nuclear weapons that Russia and the U.S. have set for hair-trigger release, present the world
with its greatest danger -- an enormous overkill, the potential for an accidental Armageddon.



                                 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                          The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                  77/121


                                           ITER CP – SOLVENCY (KEY TO FUSION)

The best option to combat the energy crisis is to develop fusion via a Manhattan project program like ITER
Peter Graneau,Center for Electromagnetics Research, Northeastern University, “Manhattan or Kyoto,” Infinite Energy, Issue 77, January/February 2008
In the July 2007 issue of the journal Physics World, Chi-Jen Yang, a prominent member of the International Affairs Department of Princeton University, wrote about
tackling global climate change under the headline “ Manhattan versus Kyoto .” (Physics World is the membership journal of the British Institute of Physics.) The first
paragraph of Yang’s article reads: In advance of the G8 summit held in Germany last month, U.S. President George Bush reiterated his view that to tackle global
climate change is through technology, rather than by regulating emissions of green house gases . . .He is not alone in this view. Indeed political
leaders of all persuasions, including U.S. Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer, as well as many scientists, are arguing that global warming can
only be solved through a crash research and development programme similar to the Manhattan or Apollo projects. The Bush administration
is unlikely to launch a Manhattan project, addressing energy, during its last year in office. For the time being we will have to live with the Kyoto protocol, a political
approach which does not preclude major advances in new energy research. In the long run, however, a Manhattan-type of R&D program deserves serious
consideration. The words Energy Crisis assumed their threatening connotation when the Arab nations imposed an oil embargo in 1973. Gas lines formed overnight
in the United States and other countries of the western hemisphere. Petroleum prices rocketed and the news media suddenly realized how dependent human society had
become on the ready availability of fossil fuels in particular and energy in general. There was much talk about alternative fuels and renewable energy sources. The U.S.
government formed the Department of Energy with the cabinet position of a Secretary of Energy to marshal the scientific and economic resources of the world’s leading
industrialized nation and make America independent of foreign oil. The bureaucracy has been in place for some time, but its performance has been disappointing. Man
went to the moon, proudly demonstrating his technological skills, while most electric power plants are stuck with coal, oil, and natural gas combustion. It seems to have
been the co-coordinated and intense Apollo program which made the difference in succeeding with a new technology. In recent years the energy crisis assumed a new
dimension in the form of global warming. A majority of scientists now believe that environmental temperatures all over the globe increase at an alarming rate which
ultimately will endanger the existence of the human race. The cause of global warming, and associated climate changes, is said to be an accumulation of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They may be responsible for retaining more of the energy that arrives from the sun than the amount of energy that is
radiated back into space. It is argued that the annual production of carbon dioxide on earth has to be reduced by 40% to stabilize global temperatures. This is about the
amount of carbon dioxide exhausted by all the fossil fuel burning electric power plants worldwide. Our civilization without electricity is unthinkable. The
best answer to the energy crisis is to drive the electricity generators of the world with water. It would be wrong to call water a fuel because it does not burn carbon, but
                                                                                           2
there is plenty of usable energy stored in the hydrogen bonds between water molecules. The success of the Manhattan project was, in no small
measure, due to the well-defined objective of producing an atomic weapon based on the experimental discovery of nuclear energy.
Today—in the energy field—we have to make a choice between different scientific discoveries which have opened separate avenues
to new sources of energy. The best choice of a particular line of energy research to be pursued by a Manhattan-type organization is by
no means obvious. The Kyoto protocol has the great advantage that no choice has to be made. All reasonably economic energy sources, not involving fossil fuels,
are acceptable. Energy conservation measures are equally attractive. In fact it is not necessary to develop new technology, but innovation must not be ruled out. A mix
of renewable energy from wind turbines, photo-voltaic cells, solar heating, geothermal power, and biomass fuels can certainly be used. The expansion of existing
technologies, without the imposition of taxes on the populations of the world, to pursue research is a great incentive of the Kyoto treaty. It should be continued and
strengthened even if one or more Manhattan enterprises to develop new sources of energy come into existence. The problem with Kyoto is that after a few decades it
may become clear that all the voluntary measures, nurtured by public opinion and government encouragement, fell short of arresting global warming and did not lead to
oil independence. The worldwide enthusiasm which now upholds Kyoto may ultimately wane, because it requires too many small sacrifices. The voluntary
contributions to the Kyoto system by industrial nations may then appear to be an idle burden. In that case nobody may be able to control the ever-growing energy crisis.
If this should happen, the Manhattan approach becomes mandatory. Controlled thermonuclear fusion received generous support from the U.S.
government for at least 25 years. For all practical purposes the fusion reactors, known as tokomaks, represent a Manhattan project. This
effort has been bogged down by technological difficulties of confining deuterium and tritium plasmas in a metallic vacuum chamber. It has not stopped a
consortium from going ahead with the building of an International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) at Cardarache , France , at a cost of $10
         3
billion. Contributions to this project are made by China , the European Union, Japan , Russia , South Korea , and the United States . Energy researchers at large around
the globe are skeptical of the future of ITER. On the other hand, the project does demonstrate that the lobbying power of a large body of scientists
and engineers can mobilize national governments to spend billions of dollars on a scientific venture.

Nuclear fusion will be a major energy source- ITER important to development.
D. P. Stotler, R. E. Bell, K. W. Hill, D. W. Johnson and F. M. Levinton,Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University, and Nova Photonics, “Atomic
Physics in ITER - The Foundation for the Next Step to Fusion Power,” ATOMIC AND MOLECULAR DATA AND THEIR APPLICATIONS: 5th International
Conference on Atomic and Molecular Data and Their Applications (ICAMDATA). AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 901, pp. 95-104, April '07.
Fusion energy is envisioned to contribute significantly to the world’s energy needs by the end of this century. The associated reduction
in carbon dioxide emission relative to fossil fuel power plants will be important in mitigating global warming. The proposed “fast
track” [1, 2] to fusion energy would put power on the grid in about 50 years, just when new technologies will be required to replace
fossil fuel based energy [3]. Approximately the last half of this development period will be devoted to the operation of one or more
demonstration power plants. The objective of these devices would be to show that fusion reactors can not only generate net electrical
power, but do so economically with high levels of reliability and low activity waste products. An aggressive, multi-component
research plan will be required to establish the technical, physics, and safety basis for a demonstration power plant. One component of
this plan is a facility for testing candidate fusion reactor structural materials for their ability to withstand bombardment by fusion
neutrons and operate at high temperatures without experiencing a significant degradation of materials properties. This is International
Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF) [2]. But, the more important component is a device that will demonstrate the scientific
and technological feasibility of fusion power; this is the ITER experiment.

                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                  The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                          78/121


                             ITER CP – SOLVENCY (SCIENCE DIPLOMACY)

Diplomacy over ITER spills over and builds the trust that is needed for broader cooperation.
FPA ‘08 (Fusion Power Associates quoting a letter written by members of the U.S. fusion community to Congress, 1/4, “ITER Budget
Cuts Protested”, http://aries.ucsd.edu/fpa/fpn08-01.shtml)
On January 4, 21 members of the U.S. fusion community sent a letter to members of Congress and the Executive Branch protesting
the removal of funds for U.S. participation in the ITER project in the Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations bill recently signed by the
President. The letter was addressed to the President's Science Advisor, John Marburger, the Secretary of Energy, Samuel Bodman, and
the chairs of the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development, Byron Dorgan and Peter
Visclosky, respectively. Copies of the letter were sent of Department of Energy Under Secretary for Science Raymond Orbach and to
all members of the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, Energy and Natural Resources, and Science and Technology.
The letter reads as follows:
Despite being fully funded in the President's and in the House and Senate Appropriations measures, the Fiscal Year 2008 omnibus
funding measure contains $0 for the U.S. contribution to the ITER Project. ITER is the key breakthrough project for magnetic fusion
energy. The purpose of the ITER Project is to "demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful
purposes." If the United States cannot participate in ITER, the U.S. will lose a centerpiece of its own fusion program, a key scientific
tool for understanding a fundamental process in the universe (burning plasmas like those in the sun and stars) and the pathway to the
future of fusion energy.
ITER is a joint project of the China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States. Congress authorized U.S.
participation in this project in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the President committed the United States to its approximately 10%
share of the ITER construction just a few months ago. Failure by the United States to sustain its international commitments to ITER
seems certain to establish the United States as an unreliable partner not only in the ITER project, but in many other areas of science.
This comes at a time when the expense and scope of many critically important scientific activities suggest international partnership
and cooperation.
Therefore, for the sake of the international and domestic fusion effort and for the sake of the U.S. reputation in the international
scientific community, we most respectfully urge that funding be provided for continued U.S. participation in ITER.
Finally, as scientists concerned about the whole U.S. scientific enterprise, we also ask that funding be restored to the other areas of the
Department of Energy's Office of Science. There is no doubt that scientific progress on a broad variety of fronts is essential for our
nation's future. These areas of science also represent essential fronts in our understanding of the universe and the basic functioning of
the world around us. We therefore urge that these budgets also be made whole.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                       The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                               79/121


                                      ITER CP – SOLVENCY (COMPETITIVENESS)

Budget cuts towards ITER hurt US international reputation and competitiveness - must act now to rectify
Hamish Johnston, Editor of PhysicsWorld.com, “Nobel laureates petition Bush over funding shortfall”,
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34137, 5/8/08
A group of 20 Nobel-prize-winning physicists have written to US President George Bush, asking him to work with Congress to find at
least $510m in “emergency supplemental funding” for the agencies that pay for much of the nation’s physics research. The laureates sent
the letter in response to a similarly-sized shortfall in the amount of money granted by Congress for scientific research in this financial year compared with what Bush
had first proposed. "[The 2008 budget] sends a terrible message to the next generation of scientists," the laureates complain in their letter.
"Instead of providing incentives for budding scientists, the funding plan provides discouragement ". The letter's signatories include laser pioneer
Charles Townes, particle theorist Frank Wilczek and 2006 winners, the cosmologists George Smoot and John Mather. The funding situation in the US been difficult this
year because the budget for the 2008 fiscal year — which began in October 2007 — was only agreed upon in December 2007, after 11 months of wrangling between
the President and Congress. This delay was bad news for those researchers and institutes that had already started spending their 2008 money, only to find that their
funding had been cut back or even curtailed. Two fields financed by the Department of Energy have been particularly badly hit, with funding for high-energy physics
falling to $688m — some 12% less than Bush had requested — and support for fusion falling by a third. The cuts led to Fermilab, for example, announcing plans earlier
this year to lay-off 200 of the lab's 1900 staff. Permanent damage In the letter, the laureates complain that "hundreds of scientists have been laid off;
research grants have been slashed; and facilities operations have been seriously curtailed at national laboratories", as a result of the
shortfall. They also warn that the damage done to American science in 2008 "will become permanent if it is not rectified within the
next few months". This damage, they say, could hamper the nation’s ability to respond to "increased global competition from
countries such as China, India, and South Korea". Wolfgang Ketterle, who shared the 2001 prize for his work on Bose-Einstein condensates, told
physicsworld.com why he signed the letter: "I know from my own experience that scientific progress needs continuity and predictability of funding, both for current
research efforts, and for attracting new talent". He added "the current budget situations does not reflect this". The budget cuts have also caused US
physicists to limit severely their participation this year in several international projects — including the International Thermonuclear
Reactor (ITER), which is being built in France, and the International Linear Collider. "[The 2008 budget] is damaging our reputation
as a reliable partner for international projects," the laureates complain. Respite in 2009 Bush has already submitted a funding request for 2009, which
— if approved — would provide some respite for researchers as it includes significant increases in science spending. In particular, the extra money could allow the US
to resume full contributions to ITER and the ILC. In their letter, the laureates "applaud" Bush’s commitment to science but warn that the 2008 funding problems require
immediate action. "We strongly urge you to work with Congress in the coming weeks to enact emergency supplemental funding". The $510m comprises $310m for the
Department of Energy’s Office of Science, $170m for the National Science Foundation and $30m for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Kei
Koizumi, a budget analyst at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told physicsworld.com "There is a chance,
but a shrinking chance, that 2008 physics funding could be added by Congress this week". However he cautioned "it's increasingly
likely that everyone will have to wait until 2009 for more physical sciences funding".

Fusion- specifically ITER- key to U.S. Competitiveness.
Lamar Alexander, U.S. Sentate (R-TN), “A NEW MANHATTAN PROJECT FOR CLEAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE,”5/9/08
Provide energy from fusion. The idea of recreating on Earth the way the sun creates energy and using it for commercial power is the third grand challenge
suggested by the National Academy of Engineering. The promise of sustaining a controlled fusion reaction for commercial power generation is
so fantastic that the five-year goal should be to do everything possible to reach the long-term goal. The failure of Congress to approve
the President’s budget request for U.S. participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor – the ITER Project – is
embarrassing. Anything is possible This country of ours is a remarkable place. Even during an economic slowdown, we will produce this year about
30 percent of all the wealth in the world for the 5 percent of us who live in the United States. Despite “the gathering storm” of concern about American
competitiveness, no other country approaches our brainpower advantage – the collection of research universities, national laboratories
and private-sector companies we have. And this is still the only country where people say with a straight face that anything is possible – and
really believe it. These are precisely the ingredients that America needs during the next five years to place ourselves firmly on a path to
clean energy independence within a generation – and in doing so, to make our jobs more secure, to help balance the family budget, to
make our air cleaner and our planet safer and healthier – and to lead the world to do the same.

Cuts to ITER weakened US global competitiveness.
John Marburger, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, “AAAS Policy Forum,”5/8/ 08
How are all these challenges to be overcome in a time of constrained budgets? In the immediate future, the best thing that could happen for U.S. science is
for Congress actually to pass a budget for FY09 as part of its regular business this year. I would like to see a bill that funds the President's request and
finally launches a competitiveness initiative. The 2008 Omnibus bill seriously wounded U.S. interests in high energy physics and the
international fusion energy project, ITER, and it weakened our long term prospects for competing successfully in a globalized technology
intensive economy. That is the wrong signal to the American people, to the science and engineering communities, and to the world.
The sooner Congress can pass bills moving us forward from this dreadful position, the better. As to the prospects for a supplemental budget that
adjusts funding for FY08, the issue is rapidly becoming moot because two thirds of the year have passed already. Timely passage of FY09 budgets – which is after all
what Congress is supposed to do – at this point would be the strongest bridge to the future.



                                 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        80/121


                           ITER CP – SOLVENCY (INTERNATIONAL IMAGE)

Congress’ failure to fund ITER damages the US’s international image
David Pace, PhD Student in physics at UCLA. Current research involves experimental plasma physics in the UCLA Tokamak
Laboratory, “The United States Will Probably Desert ITER Permanently,” http://www.davidpace.com/physics/graduate-school/us-
leave-iter.htm, 1/05/08
The U.S. does not have a good track record in terms of support for ITER. In the late 1990's the U.S. joined ITER only to have
withdrawn before 2000. While there were public statements about support for ITER, the Congress prevented any financial
contributions when it came time to pay. When we left the project back then it endangered the entire program. The NewScientist
published an article noting the poor economic state of the other member nations and predicted that the lack of U.S. funds would doom
the project. The project did not die, however, probably because most other nations have more expensive electricity than the U.S. and
are therefore more inclined to invest in fusion technology. In 2005, Japan's household electricity is reported to be approximately twice
as expensive as that in the United States. The U.S. rejoined the ITER project in 2003. Initially, it seemed that we would be more
careful in making a commitment. Congressperson Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) pushed an amendment through the House that called for
the U.S. to delay the signing of any specific agreement until a plan for successfully completing the financial contribution was
determined. During his speech to the House to argue his case, Representative Boehlert said, “But ITER is expensive. The U.S.
contribution is expected to exceed $1 billion. And I want to make sure that before we commit a dime to ITER that we have a
consensus on how we will find that money." “I am very, very tired of the U.S. signing on to international science agreements that we
later come to regret. We’re then left with the Hobson’s choice – the Chairman will excuse the expression – the Hobson’s choice of
either reneging on our international agreement or funneling money into a project we don’t actually need." Unfortunately, this
amendment only required a delay in the signing of an agreement. The extra time appears not to have made any difference because we
rejoined the project and once again find ourselves withholding our contribution. Congress is behind our failure to meet our
commitment. Strangely enough, Boehlert predicted exactly what would happen with his quote above. He mentions the awful choice of
either "reneging" on our agreement or spending the money on something that is unnecessary. When President Bush signed the bill that
removed all money for ITER part of his statement included the following, "I am disappointed in the way the Congress compiled this
legislation, including abandoning the goal I set early this year to reduce the number and cost of earmarks by half. Instead, the
Congress dropped into the bill nearly 9,800 earmarks that total more than $10 billion." Instead of honoring our international promises
we have decided, through congressional action, to leave our partners millions of dollars short. If we truly leave ITER completely, then
we will keep over one billion dollars from the project. It should be noted that Boehlert was not talking about earmarks and pork-barrel
projects in his speech, he actually suggested that ITER might be the unnecessary project. Still, even though not all earmarks have to be
wasteful just a small percentage of the $10 billion set aside for these projects could have fulfilled our role in something to which we
have already agreed. In fact, in an era where the U.S. does not always engender a favorable image in the international community we
could have taken a slightly larger portion of this pot and over-contributed to the project as a sign of our desire to participate in
cooperative endeavors. This is an election year, however, so no one should expect a politician to willingly divert funds away from
their local districts. The combined effects of a downward moving economy, incredible financial burden of multiple military exercises,
and the coming election leaves it incredibly unlikely that ITER will be funded. Congress is ending our involvement in the project as
they did previously.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                      81/121


                                       ITER CP – SOLVENCY (ENERGY)

Fusion is the only solution to the worsening energy crisis.
Nigel Praities, 23 Mar 2007
http://www.firstscience.com/home/articles/big-theories/nuclear-fusion-energy-for-the-future_17006.html
The energy crisis has rocketed from a textbook concept into the most pressing political issue of our time. Future energy supplies are
increasingly vulnerable and global consumption is expected to escalate dramatically, increasing by 71% in 2030 and continuing to
rise. Energy shortages would have a dramatic impact on every area of modern life: business, transport, food, health and
communications. This looming crisis has drawn scientific minds and encouraged radical research into arcane technologies, such as the
once neglected area of nuclear fusion.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         82/121


                                       ITER CP – SOLVENCY (WARMING)

Nuclear fusion will give humankind unlimited energy and completely solve for global warming.
James Reynolds and Ian Johnston, Sat 2 Apr 2005
The government’s chief scientific adviser yesterday urged more investment in the holy grail of nuclear fusion to help tackle global
warming. Sir David King, who last night gave the opening speech at the Edinburgh International Science Festival, said he believed
fusion power would become a reality. The phenomenon, which could provide almost limitless energy, has been researched by
scientists worldwide for decades and Sir David urged more work to be done so it could be achieved sooner. Unlike existing power
stations, which run on nuclear fission, fusion reactors produce little radioactive waste and do not create carbon dioxide, one of the
main greenhouse gases. The reactors could also provide power for centuries to come as they can be fuelled using sea water. Most of
Britain’s power stations are due to shut down in the next 15 years and the government has said it will make an announcement on
whether any more will be built after the election, expected next month. Speaking at the Royal Museum of Scotland, Sir David repeated
his warning that global warming was a real problem and action had to be taken to reduce emissions. And in an exclusive interview
before his speech, Sir David put forward nuclear power - particularly fusion - and power from hydrogen as ways to save the planet
from an environmental catastrophe. He said modern fission reactors were far cleaner than Britain’s ageing nuclear plants and this
meant governments had the "option" of building them. "We need energy sources that are inherently carbon-free. In the longer term I
believe that fusion power stations are a reality. It is just a question of what timescale we are talking about," he said. "We need to be
investing today in the development of fusion power so we have that additional power supply to come. Science and technology can
provide the mechanisms for taking this forward. We also need populations and governments to understand the nature of the problem."

Fusion eliminates the emissions of noxious gases that cause global warming
<Toby Murcott, science journalist-the Times and BBC radio, Fusion project sparks new hopes of cheap, clean power, BBC News,
May 7, 1999>
At present virtually all electricity generation consumes limited resources of coal, oil, gas and uranium, and produces noxious effluent
such as smoke, carbon dioxide and radioactive waste. The emission of such gases may be causing global warming and will be on the
agenda at the Kyoto summit to discuss ways of tackling climate change. Meanwhile, hopes of unlimited, pollution-free energy rest at
the moment with nuclear fusion, the process that powers the Sun and all stars. But this has proved extremely difficult to harness.
Current nuclear fusion reactors depend on the fusion of hydrogen isotopes, including radioactive tritium, but controlling the extreme
conditions for this reaction to proceed is technologically very difficult. A commercial nuclear fusion reactor is still many years away.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         83/121


                           ITER CP – SOLVENCY (TECH AND INNOVATION)

US involvement and funding towards ITER is crucial to the US’s short-term scientific research and long-term technological
prowess
David Pace, PhD Student in physics at UCLA. Current research involves experimental plasma physics in the UCLA Tokamak
Laboratory, “The United States Will Probably Desert ITER Permanently,” http://www.davidpace.com/physics/graduate-school/us-
leave-iter.htm, 1/05/08
The APS Division of Plasma Physics quickly released a statement detailing their displeasure with the nixing of ITER's funding.
Similar sentiments have been released by other institutions though it does not seem the physics researcher bloc exercises much
influence at present. The cut may kill our role in ITER, but it also seriously wounds Fermilab. High energy physicists share our
sadness over this budget news. The collection of circumstances now present do not bode well for ITER and they encourage renewed
concern over U.S. fusion and plasma research in general. It seems that history is repeating itself with regard to our role in ITER. An
unwilling Congress, the lack of powerful supporters, and economic pressures are aligned against a U.S. presence in ITER. The
Government Accountability Office has highlighted both the need for more fusion Ph.D.'s in the workforce and the fact that as many of
half of all plasma science and engineering Ph.D.'s leave the field (plain text, pdf). As a member of the group of graduate students in
this field I can positively state that our discussions focus on events like this ITER cut and the uncertainty in funding for this type of
research is a major motivation for moving to other sectors and very different careers. Supporting ITER encourages a new generation
of plasma scientists as much as cutting it leads these same people to other fields. A broader issue remains: what happens if ITER is a
rousing success and we were not involved? For a comparison, imagine that the methods of AC and DC electricity generation and
transmission had not been developed in the United States. The negative impact on our industrialization and technological prowess is
unimaginable. A successful ITER project with no U.S. assistance will be very similar. The rest of the industrialized world will have a
wealth of knowledge and ability in the field of fusion driven electricity production, along with the desire to feed their own national
corporate interests with the first commercial applications.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                      84/121


                                     ITER CP – SOLVENCY (NANOTECH)

Co-operation on long term endeavors such as ITER are crucial to nano-tech co-operation – even if others develop nanotech
first, ITER commitment ensures they’ll be willing to share
Potocnik, 06 - European Commissioner for Science and Research (Janez, “Between cooperation and Competition - Science and
Research as a Transatlantic Bridge Builder”, 3/7,
http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=139&Itemid=2)
We need to pool resources for expensive, long-term endeavours. Look at ITER, for example. This is a gigantic project bringing
together seven parties to develop a future sustainable energy source by developing fusion energy. ITER is a prominent example of
how common challenges are of such a scale that we have no other choice than to go together. Separately, these types of massive
initiatives are simply not possible, or, at least, make no sense at all.
Cooperation shortens the path leading from science to innovation and from knowledge to solutions in areas such as nanotech, biotech,
environment, climate and cybersecurity. In all these areas, and in many more, we share information, knowledge, practices and results.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                                    The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                            85/121


                                                        ITER CP – SOLVENCY (SPACE)

Magnetic fusion research through ITER spills over to low-temperature plasma.
Cowley and Peoples ‘07 (Plasma 2010 Committee, co-chaired by Steven C. Cowley, Ph.D. in the Department of Astrophysical
Sciences at Princeton University and professor at Imperial College London at the Blackett Laboratory, and John Peoples, Jr., director
emeritus of Fermilab and recipient of the Distinguished Service Award from the National Science Foundation, National Research
Council of the National Academies, “Plasma Science: Advancing Knowledge in the National Interest”,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11960.html, p. 72-73)
Conclusion: Low-temperature plasma science and engineering share much intellectual space with other subfields of plasma science
such as basic plasma science, magnetic fusion science, and space plasma science and will benefit from stewardship that is integrated
with plasma science as a whole. Low-temperature plasmas share scientific challenges with other branches of plasma research. For
instance, the principles underlying plasma heating, stability, and control in the low-temperature regime are the same as those that
govern processes in magnetic fusion, just as the emergence of collective behavior is shared with many other areas of plasma science.
Another crosscutting topic is plasma interactions with surfaces: These interactions are often the desired outcome of certain low-
temperature engineering procedures, but in fusion, they must be controlled and minimized. Finally, basic plasma science studies of
dusty plasmas have shed enormous light on the mechanism for controlling the rates and purities of plasma etching reactions. There is
substantial overlap between the scientific objectives of low-temperature plasma research and the other branches of plasma science.
The time is now to tap into this synergy.

This type of plasma research is key to space exploration.
Cowley and Peoples ‘07 (Plasma 2010 Committee, co-chaired by Steven C. Cowley, Ph.D. in the Department of Astrophysical Sciences at Princeton University and
professor at Imperial College London at the Blackett Laboratory, and John Peoples, Jr., director emeritus of Fermilab and recipient of the Distinguished Service Award from the
National Science Foundation, National Research Council of the National Academies, “Plasma Science: Advancing Knowledge in the National Interest”,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11960.html, p. 42)
Plasma-based propulsion systems are already keeping satellites in their proper orbit, and they propelled the Deep Space 1 probe to Comet
Borelly. They may also take the first humans to Mars. Plasmas will never launch a rocket into orbit because the instantaneous power requirement is too high,
but once in space, the plasma is highly efficient and can reduce fuel requirements by a factor of 100 (Figure 2.1.1). Plasma based electric
rockets could have significant commercial advantage over conventional chemical rockets to propel space cargo , said President Bush in
his speech, “The United States Vision for Space Exploration.”1
                                             can be very high. This high speed produces a very high efficiency in terms of the
The advantage of plasma propulsion is that its exhaust speed
momentum that the rocket can give to the spacecraft relative to the mass of fuel consumed (the specific impulse). Instead of being limited by
the temperature of a chemical reaction, as in conventional rockets, these devices utilize electric and magnetic fields to provide the driving forces that ultimately accelerate the
exhaust particles to much higher speeds. Since the ejected particles move faster, fewer of them are required to achieve the same propulsive
effect. This results in lower fuel consumption and higher payload .
To be competitive, plasma rockets must be lightweight and able to handle increasing levels of power in a relatively small package. In addition, given that they must be on for long
periods of time, they must be reliable and have long-lived components. One way to meet these goals is to use electrodeless systems where the plasma is created and accelerated by
the action of electromagnetic waves rather than by the presence of physical electrodes immersed in the flow. (The latter are severely limited by erosion and wear due to plasma
bombardment.) A favored plasma generator for such applications is the helicon discharge developed in the 1970s for the plasma materials processing industry. Significant
advances in our understanding of the physics and engineering of these devices has been driven by their application to space
propulsion. Major efforts in the packaging of high-power electrical supplies are also under way in support of these technologies.




                                    For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                                                                   The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                           86/121


                                                                           MINE THE MOON CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should mine the moon for Helium 3.

Contention 1 is Competition: the Counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

(__) Space
Here’s our solvency advocate.
Lasker 06—Writer in the Christian Science Monitor
[John, 12/15, Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel, http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276?currentPage=2]
NASA's planned moon base announced last week could pave the way for deeper space exploration to Mars, but one of the biggest
beneficiaries may be the terrestrial energy industry. Nestled among the agency's 200-point mission goals is a proposal to mine the
moon for fuel used in fusion reactors -- futuristic power plants that have been demonstrated in proof-of-concept but are likely decades
away from commercial deployment. Helium-3 is considered a safe, environmentally friendly fuel candidate for these generators, and
while it is scarce on Earth it is plentiful on the moon. As a result, scientists have begun to consider the practicality of mining lunar
Helium-3 as a replacement for fossil fuels. "After four-and-half-billion years, there should be large amounts of helium-3 on the moon," said Gerald Kulcinski, a professor who leads the Fusion
Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Last year NASA administrator Mike Griffin named Kulcinski to lead a number of committees reporting to NASA's influential NASA Advisory Council, its
preeminent civilian leadership arm. The Council is chaired by Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Hagan "Jack" Schmitt, a leading proponent of mining the moon for helium 3. Schmitt, who holds the distance record for driving a
NASA rover on the moon (22 miles through the Taurus-Littrow valley), is also a former U.S. senator (R-New Mexico). The Council was restructured last year with a new mission: implementing President Bush's "Vision for
Space Exploration," which targets Mars as its ultimate destination. Other prominent members of the Council include ex-astronaut Neil Armstrong. Schmitt and Kulcinski are longtime friends and academic partners, and are
known as helium-3 fusion's biggest promoters. At the Fusion Technology Institute, Kulcinski's team has produced small-scale helium-3 fusion reactions in the basketball-sized fusion device. The reactor produced one
milliwatt of power on a continuous basis. While still theoretical, nuclear fusion is touted as a safer, more sustainable way to generate nuclear energy: Fusion plants produce much less radioactive waste, especially if powered
by helium-3. But experts say commercial-sized fusion reactors are at least 50 years away. The isotope is extremely rare on Earth but abundant on the moon. Some experts estimate there a millions of tons in lunar soil -- and
that a single Space-Shuttle load would power the entire United States for a year. NASA plans to have a permanent moon base by 2024, but America is not the only nation with plans for a moon base. China, India, the
                                                                             Mining the moon for helium-3 has been discussed widely
European Space Agency, and at least one Russian corporation, Energia, have visions of building manned lunar bases post-2020.
in space circles and international space conferences. Both China and Russia have stated their nations' interest in helium-3. "We will
provide the most reliable report on helium-3 to mankind," Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist of China's lunar program, told a Chinese
newspaper. "Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first."

Mining would revolutionize the world and spur space explaration
Bright 07—editor of eastfeild
[James, 9/26, Helium 3 could revolutionalize the world,
http://media.www.eastfieldnews.com/media/storage/paper1070/news/2007/09/26/OnCampus/Mining.The.Moon-2994100.shtml]
Imagine a world that is not dependent on petroleum and fossil fuels, a world which has taken a giant leap forward towards space
colonization. Although this may seem like an impossibility, this utopia is getting closer to becoming a reality and I welcome it with
open arms. Currently The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Space Colonization Technical Committee is developing
plans to have a moon base established as early as 2015 according to a position statement on www.aiaa.org. Aside from the obvious
interest of lunar colonization, a rare type of Helium called Helium 3 could be mined from the surface of the moon and then transferred
by shuttlecraft to Earth. H3 is what powers our Sun. Particles of the element are pushed off from the sun and then bombarded by
cosmic rays which knock neutrons out of the Helium particles. The particles then combine, forming H3. The benefits of H3 are
unquestionable. The compound can be used a safer fuel for nuclear reactors. Just the concept of safer nuclear power plants excites me.
But unfortunately there are only small amounts of H3 on Earth. There is enough to be studied but not be utilized.The Earth-bound H3
burns up in the atmosphere, where as the moon has no atmosphere and is therefore literally coated with the compound. The reason we
would want to harness the power of H3 is due to its incredibly low rate of radioactivity. The dangers of a nuclear fusion reactor would
be reduced to only minor threats according to popularmechanics.com. H3 will not wear down nuclear reactors as fast as Uranium,
therefore reducing the cost needed to replace the reactors. My question is, why are we not publicizing this? It's a great idea. The ability
to colonize the moon and reduce the use of our depleting fossil fuels is an invaluable resource. As long as our Sun exists we would
never run out of H3. For the first time the world would be looking at an infinite supply of energy. Aside from the elimination of
highly-radioactive reactors and reduction of the use of fossil fuels the moon mining would create a whole new section for the global
economy. The AIAASCTC's document asks for the United States to set up the lunar colony with the help of other international space agencies, so a free-market
economy would be created for the area of mining and scientific research. This process would narrow the dividing lines between our country and other countries with
space-exploration programs. I just hope we as a people are able to put our greed aside. This new development would be a major step
forward towards global peace and understanding because of the need for several countries to work as one. Lastly, this would take us
closer to the possibility of deep space exploration. It would be the first steps towards colonizing Mars. Telescopes could be set up on
the surface of the Moon to view deeper parts of space with out any interference from an atmosphere. For these reasons, lunar
colonization would launch us into a new area of progress for our economy and civilization.



                                             For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                      87/121

                 MINE THE MOON CP – SOLVENCY (SPACE EXPLORATION)

We should mine the moon
Albuquerque Journal 12/5/06
[Mining the Moon Might Help Save Earth,
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/756012/mining_the_moon_might_help_save_earth/index.html]
Among the nation's most prominent and vocal advocates for manned space exploration, he makes a great case for returning
astronauts to the moon; establishing a base colony from which to launch missions out into the solar system, in particular to
Mars; and, utilizing unique lunar resources to address what is becoming a major crisis on Earth, inadequate energy. The 71-
year-old Schmitt, in a wonderful, far-ranging interview with The Tribune's Sue Vorenberg published Friday ("Astronaut: We need to
return to the moon"), believes it will only happen if the private sector sees -- and is willing to pursue -- its business potential.
Ultimately, he's probably right, but getting there undoubtedly is going to require a committed government effort, which has the
greatest chance of succeeding if it is international in character, purpose, plan and implementation. In a world where we are
obsessed with terrorism, various forms of mass annihilation and nuclear proliferation -- all linked in many ways to a growing global
shortage of cheap energy, Schmitt believes that the main pieces are in place for commercial lunar development. As the fur trade
was to America's Western frontier, helium-3 is to lunar discovery and settlement. Helium-3, abundant on the moon where it has
been produced and trapped over billions of years by bombardment from solar particles, is the ideal fuel for a nuclear fusion energy
power plant. Never mind that scientists have been trying to produce sustained fusion power on earth for nearly half a century. With a
sustained fusion energy research program coupled to a lunar colonization and helium mining program, the world could look beyond its
petty squabbles -- most linked to energy and water shortages -- and to the energy abundance of the sun, the moon and the stars. It
sounds romantically improbable, but that's what they said about Columbus, Magellan, and Lewis and Clark. We need to regain their
will and courage to discover, persevere and prevail -- a few of the many character traits that make the United States the most
promising leader and organizer of a global mission to reclaim the moon for all mankind. For several decades, the challenge
that Kennedy first posed for nationalistic reasons has been dormant. The vision that Schmitt and other lunar proponents have
can re-ignite it for all humanity.

He-3 mining is key to further space exploration
Kazan 07—founder of The Daily Galaxy
[Casey, August 2nd, The Moon & Helium 3 -Earth's Energy Salvation, http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/08/helium-3--
could.html]
Helium 3 fusion energy - classic Buck Rogers propulsion system- may be the key to future space exploration and settlement,
requiring less radioactive shielding, lightening the load. Scientists estimate there are about one million tons of helium 3 on the
moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could
supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year. Thermonuclear reactors capable of processing Helium-3 would have
to be built, along with major transport system to get various equipment to the Moon to process huge amounts of lunar soil and
get the minerals back to Earth. A new Moon-focused Space Race has begun. China made its first steps in space just a few years ago,
and is in the process of establishing a lunar base by 2024. NASA is currently working on a new space vehicle, Orion, which is
destined to fly the U.S. astronauts to the moon in 13 years, to deploy a permanent base. Russia, the first to put a probe on the moon,
plans to deploy a lunar base in 2015. A new, reusable spacecraft, called Kliper, has been earmarked for lunar flights, with the
International Space Station being an essential galactic pit stop. The harvesting of Helium-3 on the could start by 2025. Our lunar
mining could be but a jumping off point for Helium 3 extraction from the atmospheres of our Solar System gas giants, Saturn
and Jupiter. UN Treaties in place state that the moon and its minerals are the common heritage of mankind, so the quest to use
Helium-3 as an energy source would likely demand joint international co-operation. Hopefully, we won't need another Potsdam
Conference to work things out.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                      88/121

                             MINE THE MOON CP – AT: THE MOON HAS NO H3

Lots of He-3 on the moon
Jacquot 8-24-07
[Jeremy Elton, The Race to Mine the Moon's Helium, http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/the_race_to_mine.php]

While much attention has been focused of late on the scramble by several countries to claim the Arctic floor and its rich supply of
natural resources, a broader, more consequential race for resources may be looming on the horizon. Many of the world's leading powers,
including the U.S., Russia, China and India, are setting their sights on the moon — specifically on its vast supply of helium-3, a substance rarely found on
Earth that some believe could hold the key to fusion reaction.




                              For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        89/121


                                              NANOMEDICINE CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should provide tax credits to companies which research and develop
nanomedicine and nanomedical supplies.

Contention 1: Competition – the counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2: Solvency

(__) Nanotech Competitiveness
Nanomedical innovation’s key to overall nanotech supremacy
American Insitute for Medical and Biological Engineering 7/14/2006 “AIMBE Interview with National Institutes of Health
Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni, MD” http://www.aimbe.org/press/details.php?id=107&pid=192&tpid=
AIMBE: What initiatives does the NIH have in place, or is planning, to specifically help maintain US technological leadership in
medical and biological engineering? This is an industry that not only leads; it also has a positive balance of payments. "
Zerhouni: “My point of view is that the NIH has been probably one of the very best investments in creating leadership in high
technology and in advancing U.S. science. If you look at the biotechnology industry—we created that industry out of the
fundamental research that was funded at NIH. And if you look at the pharmaceutical industry, 50 years ago the U.S. was not
number one as it is today. So NIH’s ability to sustain a national research enterprise has been--and is--a strategic asset of the
United States, as we speak. And it’s going to be even more important in the future. That’s why it’s important to sustain NIH’s
funded institutions and their newly expanded capacity. “One of the things that people don’t appreciate is that during the doubling,
a huge expansion of research facilities and faculty occurred across the United States. For example, the increase in the number of
scientists who applied for grants was larger in the 2 years (2004-2005) following the doubling than the increase that occurred
during the entire doubling period (1999-2003). That provides us with an enormous advantage. That creates a lot of jobs. Just
between 1998 and 2004 there were over 4,000 new technologies licensed from our research. We are the number one federal
agency in terms of technology transfer and returns from technology transfer. “I think it’s important to understand that healthcare as
an economic activity is going to become the number one economic activity in the world, surpassing automobiles and many other
industries combined. So, we need to preserve our leadership in the biological sciences worldwide and the life sciences in general.
And I think we’re doing that, but we need to be very cautious by not losing ground. We are a great part of the American
competitiveness equation. It is also true that quantitative sciences need to be improved, need to be supported, need to be
developed further because all fields of science need that. AIMBE: What do you see as the role for medical and biological
engineering - short- and long-term – in NIH’s new Clinical Translation Science Awards program? Zerhouni: “It’s very important
to realize that biological engineering has many roles, not just one. It needs to intertwine itself within the entire spectrum of
research that is going to be critical in the future as we transform medicine and health. Many opportunities are going to present
themselves in the ongoing and future transformation from the traditional curative paradigm of medicine and health to a more pre-
emptive paradigm. And this is going to rely on very novel technologies. For example, we know already how the technology that
we’re using in genomics is enabling us to enter this era of what we call the 4 Ps of medicine: medicine is going to be more
Predictive, more Personalized, more Pre-emptive, and it’s going to be more Participatory." “So when you look at that, you realize
that A) there’ll be enormous progress in biosensing technology, biomonitoring, delivery systems, nanomedicine, tissue interfaces
with artificial systems, systems biology in general, and our ability to interface for example in neuroprosthesis, home monitoring,
the connection of information systems with health indicators at the individual level and population level, computational
biology, bioinformatics. So this transformation of health from the paradigm in which we intervene when disease is already
way advanced to a paradigm in which we intervene years before is going to require a transformation of the fundamental
engineering of medical systems and biological interfaces with effector products. That’s why I think that biomedical
engineering is going to grow in importance, both in applied and basic science.”




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                  The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                          90/121


                                                      CRC CP – 1NC 1/2

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Contention 1 is Competition: The Counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

(__) Child Rights
Ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Child solves child rights
Jacy Youn, International Justice Project Legal Intern, 6/23, 2009. http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/2009/06/treaty-
ratification-why-should-us_23.html “Treaty ratification: Why should the U.S. ratify international treaties?”
Earlier this year, when Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cal) began urging the Obama administration to ratify a 20-year old international
agreement creating a full range of human rights for children, it revived discussions about what role the promotion of human rights
should play in U.S. foreign policy. The answer is simple: as the world’s lone superpower, the U.S. has the rare and important ability to
influence the behaviors of governments and people around the globe. Although the U.S. has played a key role in establishing global
human rights standards – the UN Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) was inspired in part by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four
Freedoms speech, and partially drafted by his wife, Eleanor [i] – the country’s credibility has been compromised because of its role in
recent human rights violations. With this year marking the 60th Anniversary of the UDHR, and it being the first time the U.S. has held
a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, the timing couldn’t be better for the U.S. to reaffirm its commitment to universal human
rights by ratifying international treaties. [ii] To date, the U.S. has failed to ratify several fundamental international agreements
intended to protect human rights, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(commonly known as “CEDAW”) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Convention on the Rights of the
Child, which provides a global framework for the protection of children by vesting them with specific civil, social, cultural, political,
and economic rights, is yet another example of a human rights agreement the U.S. has failed to ratify. Although the Treaty was signed
by the Clinton administration in 1995, it has not yet been ratified – an important distinction as “signing” treaties is akin to a symbolic
gesture, while “ratification” gives teeth to the agreement by creating legal obligations. Despite publicly stating its intention to ratify,
the U.S. still stands with Somalia as one of the only two countries to not ratify the Treaty, while worldwide atrocities against children
– including enslavement, torture, abuse, and abduction – continue daily.

(__) Soft Power
US ratification of CRC key to soft power and strong enactment of the treaty—show of strong commitment
Lainie Rutkow, (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health Spring 2006: “Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child”, Harvard Human Rights Journal http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fn1
Over the last several years, the United States has come under intense scrutiny from domestic and international media and from
international governments and their citizens for its policies on U.S. military deployment to Iraq.[233] These policies were
criticized as being unilateral and as being developed without any heed to the views of the United States’ historical allies.[234] Due
to the U.N.’s opposition to the U.S.-led invasion in Iraq, the relationship between the two bodies deteriorated with U.S. officials
deeming the United Nations an irrelevant organization.[235] Although the United States has back-pedaled on this last point in the
past year,[236] U.S. ratification of the CRC now would be a well-timed show of support for the United Nations.
The political capital for supporting many of the provisions of the CRC is evident in current domestic legislation. For example, U.S.
public opinion polls consistently show a strong desire for improved education and health care systems.[237] Currently, eighteen
states have bills in their legislatures to provide for universal health care coverage.[238] The bi-partisan No Child Left Behind Act
was signed into law in January 2002 by President Bush, with the goal of providing a quality education to the most underserved
children.[239] The events of the past decade provide further reasons why the time has come for the United States to proclaim its
support for the CRC to the international community. The 1990s saw large-scale human rights violations due to intra- and
international conflicts in which millions of children lost their lives. Massive human rights violations against children occurred in
Bosnia-Herzegovena,[240] Chechnya,[241] Rwanda,[242] and the Sudan,[243] among others, in the past decade alone. Given
these occurrences, the need for passage of the CRC is as critical as ever. Ratification of the CRC by the world’s only
superpower,[244] will give a needed boost to the enforcement of human rights law. This Article argues that the United States’
ratification of the CRC will, as it has done with other treaties, give greater credence and international support to its principles.
Ratification will commit the United States and the world to better protection and promotion of the health, welfare, and security of
children.



                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                          The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                  91/121


                                                                  CRC CP – 1NC 2/2

(__) Human Rights
CRC solves human rights cred—we are the only nation to not ratify
Lainie Rutkow, (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health Spring 2006: “Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child”, Harvard Human Rights Journal http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fn1
In the United States, an estimated 1400 children die each year from abuse and neglect.[8] Over seventeen percent of Americans
under the age eighteen, or 12.9 million children, grow up in poverty.[9] The reality of these children’s lives demonstrates their
need for strong protections. Commenting on UNICEF’s “State of the World’s Children 2005” report, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi
Annan said, “[o]nly as we move closer to realizing the rights of all children will countries move closer to their goals of
development and peace.”[10] In light of the plight many children face, it is not a surprise that the U.N. Convention on the Rights
of the Child (“CRC”) is the most successful U.N. human rights treaty with regard to the number of nations that have signed and
ratified the treaty.[11] In fact, every self-governed nation in the world has both signed and ratified the CRC, with a single
exception—the United States.[12] This Article makes the case that the time has arrived for the U.S. Senate to give advice and
consent to ratify this critically important convention. Part II explains the role that the U.N. plays in protecting human rights around the world. Part III
discusses the CRC and explains its different provisions. Part IV examines the United States’ past treatment of human rights treaties. Part V explores the United
States’ treatment of the CRC to date, including an analysis of the reasons for the United States’ failure to ratify the CRC. Part VI responds to arguments against
United States’ ratification of the CRC. Finally, Part VII explains why the time has arrived for the United States to ratify the CRC




                                 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                  The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                          92/121


                                    CRC CP – SOLVENCY (CHILD RIGHTS)

Ratifying the Convention of the Rights of the Child will ensure a global framework for the protection of children through
providing specific civil, social, cultural, political and economic rights – that’s Youn. At worst, take a gut check, we ratify a
child right’s treaty – who do you think solves better?

Ratifying CRC boosts U.S. credibility and demonstrates our commitment to child rights
Jacy Youn, International Justice Project Legal Intern, 6/23, 2009. http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/2009/06/treaty-ratification-
why-should-us_23.html “Treaty ratification: Why should the U.S. ratify international treaties?”
Overseas, the implementation of laws in furtherance of the Treaty has been largely successful. Recent reports from many of the 193
countries that have ratified the Treaty indicate that much progress is being made as a result. In countries such as Oman, Niger,
Romania, and Bangladesh, governments have implemented laws forbidding children in armed conflicts, combating child poverty, and
improving the health and well-being of children. The results have varied, from decreases in infant mortality rates to significant
progress in the area of education. Contrary to claims that U.S. children already enjoy the rights set forth in the Treaty, many American
kids still live in poverty, and nearly a million children suffer from child abuse or neglect each year. Though the U.S. may not face all
of the challenges seen in other countries, ratifying the Treaty will lend support to those countries and encourage the addressing of
challenges we do still face.In light of these considerations, it is not difficult to see why the U.S. should ratify the CRC. Not only will
ratification boost U.S. credibility overseas, but it will demonstrate our commitment to ensuring the basic rights and freedoms to which
all humans are entitled, worldwide. Global leadership, after all, is a privilege that we must not take for granted.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         93/121


                                    CRC CP – SOLVENCY (SOFT POWER)

Ratifying the Convention of the Rights of the Child is critical to restore soft power – as of now, we are the
only country aside from Somalia who hasn’t ratified this treaty which is a slap in the face to the UN. Only
by ratifying the treaty can we restore our credibility – that’s Rutkow

Only America and Somalia haven’t signed on – other countries perceive this as arrogance, which decks
soft power
Penny Starr. 11.24.08. “‘Narcissistic Sovereignty’ Has Kept U.S. from Ratifying U.N. Treaty on Children’s Rights” CNSnews.com.
Senior Staff Writer. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39799
Washington, D.C. (CNSNews.com) – Advocates for a United Nations treaty on children’s rights blamed American arrogance for it
not being ratified by the United States, but critics charge signing onto the Convention on the Rights of the Child could mean
international law trumping U.S. state and federal laws and the rights of parents to make decisions about raising and educating their
children. The treaty, adopted by the United Nations on Nov. 20, 1989, has been ratified by 193 countries. The United States and
Somalia are the two countries that have not ratified it, groups that support ratification said at a press conference at the Capitol on
Thursday. “It might sound dismissive, but I think it has something to do with what I would call, and some other people call,
narcissistic sovereignty,” Harold Cook, a non-governmental organization representative at the U.N. and a fellow with the
American Psychological Association, told CNSNews.com. But critics say national self-determination is at the heart of why the
treaty should not be ratified. “This would be one of the most invasive things we could do as far as the sovereignty of our nation,”
Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, told CNSNews.com. Smith said that if Congress ratifies
the treaty, it would give the United Nations authority to object to federal and state laws that it thinks violate the treaty and give
Congress the power to pass laws to make the country comply with its tenants – a fact advocates do not deny. “Every national
government in the world, except the United States, has developed in response to the Convention of the Rights of the Child official
detailed national reports on how children are fairing in their country,” Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association
Center for Children and the Law, said at the press conference. “And child protection and advocacy watchdog groups have been
able to react to those reports by doing their own shadow reporting to the international committee on the rights of the child,”
Davidson added.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                   The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                           94/121


                                     CRC CP – SOLVENCY (SOFT POWER)

Ratifying the convention solves soft power – the US can distance itself from Somalia
Penny Starr. 11.24.08. “‘Narcissistic Sovereignty’ Has Kept U.S. from Ratifying U.N. Treaty on Children’s Rights” CNSnews.com.
Senior Staff Writer. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39799
When asked about the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the campaign trail, President-elect Barack Obama expressed a
willingness to consider sending the treaty to Congress for ratification.
“It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,” Obama said. “I will review this.”
Groups at the press conference expressed optimism about the new administration, including Meg Gardinier, acting chairwoman of
the Campaign for the U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
“We are very excited to think we are finally in a moment in time when the U.S. might very well join that ratification process and
we can join the other 193 countries who are currently using this important rights treaty as a pivotal guide to improve the child’s
survival, protection and development,” Gardinier said.

Failure to set a moral example crushes soft power
Kenneth Roth. Fall 2000. The Charade of US Ratification of. Global Policy Forum. executive director of Human
Rights Watch. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/157-un/26883.html
The US government should be concerned with its diminishing stature as a standard-bearer for human rights. US influence is built
not solely on its military and economic power. At a time when US administrations seem preoccupied with avoiding any American
casualties, the projection of US military power is not easy. US economic power, for its part, can engender as much resentment as
influence. Much of why people worldwide admire the United States is because of the moral example it sets. That allure risks being
tarnished if the US government is understood to believe that international human rights standards are only for other people, not for
US citizens.

Every country in the world besides the U.S. and Somalia have ratified the CRC – ratification solves our contradictory stance
on children’s rights
Nancy Brown (ACEI Representative to the UN) 2007: “Summit for the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Mobilizing
Communities for Ratification”, http://www.acei.org/summitcrc.htm

In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a comprehensive
international children's rights treaty that addresses children's civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. The CRC sets goals
and standards that promote children's rights, thereby strengthening governmental initiatives to serve children and families. The treaty
recognizes the role and authority of families and the importance of governmental policies that ensure children's optimal development
in their families and communities. The CRC is organized around several guiding principles: the best interests of the child, protection
against discrimination, the child's right to survival and development, and the right to have a voice and freedom of expression. To date,
192 countries have ratified the CRC, making it one of the most widely ratified and celebrated international treaties. All the countries in
the world have ratified the CRC except two-Somalia (due to the absence of a formal government) and the United States.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                         The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                 95/121


                            CRC CP – SOLVENCY (HUMAN RIGHTS LEADERSHIP)

Ratifying the CRC solves for human rights credibility – not only are we the only country that hasn’t yet ratified the treaty, but
this treaty has thus far been the most successful human rights treaty to date – a US show of support is key to reaffirm our
commitment – that’s Rutkow

CRC shows US commitment to human rights
Lainie Rutkow, (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health Spring 2006: “Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child”, Harvard Human Rights Journal http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fn1
In 1995 the United States signed the CRC, indicating its intent to support the CRC and pursue its ratification. Ten years later,
children, domestically and around the world, continue to face human rights violations. Until last year, the United States remained
the sole country in the world to condone the practice of execution for capital crimes committed by juveniles.[245] Even after the
Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Roper,[246] the United States continues to stand alone as the only self-governed nation to
withhold ratification of the CRC. The United States should now reconsider action toward improving children’s human rights. No
member of the U.S. Congress has called for ratification of the CRC since 1997. The analysis of legal, political, and social factors above
suggests that a window of opportunity has arrived for the United States to demonstrate its commitment to human rights and children’s rights by joining the rest of
the world and ratifying the CRC. To that end, this Article proposes that Congress call on the President to seek advice and consent of the Senate for ratification of
the CRC. Attached to this Article is a proposed resolution urging the President to seek advice and consent for ratification.[247] The time has come for
Congress to follow the original intent behind the U.S. signature on the CRC with ratification, and, in doing so, make a definitive
statement about this nation’s commitment to human rights.

Failure to ratify CRC hurts the US’s ability to lead on human rights issues
Kenneth Roth. Fall 2000. The Charade of US Ratification of. Global Policy Forum. executive director of Human Rights Watch.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/157-un/26883.html
This "know-nothingism" does not stand up to scrutiny. For example, Article 6(1) of the ICCPR prohibits the arbitrary deprivation
of life. Any honest assessment of whether the death penalty as applied in the United States violates this standard would benefit
from considering the powerful and sophisticated arguments of the South African Constitutional Court finding the death penalty in
violation of South Africa's new constitution. n11 Why should the global marketplace of ideas, so vigorously upheld by
Washington in other contexts, be judged irrelevant when it comes to rights protection?Of course, a US litigant could present the
South African court's rationale even under current law as persuasive authority. But under existing US law, US judges are unlikely
to pay much attention to these precedents because they are given no formal relevance to the interpretation of US rights protections.
By contrast, a system in which claims could be stated under the ICCPR would invite consideration of these global precedents. A
US judge might still decide not to follow a particular ruling by a foreign court or UN committee, but the process would at least
have been enriched by his or her consideration of it. Washington's cynical attitude toward international human rights law has
begun to weaken the US government's voice as an advocate for human rights around the [*353] world. Increasingly at UN human
rights gatherings, other governments privately criticize Washington's "a la carte" approach to human rights. They see this approach
reflected not only in the US government's narrow formula for ratifying human rights treaties but also in its refusal to join the recent
treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and its opposition to the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court unless a
mechanism can be found to exempt US citizens. For example, at the March-April 2000 session of the UN Commission on Human
Rights, many governments privately cited Washington's inconsistent interest in international human rights standards to explain
their lukewarm response to a US-sponsored resolution criticizing China's deteriorating human rights record.




                                 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                               The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                       96/121


                                     CRC CP – AT: UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Treaty would not override the constitution
Jacy Youn, International Justice Project Legal Intern, 6/23, 2009. http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/2009/06/treaty-ratification-
why-should-us_23.html “Treaty ratification: Why should the U.S. ratify international treaties?”

While some believe that, under the Supremacy Clause, the Treaty would trump all federal laws and undermine parental authority and
influence over a child’s development, in actuality, the Treaty would not override the Constitution. For one, U.S. ratifications of
international treaties are often made with explanations or caveats (in what are called Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations
or “RUDs”) to acceptance. If the U.S. agrees with the general principle of the Treaty, but is troubled by a certain provision, it may
clarify or modify those areas of the Treaty before ratification. Furthermore, the Treaty is not self-executing – it cannot be
“automatically implemented without legislative action,” giving Congress another opportunity to clarify what the Treaty will and will
not mean for U.S. law.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                    The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                            97/121


                                          CRC CP – AT: CRC BAD TURNS

Their CRC bad turns don’t take into account that every country can interpret the treaty as the wish
Jacy Youn (International Justice Project Legal Intern) 2009, “Treaty Ratification: why should the US Ratify International treaties?”,
World Organization for Human Rights USA, http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/2009/06/treaty-ratification-why-should-us_23.html

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provides a global framework for the protection of children by vesting them with
specific civil, social, cultural, political, and economic rights, is yet another example of a human rights agreement the U.S. has failed to
ratify. Although the Treaty was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995, it has not yet been ratified – an important distinction as
“signing” treaties is akin to a symbolic gesture, while “ratification” gives teeth to the agreement by creating legal obligations. Despite
publicly stating its intention to ratify, the U.S. still stands with Somalia as one of the only two countries to not ratify the Treaty, while
worldwide atrocities against children – including enslavement, torture, abuse, and abduction – continue daily. While some believe
that, under the Supremacy Clause, the Treaty would trump all federal laws and undermine parental authority and influence over a
child’s development, in actuality, the Treaty would not override the Constitution. For one, U.S. ratifications of international treaties
are often made with explanations or caveats (in what are called Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations or “RUDs”) to
acceptance. If the U.S. agrees with the general principle of the Treaty, but is troubled by a certain provision, it may clarify or modify
those areas of the Treaty before ratification. Furthermore, the Treaty is not self-executing – it cannot be “automatically implemented
without legislative action,” giving Congress another opportunity to clarify what the Treaty will and will not mean for U.S. law.
Regarding parental rights, the CRC clearly recognizes the principle that parents “have the primary responsibility for the upbringing
and development of the child,” and that parties to the Treaty are merely rendering “appropriate assistance” to parents performing their
child-rearing responsibilities. In other words, ratifying the Treaty will not give the UN authority to control U.S. policies on children
and there is no language in the CRC dictating how American parents are to raise their children. In fact, the CRC frequently
emphasizes the vital role that parents play and recognizes the importance of a loving family atmosphere for the proper upbringing of a
child. Some opponents to ratification purport that, under the Treaty, parents will no longer be able to spank their kids. To those who
understand the language of the Treaty and the realities of its implementation, this argument is easily dismissed. At no point does the
text of the Treaty refer to spanking or corporal punishment of children. What it does prohibit, is “cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.” It also protects children from physical and mental violence, injury and abuse, neglect, and maltreatment or
exploitation. Each country may interpret the Treaty as it so chooses, and many have defined such violence as beatings so severe that
they leave visible marks on the body. Overseas, the implementation of laws in furtherance of the Treaty has been largely successful.
Recent reports from many of the 193 countries that have ratified the Treaty indicate that much progress is being made as a result. In
countries such as Oman, Niger, Romania, and Bangladesh, governments have implemented laws forbidding children in armed
conflicts, combating child poverty, and improving the health and well-being of children. The results have varied, from decreases in
infant mortality rates to significant progress in the area of education.




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                  The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                          98/121


                                      CRC CP – AT: FEDERALISM TURNS

CRC doesn’t destroy federalism – multiple safeguards in place
Lainie Rutkow, (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health Spring 2006: “Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child”, Harvard Human Rights Journal http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fn1
Arguments that the CRC, if ratified by the United States, will upset the balance between the states and the federal government and
violate the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution can be refuted both by the current state of the law and contemporary U.S.
practice.[177] First, federalism objections to the CRC are essentially negated by Missouri’s holding that the treaty power gives the
U.S. government authority over the states that is otherwise prohibited by the Constitution.[178]
In addition, the United States has several policies in place to ensure that ratification of international agreements does not impair
federalism. First, U.S. ratifications of international treaties are accompanied by reservations, declarations, and understandings
(“RUDs”)[179] that “severely limit the[ ] application [of human rights treaties] in the United States.”[180] This package of RUDs
traditionally includes a federalism clause, with the idea that “the United States could leave implementation [of the treaty] largely to
the states.”[181] This seeming contravention of the Missouri decision is reinforced by the “the policy of the United States, when
ratifying human rights treaties, that those treaties [ ] make no significant changes to the American legal system.”[182]
To further ensure that human rights treaties do not significantly alter its federal structure, the United States has declared that the
human rights treaties it ratifies are non-self-executing,[183] meaning that U.S.-ratified treaties do not automatically have legal
force, “but must be implemented by legislative or other measures.”[184] This non-self-execution is designed to deny judges in the
United States the ability to decide cases based upon the international standards created in human rights treaties.[185] Opponents of
the non-self-executing clause believe that the clause undermines the seriousness with which the United States should approach
human rights issues.[186]

CRC won’t hurt federalism—RUDs and federalism understanding
Luisa Blanchfield (Analyst in International Relations for the Congressional Research Service) 2009, “The United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues” April 1, http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40484_20090401.pdf
Advocates of U.S. ratification contend that possible conflicts between state and federal laws may be addressed through
reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) that often accompany treaty ratifications. The use of a “non-self-executing”
declaration, for example, would require implementing legislation to bring the Convention’s provisions into use—thereby
addressing any potential conflicts with U.S. laws or values. In addition, a “federalism” understanding would make clear that the
federal government would fulfill U.S. treaty obligations where it exercises jurisdiction and take appropriate measures to ensure
that states and localities fulfill the provisions. Other supporters of U.S. ratification, however, contend that the inclusion of such
RUDs would demonstrate the United States’ unwillingness to fully implement the Convention.30 Some proponents argue that
instead of placing limiting conditions on U.S. ratification, U.S. law should be brought into conformance with international
standards when, in their view, the international standard is higher. Supporters of ratification also emphasize that countries with a
system of federalism similar to the United States—such as Canada and Australia—ratified the Convention.3




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        99/121


                                       CRC CP – AT: ABORTION TURNS

The CRC doesn’t effet abortion – no floor or protection pre-birth
Lainie Rutkow, (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health Spring 2006: “Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child”, Harvard Human Rights Journal http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fn1
The CRC does not take a position on family planning or abortion issues.[214] Most observers assume that the CRC’s authors
deliberately left the CRC’s provisions on family planning open to interpretation by each of the ratifying States Parties.[215] Thus,
the CRC provisions may be interpreted as recognizing a fetus as a child in need of protection. Although the CRC defines a child as
a “human being below the age of eighteen years,”[216] the CRC does not establish when childhood begins. Although an individual
eighteen years or older is not a “child” under the CRC, the CRC does not set a floor at which childhood starts. This omission,
coupled with the statement in the CRC’s preamble that “[t]he child needs special safeguards and care . . . before as well as after
birth,”[217] allows nations who ratify the CRC to interpret Article 6’s “inherent right to life” clause[218] as applying to
fetuses.[219] Regardless of other nations’ interpretations, U.S. law does allow the practice of abortion.[220] Because the CRC
does not violate any U.S. abortion or family planning law, its ratification by the United States would not result in any conflict
between U.S. domestic policy and international law.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                            The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                   100/121


                                          CRC CP – AT: CHILD EXECUTIONS TURN

1. I dare them to advocate that executing children is a good thing

2. CRC’s ban of juvenile executions is irrelevant – new U.S. court rulings ban executions based on CRC standards
Lainie Rutkow, (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health Spring 2006: “Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child”, Harvard Human Rights Journal http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fn1
In addition to these general concerns, as already mentioned, one of the United States’ primary reasons for failing to ratify the CRC
is because of the CRC’s prohibition on juvenile executions.[187] Until March 1, 2005, this provision conflicted with U.S. law
because the U.S. Supreme Court held in Stanford v. Kentucky[188] that there was “neither a historical nor a modern societal consensus forbidding the imposition of
capital punishment on any person who murders at 16 or 17 years of age . . . . [S]uch punishment does not offend the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel
and unusual pun-ishment.”[189] Thirteen years later, however, in Atkins v. Virginia,[190] the Court outlawed capital punishment for the mentally retarded. The
Court held that “in the light of our ‘evolving standards of decency,’ . . . [capital] punishment is excessive and . . . the Constitution ‘places a substantive restriction
on the State’s power to take the life’ of a mentally retarded offender.”[191]
In March 2005, in its landmark decision in Roper v. Simmons,[192] the Court sought to resolve the seeming inconsistency between
Stanford and Atkins. Christopher Simmons had planned and committed a capital murder when he was seventeen years old. After his eighteenth birthday, a Missouri
court sentenced him to death for the crime and the state’s Supreme Court affirmed the decision in 1997.[193] After the Atkins case came down, Simmons filed a
new petition for post-conviction relief with the state of Missouri.[194] After the Missouri Supreme Court reevaluated Simmons’s case in light of
Atkins and determined that “a national consensus has developed against the execution of juvenile offenders,”[195] the Supreme
Court accepted the case on appeal to evaluate the juvenile death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.
The Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment,[196] prohibits “cruel and unusual
punishments.”[197] In Roper, the Court explained that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment
“must be interpreted according to its text, by considering h; contemporary practices regarding juvenile executions. It found that in the
last ten years, only three states—Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia—executed people for crimes they committed while juveniles.[200] The Court also noted that since
its Stanford decision, “no State that previously prohibited capital punishment for juveniles has reinstated it. This fact, coupled with the trend toward abolition of the
juvenile death penalty, carries special force . . . in light of the particular trend in recent years toward cracking down on juvenile crime in other respects.”[201] The
Court recognized this trend as part of a growing national consensus that “our society views juveniles . . . as ‘categorically less culpable than the
average criminal.’”[202]
The Court stated that the differences between juveniles and adults are such “that juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst
offenders.”[203] First, the Court recognized “the comparative immaturity and irresponsibility of juveniles” that results in almost every State prohibiting “those
under 18 years of age from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without parental consent.”[204] The Court also found that juveniles are “more vulnerable or
susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure.”[205] Finally, the Court recognized that “the character of a juvenile is not as well
formed as that of an adult. The personality traits of juveniles are more transitory, less fixed.”[206] The Court relied on these differences between juveniles and
adults to hold that “it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably
depraved character.”[207] In light of these observations, the Court pointed out that the two main justifications for the death
penalty—retribution and deterrence—would not be achieved by imposing the death penalty on juvenile offenders.[208]
Finally, the Court recognized that the United States is “the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the
juvenile death penalty.”[209] The Court explained that while this observation is not controlling, it “referred to the laws of other
countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and
unusual punishments.’”[210] In particular, the Court emphasized the CRC’s provision prohibiting the use of capital punishment
against juvenile offenders.[211] The Court went so far as to state that “the United States now stands alone in a world that has
turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.
In light of the Supreme Court’s definitive holding in Roper prohibiting capital punishment for capital crimes committed by
juveniles, the CRC’s prohibition on juvenile execution can no longer be cited as a reason for postponing U.S. ratification of the
treaty




                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                           The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                  101/121


                                               CRC CP – AT: SOVREIGNTY TURNS

CRC has no effect on sovereignty—laws must still be passed by the Senate, recognition of international agreements is part of
sovereignty, and international law is already affecting domestic policy
Lainie Rutkow, (Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health Spring 2006: “Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child”, Harvard Human Rights Journal http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fn1
Although sovereignty concerns are frequently cited as a reason to avoid U.S. ratification of human rights treaties,[166] the manner in which these sovereignty
concerns are framed must be considered. Detractors of the CRC and other international treaties believe that being subject to international
law infringes on U.S. sovereignty. However, the United States can only be bound by international law through the exercise of its
own legislative processes. In order for the United States to become a party to an international agreement, “a domestic decision-
maker [e.g., the Senate]” must accept the agreement and “conclude[ ] that a non-U.S. rule should be a rule of decision within the
United States.”[167] It is entirely possible that a domestic institution will decide that the United States’ interests, both at home and
abroad, are best served by ratifying a treaty or entering a trade agreement. Such a determination can be viewed “as the result[ ] of
an exercise of sovereignty, not as evidence of a lapse of sovereignty.”[168] After all,
[A] sovereign nation can decide that its sovereign interests are advanced . . . by making agreements with other nations that limit what it can otherwise do. . . . Even
more, a sovereign nation can decide that its sovereign interests are advanced . . . by agreeing with other nations to delegate interpretive authority over treaties to
some supranational body.[169]
A sovereign nation’s authority and ultimate success derive, in part, from recognizing when a multilateral or bilateral agreement
promotes that nation’s political, economic, or humanitarian interests. The agreement may limit a nation’s sovereignty in a specific
area, but it is a sovereign nation’s prerogative to determine when such a trade-off is beneficial.
In addition, several recent Supreme Court decisions demonstrated that certain justices are willing to consider international law and
the laws and practices of other nations when drafting their opinions.[170] For example, in Grutter v. Bollinger, a case sustaining
the University of Michigan Law School’s “narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions,”[171] Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg’s concurring opinion cited the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as an
example of how the majority’s “observation that race-conscious programs ‘must have a logical endpoint’ . . . accords with the international understanding of the
office of affirmative action.”[172] A few days later, in Lawrence v. Texas,[173] which held that a Texas statute prohibiting sexual contact between consenting
adults of the same sex was unconstitutional, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that other nations also recognized the
right of homosexual adults to engage in consensual, intimate contact:
To the extent that Bowers [v. Hardwick] relied on values we share with a wider civilization, it should be noted that the reasoning and holding in Bowers have been
rejected elsewhere. The European Court of Human Rights has followed not Bowers but its own decision in Dudgeon v. United Kingdom . . . . Other nations, too,
have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. The right the petitioners
seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries. There has been no showing that in this country the governmental
interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent.[174]
Even more recently, in Roper v. Simmons,[175] Justice Kennedy noted in his majority opinion, striking down the use of the death
penalty on individuals convicted of capital crimes that they committed when they were juveniles, that “[i]t is proper that we
acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty . . . .”[176] While, of course,
these developments do not alter U.S. sovereignty, they do show a growing recognition of the interconnectedness of the world’s
nations and an acknowledgement that the laws and practices of other nations can influence domestic law


CRC has no impact on sovereignty—RUDs and no enforcement
Luisa Blanchfield (Analyst in International Relations for the Congressional Research Service) 4/1/2009: “The United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues” http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40484_20090401.pdf
Supporters of U.S. ratification maintain that federal and state laws generally meet the requirements of the Convention, thereby
posing little threat to U.S. sovereignty. They also contend that the inclusion of RUDs—such as a non-self executing declaration that requires
implementing legislation to bring the Convention’s provisions into use—could address any additional sovereignty concerns.
Proponents further emphasize that under the Convention, the CRC Committee may only comment on the reports of States Parties
or make general recommendations. They emphasize that the Committee relies primarily on States Parties to comply with CRC
obligations and has no established rules for treaty non-compliance.3 Supporters also contend that enforcement mechanisms under
CRC are weaker than those of other human rights treaties ratified by the United States.36




                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                 The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                        102/121


                                       CRC CP – AT: PARENTAL RIGHTS

No worries—treaty upholds parental rights
Jacy Youn, International Justice Project Legal Intern, 6/23, 2009. http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/2009/06/treaty-ratification-
why-should-us_23.html “Treaty ratification: Why should the U.S. ratify international treaties?”

Regarding parental rights, the CRC clearly recognizes the principle that parents “have the primary responsibility for the upbringing
and development of the child,” and that parties to the Treaty are merely rendering “appropriate assistance” to parents performing their
child-rearing responsibilities. In other words, ratifying the Treaty will not give the UN authority to control U.S. policies on children
and there is no language in the CRC dictating how American parents are to raise their children. In fact, the CRC frequently
emphasizes the vital role that parents play and recognizes the importance of a loving family atmosphere for the proper upbringing of a
child.

Current ratification efforts are not enough – our absence undermines leadership and our stance on
human rights. The CRC also concedes that parents are key to raising children – and has given numerous
programs and services for them.
Human Rights Watch July 24, 2009, “United States Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties”
http://www.hrw.org/node/84594
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) promotes and protects the well-being of all children, and was the first international
treaty to integrate the full range of human rights-civil, political, economic, social and cultural-into a single document. It emphasizes
four key themes: the right of children to survival; to develop to their fullest potential; to protection from abuse, neglect and
exploitation; and to participate in family, cultural and social life. Issues addressed by the CRC include education, health care, juvenile
justice, and the rights of children with disabilities. During the negotiation of the CRC, the United States successfully proposed the
inclusion of articles designed to prevent child abuse, and to protect freedom of religion, expression, and association. Critics of the
CRC have raised concerns that its provisions would undermine the rights of parents and allow the UN to dictate how parents should
raise their children. However, the CRC repeatedly emphasizes the importance, role, and authority of parents in providing direction and
guidance to their children. November 20, 2009 will be the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention. Key points: The
Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. Only the United States
and Somalia, which has no functioning national government, have failed to ratify the treaty. The conspicuous absence of the United
States among the CRC's states parties undermines the its international leadership role for children, and consistently raises questions in
UN and other international forums regarding the its commitment to children's rights. For example, for the past seven years, the US
(joined by the Marshall Islands in 2002 and 2004) has been in the embarrassing position of being the only UN member state to vote
against the UN General Assembly's resolution on the rights of the child, primarily because of the resolution's references to the CRC.
The CRC has now been in force in the majority of the world's countries for nearly two decades, and has led to a range of positive
impacts, including law reform, improvements in the access to and quality of programs and services for children and their families
(particularly in health and education), strengthened national institutions for children's rights, and more effective national coordination
mechanisms for children's rights. A significant legal impediment in the past to US ratification of the CRC-the use of the death penalty
against persons for crimes committed before the age of 18-no longer exists. In 2005, the US Supreme Court found the use of the death
penalty against juvenile offenders unconstitutional (Roper v. Simmons). In 2002, the United States ratified two optional protocols to
the Convention on the Rights of the Child-one on the involvement of children in armed conflict (child soldiers) and another on the sale
of children, child prostitution and child pornography. In early 2009, the State Department initiated an interagency review of the CRC,
but it has not yet been submitted to the Senate for consideration.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                  The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         103/121


                                          CRC CP – POLITICS (POPULAR)

CRC not politically contentious—mini-ratifications prove
David M. Smolin, Professor of Law at Cumberland Law School, Samford University, and a Fellow of the Southern Center for Law
and Ethics: 2006 “OVERCOMING RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD”
Emory Law Journal http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/eilr/v20n1/SmolinCROP.pdf
The incorporation battle serves as a rough analogy to the situation with the CRC. While advocates for the CRC have argued for
ratification of the entire document, and opponents have opposed ratification, the United States has been involved in a process of
ratifying and implementing critical parts of the CRC on an article-by-article basis. The process has been facilitated by the central role
of the CRC in the children’s rights movement. The CRC serves as a kind of umbrella charter whose broad terms are filled out and
implemented, often by additional treaties focused on particular issues. The failure of the United States to ratify the overall charter (the
CRC) has not stopped it from ratifying the treaties that elaborate upon various articles of the CRC. Ironically, this process of article-
by-article implementation of the CRC through other treaties has occurred without any real political controversy within the United
States and often with the active support of conservative religious communities. The support of the conservative religious communities
for these children’s right treaties has been consistent with their broader support for human rights during this period.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                     104/121


                                     CRC CP – POLITICS (UNPOPULAR)

CRC is contentious—many issues to argue over
Luisa Blanchfield (Analyst in International Relations for the Congressional Research Service) 4/1/2009: “The United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues” http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40484_20090401.pdf
The question of U.S. ratification of CRC has generated contentious debate. Opponents argue that U.S. ratification would
undermine U.S. sovereignty by giving the United Nations authority to determine the best interests of U.S. children. Some
are also concerned that CRC could interfere in the private lives of families, particularly the rights of parents to educate and
discipline their children. Moreover, some argue that CRC is an ineffective mechanism for protecting children’s rights.
They emphasize that countries that are widely regarded as abusers of children’s rights, including China and Sudan, are
party to the Convention. Supporters of U.S. ratification, on the other hand, hold that CRC’s intention is not to circumvent the
role of parents but to protect children against government intrusion and abuse . Proponents emphasize what they view as CRC’s
strong support for the role of parents and the family structure. Additionally, supporters hold that U.S. federal and state
laws generally meet the requirements of CRC, and that U.S. ratification would strengthen the United States’ credibility when
advocating children’s rights abroad.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                     The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                            105/121


                                                     LEGACIES CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should enact policies that discourage legacy admissions in
institutions of higher education. We’ll Clarify

Contention 1 is Competition: The counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency:

(__) Racism
Legacy policies perpetuate white elitism and deny social mobility to minorities
Gary D. Gaddy “To fight racism, end legacy admissions” Apr. 16, 2007. The New Observer
http://www.newsobserver.com/559/story/564537.html
It is a great idea because it helps remediate the impact of past racist policies that excluded African-Americans from the campus,
except as groundskeepers, housecleaners and maintenance workers, thereby helping to keep these poor people poor. But all that
past isn't past us yet. The real, the literal racist legacy of UNC is not a historical artifact; it's a current admissions policy. In the
world of college admissions, legacies are the children and stepchildren of university alumni, and a "legacy policy" really means a
"pro-legacy policy," that is, giving preference to legacies in admission. Legacy admissions, by perpetuating the impact of past
discrimination, are figuratively the stepchildren of our state's racist past. In 2005 UNC's Advisory Committee on Undergraduate
Admissions reviewed then-current practices and "endorsed the general principle of legacy admissions." In 2004 it was reported
that UNC reserves about 80 spaces for out-of-state legacy students. For those against quotas, here's a "quota" to be against. A
purely merit-based admissions process provides advantage enough for these children who had the benefit of parents who were
Carolina grads. This is a real, undeniable and irrevocable advantage. Having grown up in educated and relatively well-to-do Tar
Heel families, these legacies are likely to be better students. I do not propose that we discriminate against them. This is a case,
where we must acknowledge that life's not fair and get over it. But we also certainly don't need to promote and enhance such
unfairness. As affirmative action for better-off kids, legacy admissions don't have much to recommend them as measure for
promoting equality or social justice -- but they are a good way of getting big donors to make big donations. And that's one of the
main reasons that they still exist.




                            For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                            The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                   106/121


                                             LEGACIES CP – SOLVENCY (RACISM)

Legacies are a racist system by white supremacists used to justify letting rich lazy white kids into college in exchange for
expensive college research grants, while keeping out hardworking African Americans and keeping them in the lower rungs of
society – we control the greater internal link to racism because getting a college education is key to succeeding in modern
society – that’s Gaddy

Legacy admissions perpetuate the inequality that resulted from slavery
Gary D. Gaddy “To fight racism, end legacy admissions” Apr. 16, 20 07. The New Observer
http://www.newsobserver.com/559/story/564537.html
Because, even in the context of a supposedly non-discriminatory past, legacy policies still perpetuate the past inequities. Even if
Harvard in 1850 didn't discriminate against African-American students (which I doubt is true), since most of the African-
Americans were being kept as slaves and deprived of formal education, not many were ever admitted. This left Harvard, Yale and
other such schools with predominately white alumni and thus predominately white legacies. Legacy admissions aren't an issue for
non-selective colleges. Elizabeth City State University may or may not have pro-legacy admissions policy; it really doesn't matter.
Most applicants can get in anyway. Harvard, Yale and Princeton do have pro-legacy admissions policies, and they really do matter.
If you graduate from one of these fine institutes of learning, whether you learn anything or not (cf. George W. Bush, John Kerry or
any Kennedy), you may get to run the country. Many brighter and harder working students did not get the same chance, and most
no doubt have succeeded in life, but perhaps did not have the same opportunity to succeed at the national level. America is poorer
for that.

Legacy policies bypass affirmative action progress
Marybeth Gasman & Julie Vultaggio, Jan 22, 2008, “Perspectives: A “Legacy” of Racial Injustice in American Higher
Education” http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_10519.shtml
Yale has the Bushes, Basses and Whitneys. Harvard has the Astors, Roosevelts and Kennedys. Throughout the history of
American higher education, the nation’s most prestigious colleges and universities have employed legacy policies that preference
the children of privileged alumni. In fact, during the early 1900s, prominent graduates of the colonial colleges, fearing that their
sons would be displaced in admissions processes, forced the hand of college administrators in myriad ways, such as threatening to
withhold donations and using their connections with university higher ups to pull strings. Conversely, according to Dr. Marcia
Synnott, the “demand of upwardly mobile sons of Jewish and Catholic immigrants” for admission to the nation’s elite institutions
initiated “an institutional crisis, involving not only existing limitations of classroom space and campus housing, but also questions
of educational purpose — of whom to educate and why.” In the 1960s, as pressure toward racial integration intensified,
acceptance rates rapidly increased for children of alumni — in some cases, to as much as three times higher than that of the past
(Duffy & Goldberg, 1998). Given resistance on the part of historically White institutions to enrolling Black students during the
civil rights era, legacy policies may have furnished an excuse to reject racial minorities without resorting to the quotas that had
been used to exclude Jews and Catholics earlier in the century (Gasman, 2007; Thelin, 2004). As a result, Synnott writes, colleges
became “citadels of Anglo-Saxon culture” and developed extensive legacy policies that continue to be used today. The primary
consequence, however, lies in the exclusion of groups whose parents did not attend elite institutions of higher education. First and foremost, it is important to
acknowledge the benefits that institutions gain from legacy admissions. Preferential treatment given to legacies keeps alumni happy, has the potential to increase
giving, and can strengthen the existing institutional culture. Generally speaking, most colleges and universities aim to have satisfied, generous graduates. However,
as Dr. Jerome Karabel argues in his 2005 book The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale and Princeton, advocating for
legacy preferences with the goal of increasing alumni donations is becoming less persuasive as endowments soar over $20 billion. Likewise, while many colleges
and universities long for an institutional culture rooted in history and tradition, when that culture is built on a tradition of exclusion, perhaps it should be changed.
This quote from Synnott (1979) illustrates the issue: Knowing precisely what they wanted, the prep school crowd created collegiate life. For the most part, they
shunned honor grades in order to devote themselves to extracurricular activities: editorships, managerships, and athletic competitions. And not only were they
paying customers, but they could usually be counted on to contribute generously both their time and money to alumni activities and fund-raising campaigns (the
expectation of future support was less certain from students from lower income families). Because legacy admits are typically wealthy, White, fourth-generation
college students, they offer very little to colleges and universities in terms of racial and ethnic diversity. In fact, over 90 percent of legacy admits are White
Protestants, especially at highly-selective institutions (Duffy & Goldberg, 1998; Golden, 2006; Howell & Turner, 2004; Larew, 1991). Thus, legacy admits
ultimately reinforce the “high-income/high-education/white profile” (Bowen et al. 2005) of elite institutions and systematically
reproduce a culture of racial and economic privilege.




                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                       107/121


                                                        HYDE CP 1NC

The United States federal government should repeal the Hyde Amendment.

Key to solve patriarchy – Federal assurance of funding for abortion is the linchpin of broad feminist struggle
Bell Hooks, Distinguished Professor in Residence at Berea College, Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics, 2000, p. 27-30
Sadly the anti-abortion platform has most viciously targeted state-funded, inexpensive, and, when need be, free abortions. As a
consequence women of all races who have class privilege continue to have access to safe abortions — continue to have the right to
choose — while materially disadvantaged women suffer. Masses of poor and working-class women lose access to abortion when
there is no government funding available for reproductive rights health care. Women with class privilege do not feel threatened
when abortion can be had only if one has lots of money because they can still have them. But masses of women do not have class
power. More women than ever before are entering the ranks of the poor and indigent. Without the right to safe, inexpensive, and
free abortions they lose all control over their bodies. If we return to a world where abortions are only accessible to those females
with lots of money we risk the return of public policy that will aim to make abortion illegal. It's already happening in many
conservative states. Women of all classes must continue to make abortions safe, legal, and affordable. The right of women to
choose whether or not to have an abortion is only one aspect of reproductive freedom. Depending on a woman's age and
circumstance of life the aspect of reproductive tights that matters most will change. A sexually active woman in her 20s or 30s
who finds birth control pills unsafe may one day face an unwanted pregnancy and the right to have a legal, safe, inexpensive
abortion may be the reproductive issue that is most relevant. But when she is menopausal and doctors are urging her to have a
hysterectomy that may be the most relevant reproductive rights issue. As we seek to rekindle the flames of mass-based feminist
movement reproductive rights will remain a central feminist agenda. If women do not have the right to choose what happens to our
bodies we risk relinquishing rights in all other areas of our lives. In renewed feminist movement the overall issue of reproductive
rights will take precedence over any single issue. This does not meant that the push for legal, safe, inexpensive abortions will not
remain central, it will simply not be the only issue that is centralized. If sex education, preventive health care, and easy access to
contraceptives are offered to every female, fewer of us will have unwanted pregnancies. As a consequence the need for abortions
would diminish. Losing ground on the issue of legal, safe, inexpensive abortion means that women lose ground on all
reproductive issues. The anti-choice movement is fundamentally anti-feminist. While it is possible for women to individually
choose never to have an abortion, allegiance to feminist politics means that they still are pro-choice, that they support the right of
females who need abortions to choose whether or not to have them. Young females who have always had access to effective
contraception — who have never witnessed the tragedies caused by illegal abortions — have no firsthand experience of the
powerlessness and vulnerability to exploitation that will always be the outcome if females do not have reproductive rights.
Ongoing discussion about the wide range of issues that come under the heading of reproductive rights is needed if females of all
ages and our male allies in struggle are to understand why these rights are important. This understanding is the basis of our
commitment to keeping reproductive rights a reality for all females. Feminist focus on reproductive rights is needed to protect and
sustain our freedom.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                   The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                          108/121


                                     HYDE CP – SOLVENCY (ABORTIONS)

The Hyde Ammendment Makes abortion inaccessible for countless women.
Feminist Daily News Wire, October 11, 2006, “Thirty Years is Enough for Hyde Amendment”
[http://feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9926]
October marks the 30th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment, the law that prohibits using federal funds for abortions. Passed every
year since 1976, the Hyde Amendment does not allow any woman on Medicaid, in the military, or on disability insurance to
receive financial assistance for an abortion, except in cases of incest or rape, according to the National Organization for
Women. While some states allow funding to be used in cases where the mother’s life would be endangered or fetal abnormalities
would occur, many abide by Hyde guidelines, according to the National Abortion Federation.
Because of the lack of federal funding, millions of young, low-income women and women of color are disproportionately
affected, according to the Pro-Choice Public Education Project. Every year, women who can not afford a safe abortion may put
their lives and health at risk by turning to an unsafe, back alley procedure. By not providing funding to women who need it
most, the Hyde Amendment is making abortion inaccessible for countless women.

Significant number of women would get abortions
Shawn Towey and Stephanie Poggi of NNAF and Rachel Roth of Ibis Reproductive Health. 2004
http://www.nnaf.org/pdf/NNAF%20Policy%20Report.pdf
The case studies of grassroots abortion funds in this report provide a firsthand look at the harsh impact of abortion funding bans on
women and girls across the country. Additional perspective on the magnitude of the problem comes from studies conducted in the
years after the Hyde Amendment went into effect. Findings show that a significant number of Medicaid-eligible women –
between 18% and 35% – who would have had abortions if funding had been available, instead carried their pregnancies to
term.23

Hyde prevents abortion
Heather Boonstra and Adam Sonfield, “The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy,” The Guttmacher Institute Volume 3, Number 2.
April 2000. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/2/gr030208.html
Other studies set out to determine the importance of Medicaid funding for abortions on pregnancy outcomes. The results show,
with little exception, that restrictions on funding have considerable impact on women's reproductive decisions. In the absence of
funding, a significant percentage of pregnancies that would have otherwise been aborted are instead carried to term. An analysis by
researchers at Princeton University's Office of Population Research and The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) of the number of
abortions to Medicaid-eligible women in two states before and after the law was enforced in the late 1970s, concluded that about
20% of the women who would have obtained an abortion had funding been available were unable to do so in the post-Hyde period
and carried their pregnancy to term.

Currently the Hyde Amendment denies funding to poor women for abortions.
Marilu Gresen 06 [Wrtier for National Abortion Foundation and NOW October 9, 2006 “Hyde Amendment: 30 Years of Injustice
for Poor Women” http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/10-09-06hyde.html]
October marks the 30th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment, the legislative doctrine used to control the reproductive lives and
limit the health care options of poor women. Passed by Congress every year since 1976, the current version denies federal
coverage for abortion, except in cases of incest, rape or life endangerment, but without any exception to preserve the woman's
health. The National Organization for Women fought the Hyde Amendment when it was introduced, and continues to do so,
decrying the class-based system of health care that this amendment exacerbates. The Hyde Amendment routinely denies access to
safe and legal abortion for women, disproportionately women of color, who depend on government health coverage. According to
NOW President Kim Gandy, "For 30 years, the Hyde Amendment has denied poor women their constitutional right to abortion as
a health care option, and for 30 years it has marginalized abortion care instead of recognizing it as a safe, legal and vital part of all
women's health care. Thirty years of this repression and discrimination have caused untold suffering and death; the Hyde
Amendment must be repealed." The Hyde Amendment denies federal funding for abortions that do not fit its narrow criteria, and
places the financial burden on already-tight state Medicaid budgets, in effect encouraging states not to expand abortion coverage.
Currently, more than half of the states provide no additional funding, according to the National Abortion Federation, which notes
that only South Dakota provides less coverage than the Hyde Amendment, even refusing funding for abortion services in cases of
incest and rape. And, no matter how expansive or restrictive the state laws are, women seeking federal funding for pregnancy
termination are often obstructed by misinformation and administrative barriers that prevent them from receiving timely access to
the abortion procedure.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                           The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                  109/121


                                            HYDE CP – SOLVENCY (PATRIARCHY)

Restrictive abortion laws perpetuate sexist views of women
Rosemary Nossiff, Prof Marymount Manhattan College, Gendered Citizenship: Women, Equality, and Abortion Policy New Political
Science, Volume 29, Number 1, March 2007 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=5&sid=33e98ad5-5e71-4f08-9586-
acc5ee58b0a4%40sessionmgr4
Restrictive abortion laws are based on religious beliefs that life begins at conception, and therefore that abortion is tantamount to murder. They are also
shaped by traditional attitudes about women, in their roles as wives and mothers, that reveal two interrelated assumptions about them. The first is
that they are incompetent to make decisions and are unaccountable for their actions. The second is that once a woman is pregnant,
her citizenship can be abridged and her rights to privacy and equality s hared with her physician, the State, and the fetus she is
supporting. She is a patient and a future mother first, and an individual with constitutional rights second.

Abortion restrictions maintain the female underclass
Graber, 96 (Mark, Professor of Law and Government @ U Maryland, Rethinking Abortion: Equal Choice, the Constitution, and
Reproductive Politics, pg. 33)
The most popular feminist defense of Roe claims that restrictions on abortion oppress women. State efforts to restrict reproductive
choice, prominent feminists insist, "reflect and broadly reinforce the subordination of women" by "leaving women involuntarily
pregnant and unable lo act as freely as men do." All pro-choice feminists agree that pro-life policies "integrally contribute to the
maintenance of an underclass or a deprived position because of gender status." Restrictions on abortion, Professor Sylvia Law asserts,
“pervasively affect the ability of women to plain their lives, to sustain relationships with other people, and to contribute through wage
work and public life.” The burdens that unwanted pregnancies place on women do not simply result from human biology or “the
nature of things.” Rather, as Law and other feminists recognize, “where the state denies access to abortion, both nature and the state
impose upon women the burdens of unwanted pregnancy that men do not bear.”

Restrictive abortion laws result in inequality between sexes – they limit women’s self-determination.
Rosemary Nossiff, Prof Marymount Manhattan College, Gendered Citizenship: Women, Equality, and Abortion Policy New Political
Science, Volume 29, Number 1, March 2007 Ebscohost
Since 1973 numerous books have examined the legal, social and political dimensions of abortion policy,2 but less attention has been paid by scholars to the
implications of abortion restrictions for women’s citizenship. The chief exception is Rosalind Petchesky, who has argued that when the State criminalized abortions
in the second half of the 19th century and later limited access to birth control, it did so as a way to control its population, maintain the gender hierarchy, and
regulate women’s sexuality. Catharine MacKinnon’s work has focused on how abortion laws have contributed to women’s sexual inequality, as opposed to how
they have affected their equality within the broader context of citizenship.3 Yet few issues affect women’s right to self-determination more directly
than access to abortion, and for that reason restrictions to it raise significant questions regarding their standing as citizens . As T. H.
Marshall noted, to be a citizen means to have the political, civil, and social rights necessary to fully participate in the political which
implies the ability to pursue them free of discrimination and domination. Gould’s definition of equality and freedom is particularly
relevant to the case of women’s citizenship, because it is based on the premise of self-development, “ . . . requiring not only the absence of
external constraint but also the availability of social and material conditions necessary for the achievement of purposes and plans.”5 Shaver’s conception of
abortion as a “body right . . . a personal right attached not to medical need but to the legal personhood of the woman” captures its centrality to women’s equality,
and is the starting point for this article.6 In it I argue that one of the root causes of the persistent inequality between the sexes is the legal
primacy given to women’s roles as wives and mothers over their rights as individuals, which results in gendered citizenship.

Current privacy scrutiny and restrictions disregards women’s interests in abortion, minimizing their importance and
ultimately humanity.
Erin Daly, prof law @ UMich American University Law Review, 1995 Lexis
The post-Roe spate of abortion restrictions have again diverted attention from the woman and continue to reinforce judicial
disregard for women's interests, although for different reasons. Given that early abortion is now safer than childbirth, most modern
laws are enacted for purposes other than maternal health and tend to protect the interests of the fetus but not those of the pregnant
individual. n104 For example, Missouri's abortion law begins with a series of legislative findings establishing, among other things, that "(1) the life of each human
being begins at conception; (2) unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being; (3) the natural parents of unborn children have protectable
interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn children." n105 This amounts to three different ways of saying that a law regulating a
woman's reproduction is about the significance of the offspring's interests and the insignificance of woman's interests, despite
constitutional protection for the latter. Although abortion is as much about women making life decisions as anything else, many participants in the
abortion debate seem oblivious to the woman's perspective. The failure to comprehend the woman's perspective has similarly
marred the enforcement of abortion laws. Laws imposing civil or criminal penalties on parties involved in abortions have
consistently treated the women seeking them as victims, not as perpetrators . And yet, "a primary impediment to the enforcement of abortion
statutes was probably the fact that the woman, as the potential complainant, [*101] did not consider herself a victim of a crime." n106 Women who obtained
abortions were rarely prosecuted and had little motivation to obtain the conviction of their doctors. n107



                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                             The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                    110/121


                                           HYDE CP – ABORTION KEY

Abortion rights are essential to gender equality and removing oppressive burdens from women
Alison M. Jaggar, professor of women and gender studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder; Abortion: three Perspectives,
2009




Making abortions available to the poor is key to gender equality
Alison M. Jaggar, professor of women and gender studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder; Abortion: three Perspectives,
2009 149




Access to abortions must be granted to the poor or it does no good to the feminist movement
Rosland Petchesky Abotion andWoman’s Choice: The State, Sexuality, and Reproductive Freedom 1986, Professor of Political
Science and Women's Studies Hunter College and the Graduate Center




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                       111/121


                                        HYDE CP – SOLVENCY (RACISM)

Constitutional rights for minorities are denied by the Hyde Amendment.
Hamel 07 [Kris Hamel Mar 8 2007 "Anti-Abortion amendment being challenged"
http://www.workers.org/2007/us/abortion-0315/]
A fact sheet on reproductive health from African-American Women Evolving (AAWE) in Chicago states: “The Hyde Amendment
is a key strategy of those who seek to ban abortion and regulate women’s bodies by blocking women’s access to reproductive self-
determination. ... Black women are three times as likely as white women to have an abortion and also represent a large percentage
of women living under the poverty line. They must use already limited resources that would otherwise be used for basic living
necessities to obtain an abortion. ... [D]enying access is discriminatory. The reality is that women with the least access to health
care are those with the fewest economic resources who are disproportionately women of color. The right to have an abortion is a
constitutional right, and rights can only be realized through access.”The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, in a
2005 National Funding fact sheet, states: “The Hyde Amendment has directly affected low-income Latinas’ access to safe, legal
abortions. In fact, Rosie Jiménez, a Latina college student who was unable to pay for a legal abortion, became the first woman to
die from a back alley abortion after the passage of the Hyde Amendment. Latinas have been especially affected by the Hyde
Amendment because many low-income Latinas rely on Medicaid for their health care coverage.”




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                               The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                      112/121


                            HYDE CP – SOLVENCY (AGENCY OF WOMEN)

Restrictive abortion laws deny agency. They confine female identity within the role of motherhood, limiting self-determination
of meaning
Rosemary Nossiff, Prof Marymount Manhattan College, Gendered Citizenship: Women, Equality, and Abortion Policy New Political
Science, Volume 29, Number 1, March 2007 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=5&sid=33e98ad5-5e71-4f08-9586-
acc5ee58b0a4%40sessionmgr4
Since 1973 numerous books have examined the legal, social and political dimensions of abortion policy,2 but less attention has
been paid by scholars to the implications of abortion restrictions for women’s citizenship. The chief exception is Rosalind
Petchesky, who has argued that when the State criminalized abortions in the second half of the 19th century and later limited
access to birth control, it did so as a way to control its population, maintain the gender hierarchy, and regulate women’s sexuality.
Catharine MacKinnon’s work has focused on how abortion laws have contributed to women’s sexual inequality, as opposed to
how they have affected their equality within the broader context of citizenship.3 Yet few issues affect women’s right to self-
determination more directly than access to abortion, and for that reason restrictions to it raise significant questions
regarding their standing as citizens. As T. H. Marshall noted, to be a citizen means to have the political, civil, and social
rights necessary to fully participate in the political which implies the ability to pursue them free of discrimination and
domination. Gould’s definition of equality and freedom is particularly relevant to the case of women’s citizenship, because
it is based on the premise of self-development, “ . . . requiring not only the absence of external constraint but also the availability
of social and material conditions necessary for the achievement of purposes and plans.”5 Shaver’s conception of abortion as a
“body right . . . a personal right attached not to medical need but to the legal personhood of the woman” captures its centrality to
women’s equality, and is the starting point for this article.6 In it I argue that one of the root causes of the persistent inequality
between the sexes is the legal primacy given to women’s roles as wives and mothers over their rights as individuals, which
results in gendered citizenship.




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                             The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                    113/121


                           HYDE CP – SOLVENCY (AT: ABORTIONS KILL BABIES)

No money leads to death from illegal abortions.
Shawn Towey and Stephanie Poggi of NNAF and Rachel Roth of Ibis Reproductive Health. 2004
http://www.nnaf.org/pdf/NNAF%20Policy%20Report.pdf
The studies also demonstrate the great personal cost for many low-income women who did manage to obtain abortions. They often scraped together the
money for an abortion by borrowing from several people, postponing bills, and even skimping on food and other basic
necessities for themselves and their families. Moreover, these women had abortions two to three weeks later than other
women.24 Because later abortions cost more money, lower-income women found themselves – as they do today – in a
vicious cycle. By the time they raise enough money for a first-trimester abortion, they may be in the beginning of the second trimester, and need to raise yet
more money. States that use their own funds to provide Medicaid coverage for abortion substantially increase access for low-income women. Nearly one quarter
(24%) of all women who obtained abortions in 2000 were Medicaid recipients, but approximately one-third of them – those in non-Medicaid states – paid out of
pocket for their abortion. Had those 33 states provided abortion coverage, it is likely that many more women would have been able to obtain the abortions they
needed.25 Historically, many women who could not obtain legal abortions have paid with their lives. The first such documented case
connected with the Hyde Amendment is that of Rosie Jiménez, a young mother who crossed the border into Mexico in 1977 in search of an affordable illegal
abortion when denied Medicaid funding at home. She died of sepsis in a hospital in Texas, with a college scholarship check, uncashed, still in her purse.

Lack of funding prevents abortions and puts women’s’ lives at risk
Shawn Towey and Stephanie Poggi of NNAF and Rachel Roth of Ibis Reproductive Health. 2004
http://www.nnaf.org/pdf/NNAF%20Policy%20Report.pdf
Eleven percent of women reported a serious health problem that would be complicated by the pregnancy, compared with less than 1% in
the state overall. Health conditions reported by clients included asthma, high blood pressure, substance addictions, mental health conditions (especially depression),
kidney ailments, epilepsy, HIV, and a history of high-risk pregnancy-related problems such as pre-eclampsia, a condition that can lead to seizures and even death.
Many callers to WMF reported domestic abuse and sexual assault. Forty-three women felt their lives were at risk; of these women, about half cited fear
of extreme violence from a partner or ex-partner. Nearly 14% of women said they were currently in an abusive relationship or had become pregnant as a result of
one. Some cited fear of continuing violence if they did not have an abortion, while others said they had been threatened because
they wanted the abortion. Federal Medicaid rules require that states pay for abortions in cases of rape or incest, or when the woman’s life is endangered.
Over 11% of women (66) helped by WMF said their pregnancy was a result of rape (one of these rapes was incest). Twenty-eight of these
women had Medicaid, but only one in this group was eventually able to obtain a Medicaid-funded abortion. Obstacles include
misleading and difficult to obtain forms that must be filled out by women and their doctors and misinformation from Medicaid HMOs. While WMF tries to
advocate for women seeking Medicaid funding in the case of rape, most often Pennsylvania does not pay and the fund must work to cover the cost. Women who
sought help from WMF were on average farther along in their pregnancies than the overall population of women having abortions in Pennsylvania and nationally.
Many women reported delaying the abortion in order to raise enough money to pay for it, only to find that as their pregnancy
passed the 13-week mark the price increased steeply. Although over half of WMF clients, those in the first trimester, needed only to raise $250 for a
reduced-fee abortion, that amount nearly doubled in the early second trimester to $480. The top 8% of procedures cost $1,000 or more. The average stage of
pregnancy at the time of the abortion was 12 weeks. Two-thirds had their abortion at 13 weeks or less, compared with the statewide average of 92.6%. Ten percent
were 18 weeks or more, compared with 3.9% statewide (see chart, p. 11).

Hyde can’t be justified legally to save fetuses.
Laurence H. Tribe (Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School), “The Abortion Funding Conundrum: Inalienable Rights,
Affirmative Duties, and the Dilemma of Dependence,” The Harvard Law Review. 1985.
Nor could such withholding of public funds be justified by the view that, if the state funded abortions, it would be affirmatively
“killing” fetuses. In Roe v. Wade, after all, the Court held that, as between the fundamental liberty of the woman and the life of a
being that many do not yet deem a “person” at all, the former must prevail until viability. Thus, leaving aside the scientific, moral,
and religious disputes over the “humanness” or “personhood” of the fetus at various stages of development, Roe treats the legal ordering of the
competing claims of woman and fetus as resolved by the very conclusion that the woman’s right to end her pregnancy indeed prevails over the interest in
preserving the non-viable fetus’s life. The Court’s description of the woman’s right as grounded in “privacy,” rather than in the relationship of women to men, might
give a surface plausibility to a refusal to provide public funding. But this plausibility, as we have seen by recasting the right in rational terms, dissolves into analysis.



Hyde makes women abort later increasing risks.
Kenneth J. Meier et al (Donald P. Haider-Markel, Anthony J. Stanislawski, Debora R. McFarlane), “The Impact of State-Level
Restrictions on Abortion,” Demography, Volume 33, Issue 3. Aug 1996.
Other possible effects from post-Webster restrictions may not be captured by our outcome measure, state abortion rates. Even
though state restrictions may not affect the annual rates, these restrictions may delay abortions for some women (see Rogers et
al. 1991). Although legal abortion is a safe procedure, the earlier an abortion is performed, the safer it is (Gold 1990).
Women who delay their procedures face higher rates of morbidity and mortality.



                                  For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                     114/121


                                                     ENDA CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

The counterplan competes through net benefits

ENDA is an extraordinary way to advance LGBT rights
Equality Texas, October 19, 2007. http://eqfed.org/eqtx/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=16274202

"I have never wavered from my conviction that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) must include protections based
upon sexual orientation and gender identity. It is gratifying to see that conviction shared by so many people in all parts of the
country. I will be working tirelessly to secure the votes necessary to pass a gender identity-inclusive ENDA bill and urge all who
share this goal to make their voices heard. This extraordinary opportunity to advance LGBT rights in America is proud evidence of
democracy in which the people decide what is possible."




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                  The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         115/121


                            ENDA CP – SOLVENCY (HETERONORMITIVITY)

ENDA is significant LGBT civil rights legislation
Kenneth A. Kovach and Peter E. Millspaugh. 1996 “Employment Nondiscrimination Act: On The Cutting Edge Of Public
Policy” Volume 39, Issue 4, July-August 1996, Pages 65-73
Influential and outspoken supporters such as Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) place the ENDA bill in the category of civil
rights legislation The contention of this school of thought is that sexual orientation should be removed as a basis for job
discrimination in the same way that race, gender, religion, national origin, age, and disabilities have been dealt with in previous
fed- eral legislation. Most supporters of ENDA deny any connec- tion between performance on the job and sexual orientation.
They point to the lack of evidence, scientific or otherwise, that sexual orientation relates to job performance in any way.
Consequently, they argue, consideration of one’s sexual orientation in employment-related decisions should be outlawed to
prevent potentially nega- tive outcomes that can occur when it is part of the decision.

ENDA is a major step in LGBT rights
Caleb Groos 6/25 2009 “Federal LGBT Discrimination Law Coming? ENDA: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act Re-
Introduced” http://blogs.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1892

Yesterday, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) was introduced in the US House of Representatives. It would
prohibit employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity in a wide variety of employment decisions.
Though similar legislation has been repeatedly introduced without success, increased support this year means businesses would be
smart to prepare for compliance. Representative Barney Frank, along with others, has introduced ENDA just about every year
since 1994. This year, however, he has 118 original cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. This year's bill (like some, but not all
of its predecessors) also includes protections for trans-gender individuals as well as lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Currently,
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 puts race, gender, religion and national origin off limits as far as employment decisions
including hiring, firing, promotions, demotions, reductions in hours, along with many others. ENDA would provide the same
protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. We also currently have federal protections against some
age discrimination, as well as discrimination against those with disabilities, but those are provided outside of Title VII.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, on the other hand, is so far left to state and local rules. As stated in
Representative Frank's press release, it is still legal in 30 states to fire someone simply for being gay. 38 states allow it based on
gender identity. The bill introduced yesterday would end this. As with the protections Title VII gives other groups, it would ban
employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

ENDA key to solve discrimination—state laws don’t cover
Lauren McGlothlin 6/24 “Employment Discrimination against LGBT Workers Shows Need for Employment Non-Discrimination
Act” http://www.civilrights.org/archives/2009/06/459-enda.html

Although employment laws intended to protect people from workplace discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender
identity are on the books in local communities and states around the country, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation reports
that more than 3 in 5 U.S. citizens live in areas that do not have these laws. Only 12 states and the District of Columbia have banned
employment discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. Eight states have outlawed employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation. Many businesses are finding that it is becoming more and more important to have policies
prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in order to remain competitive. The HRC Foundation found
that 85 percent of Fortune 500 businesses now have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation, up from 51 percent in
2000. Thirty-five percent of Fortune 500 businesses have non-discrimination policies that include gender identity or expression. In
2000, only three Fortune 500 companies had this policy. Today, the House of Representatives re-introduced the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in
all states across the country. ENDA would extend the same federal employment discrimination protections currently given to race,
religion, gender, national origin, age, and disability.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                                                                   The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                                                          116/121


                                                                         GLOBAL POVERTY CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should spend 150 billion dollars each year until the year 2019 on
poverty-fighting efforts that focus on technological defenses against droughts, diseases, mountainous trade barriers, and bad
soil. Funding should be distributed through local governments.

Contention 1 is Competition: The counterplan competes through net benefits

Contention 2 is Solvency

(__) Global Poverty
The counterplan solves poverty worldwide – even if we don’t solve U.S. poverty, we access their impacts better
Eviatar 5 (Daphne, contributing editor at the American Lawyer and a 2005 fellow with the Alicia Patterson Foundation. “Paying the Pauper”, Science and Spirit,
http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=517)
Sachs argues that if all countries doubled their foreign aid contributions, spending 150 billion dollars every year between now and
2015, we could halve world poverty and be well on our way to its complete elimination. Sachs believes the developed world needs
to spend more money on getting poor countries the technologies they need to overcome geographical barriers—such as frequent
droughts, deadly diseases, mountains that operate as barriers to trade, or just bad soil—and that such items, paid for by the wealthy
world, will jump-start the poorest nations into more rapid growth and industrialization. But many experts aren’t convinced that foreign aid alone can solve the
problem of global poverty. “We do need to spend a lot more money,” says Michael Kremer, a development economist at Harvard University. “But we also need to take a closer look at how to spend it effectively.”
William Easterly, a former World Bank economist who now teaches at New York University, says Sachs “underrates the institutional difficulty of implementing the programs that he’s pushing. He doesn’t get it that a
lot of the money gets stolen, or disappears into patronage-swollen bureaucracies that are not now able to deliver even the cheap things like vaccinations or getting oral rehydration therapies to mothers whose children die
                                                                                                                                                                       the rich world has never
from diarrhea. His answer is that rich countries should give more money. But there’s a lot of money given. And it hasn’t solved the problem.” Sachs insists, however, that
given enough. “It’s like giving half a dose of medicine to a dying patient,” he says. Only a “big push” of foreign aid, particularly in
Africa, will do. Still, many experts remain skeptical. “Aid can make a difference, but I really don’t think of [the lack of] it as a significant obstacle to economic development in low-income environments,”
says Dani Rodrik, a professor of political economy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. “The real constraint is the lack of incentives to invest in these economies.” Inevitably, that argument leads
back to complaints about poor countries’ governments, which can make people like Sachs and Bono uncomfortable. Much of development thinking today focuses on the need for “good governance”—generally code for
democratic governments whose officials follow a clear rule of law; employ economic policies that protect property rights and encourage investment; don’t steal from public coffers; and invest in certain minimum
necessities like functioning roads, clean water, decent schools, and basic health care. In many parts of sub- Saharan Africa, a poor region that’s only gotten poorer in recent decades, many of these prerequisites are
lacking. And there’s a huge debate over whether and how foreign aid can help. The enormity of the challenge became clear to me when I traveled in Ethiopia a year ago. In the barren, dusty mountains of the northern
province of Tigray, the government is receiving assistance from the United Nations for a vast irrigation project that involves the digging of wells and terraces in the dry hills to hold the region’s scarce rainwater. The
hope is that conserving water will protect the population from the devastating effects of Ethiopia’s annual droughts. It’s a bold effort that involved the construction of 70,000 ponds and tanks in just one year. But a
review of the project last year revealed that many of those tanks were built so quickly and designed so poorly that they don’t hold water. Worse, this depressed region lacks enough skilled workers, not to mention
materials, to fix the tanks. These sorts of large government projects are important, but they overlook some of the institutional obstacles to economic growth, many experts say. A communist country from 1974 to 1991,
Ethiopia still forbids private land ownership, and as a result, many Ethiopians don’t work to improve the land they harvest because they never know when the government might decide to take it away. This results in a
failure to use some of the most basic irrigation techniques that have allowed farmers under similar geographic conditions in other countries to prosper. “The fear of losing the land is a major reason why this problem has
persisted,” says Dessalegn Rahmato, director of the Forum for Social Studies in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa. When Sachs was in Ethiopia a year ago, he emphasized the importance of getting billions more
dollars of foreign aid to help the country meet the Millennium Development Goals. But that would take an investment of more than 5 billion dollars a year, says Ishac Diwan, the World Bank’s country director in
Ethiopia. Even if the bank could give that, it’s unlikely that Ethiopia’s government, which has a strong sense of national pride and historically has been intent on doing things its own way, would accept it. “Ethiopia’s
entire budget right now is about 6 billion dollars,” says Diwan. “If close to fifty percent of the budget comes from foreign aid, what happens to national
sovereignty?” Still, Ethiopia has real problems it hasn’t managed
to solve on its own. Indeed, hunger has only worsened in recent years. The number of people dependent on food aid in Ethiopia grew from 8 million in 1985 to 13 million during a drought last year. (The population also
has exploded.) In response, the government last year decided to move more than 2 million peasants crowded in the highlands to less populated, more fertile terrain. But when they arrived at the government-chosen
                                                                                                   This doesn’t mean Ethiopia should
destination, the promises of land, food, water, health care, and other provisions went unfulfilled, and thousands suffered from severe malnutrition and disease.
be denied foreign aid; it simply suggests the aid needs to be carefully targeted. Projects run by international organizations like
Catholic Relief Services, funded in large part by the U.S. government, are bringing critical services to rural villages. In Wonji, just a few
hours southeast of Addis Ababa, Catholic Relief Services helped a village build a water system that brings clean water from the nearest town to a bank of modern faucets in the village center. When I visited, women
                                                                                            Those who previously survived on water from a nearby pond they
were easily filling their brown clay water jugs there instead of making the two-hour trek to the nearest river.
shared with their cattle now were spared the diseases that had forced them to walk miles to the nearest clinic, which usually lacked
the medicine to help them. But even in providing water to three villages, the project helps only about 5,000 people—and it took six months just to get the government to sign the document that allowed
its creation. The project may be successful in that it helps alleviate some of the pain, but it’s not solving the deeper problems. Despite all the aid Ethiopia has received so far, the government has not yet found a
sustainable way to conserve and clean water, irrigate the land, and otherwise respond to the recurring droughts that regularly devastate the country and its growing population. As Almaz Tafara, a weary-looking, thirty-
                                                                                                            Most experts now believe that to be effective, foreign
five-year-old mother of seven put it, while screwing shut a shiny new water tap: “If the rains don’t come soon, we are lost.”
aid must be combined with locally developed plans that will encourage each country—indeed, each city, town, and village—to
determine for itself what will make it grow. Providing external funding, expertise, and guidance can be crucial, but it’s not enough.
Even Sachs acknowledges the point. “There are two issues,” he told me in Ethiopia . “Is money a sufficient condition? No. Is money a necessary condition? Yes.”
Increasingly, economic thinking is shifting away from the old “Washington consensus”— the cookie-cutter reform plans, so popular in the 1990s, that emphasized free trade, open markets, deregulation, and
                                                               Harvard economists Rodrik and Ricardo Hausmann, for example, are
privatization—and toward helping poor countries develop their own particular home-grown solutions.
promoting what they call “economic self-discovery,” the focus of a World Bank conference in April. “You need to organize a
society so the whole society is looking for investment opportunities,” says Hausmann. “You need to eliminate the obstacles that
make a society make too little effort finding out what they’re good at.” Hausmann, Rodrik, and their colleague Andrés Velasco are developing diagnostic tools to help
countries figure out just that, and will be working with the World Bank to advise countries on how to apply them. In the end, every country will have to solve its own problems, be they poor governance, lack of industry,
                          The wealthy developed nations can and should play an important role —first by eliminating their own trade barriers that make it
geographic obstacles, or chronic conflict.
                                                                     by sharing technology, promoting democracy, and assisting carefully
impossible for poor nations in Africa, for example, to sell textiles to the United States; and second,
created and locally viable development plans. The pleas of Sharon Stone and Bono at the World Economic Forum can go a long way toward getting the problem of poverty onto the style
pages, but they do little to illuminate the complexity of the problem. It’s great that more people think it would be cool to end world poverty. The challenge now is to figure out how.




                                             For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                  The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                         117/121


                   GLOBAL POVERTY CP – SOLVENCY (GLOBAL POVERTY)

Counterplan solves poverty better – two reasons
   1. Persons living in poverty in the US are not nearly as poor as people in poverty on other continents such as Africa – the
       authors of their impacts all cite poverty as a problem that needs to be solved globally, so why not start with the people
       most in poverty
   2. Counterplan solves poverty globally, which not only solves better but solves more people – spending 150 billion dollars
       every year for ten years we can virtually eradicate global poverty if not significantly reduce it – that’s Eviatar.

Increasing technological support is critical to a sustainable solution to global poverty
US News 8 (“Jeffrey Sachs on Beating Global Poverty”, April,
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/04/11/jeffery-sachs-on-beating-global-poverty.html)
Economist Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University's current rock star-cum-academic, has mastered the art of being audacious in a
pleasantly reasoned sort of way. In his new book, Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet, he posits that global
poverty, plus a host of other ills, can be conquered for a cost that amounts to pocket change for rich-world nations. The price tag,
either shamefully low or totally unrealistic, prompts the question, "If we can, why haven't we?" Excerpts of a chat with Sachs:
How do you pull a country out of poverty?
The trick is to think technologically. People are poor because they lack productivity.
They lack productivity because they don't have the tools to become more productive. Those tools include the basic inputs to raise
farm yields above subsistence levels. For urban centers, it means broadband, electricity, and working ports. My concern is for the
places that need the tools and simply can't pay for them. They're trapped. Those places are where we should give targeted help.
How much would that really cost?
For less than 1 percent of annual income of the high-income countries—the U.S., Europe,
Japan, and a few others—we could end poverty once and for all. It's enough to get the poorest countries onto a path of long-term
development. By ridding the world of extreme poverty, we're doing ourselves a big favor in terms of our own long-term security.
Of course, it goes without saying that most of us consider helping other people a good goal in and of itself if the price is right. And
in this case, the price is right.
Why not just leave it to the free market?
Free-market forces are vital. But they are limited when you have people so poor that they
are essentially isolated from markets. People that don't even grow enough food to bring to market, don't have electricity or access
to roads, clinics, or schools, find themselves isolated from the world economy.
With First World economies struggling, will it be tougher to gain commitments to fight poverty?
Not really, because the amounts
we're talking about are so small. To control malaria comprehensively in Africa, for example, would cost less than two days of
Pentagon spending.
So how should we revamp U.S. policy?
Look at the swath of instability right now that stretches across Chad, Sudan, Somalia, up
through the Arabian Peninsula to Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. That whole region is enmeshed in a real crisis of massive
water scarcity, food scarcity, and population stress. If we take the initiative, we'd find that for a few billion dollars there'd be an
incredible rally around us, as opposed to the hundreds of billions of dollars that just aren't getting us anywhere right now.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                                                     118/121


                        GLOBAL POVERTY CP – SOLVENCY (GLOBAL POVERTY)

The CP’s empirically successful --- creates a self-sustainable solution to poverty
Mother Jones 5 (“The End of Poverty: An Interview with Jeffrey Sachs”, May, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/end-
poverty-interview-jeffrey-sachs)
In order to figure out how to reach these goals, Annan organized a panel of over 250 development experts to lay out practical strategies for promoting rapid
                                                                                                                                              aid
development. Headed by economist Jeffrey Sachs, the panel published their final report in January of 2005. The report calls for both an increase in
from Western countries and a reallocation of funding priorities in the developing countries themselves. The report also calls for
more aid to be given on a local level. By bypassing governments, the UN hopes to spark more immediate and effective
development. For instance, in one test case conducted in Kenya, UN funding went straight to the village of Sauri, where the
schools were able to provide much-needed food for their students, and hence jumped in ranking from 68th to 7th in the district. Shortly after the
release of the UN report came the publication of Sachs' book, The End of Poverty, in which he laid out his own strategies for eradicating poverty by 2025. Sachs,
who gained renown for advising Latin American and Asian governments on economic reform, has gained popularity as "can-do" economist amidst a cacophony of
naysayers on development. But his optimistic attitude has also attracted quite a bit of skepticism. Why is it that decades of development economics haven't
achieved the elimination of poverty? What makes Sachs' proposals so special? Is eradicating poverty a feasible goal to achieve in our lifetime? Sachs recently sat
down with Mother Jones to discuss these issues. Mother Jones: What makes your plan to end poverty so different from the development efforts that were tried in
the 1950s and 60s? Why hasn't five decades worth of development work been very successful thus far? Jeffrey Sachs: I think so far there's been a lack of
appropriate effort, which includes many things. For development to work, rich countries need to help poor countries make certain practical
investments that are often really very basic. Once you get your head around development issues and realize how solvable many of them are, there are
tremendous things that can be done. But for decades we just haven't tried to do many of these basic things. For instance, one issue that has been tragically neglected
for decades now is malaria. That's a disease that kills up to 3 million people every year. It's a disease that could be controlled quite dramatically and easily if we just
put in the effort. It's truly hard for me to understand why we aren't. MJ: What do you say to critics who argue that it's a waste to put more money into a
development system that hasn't used that money very effectively thus far? JS: Well, we have to be smart about whatever we're doing. But I'm quite convinced that,
broadly speaking, economic development works. The main arguments of the Millennium Project Report, and the main argument of my book is that there are
certain places on the planet that, because of various circumstances—geographical isolation, burden of disease, climate, or soil—
these countries just can't quite get started. So it's a matter of helping them get started, whether to grow more food or to fight
malaria or to handle recurring droughts. Then, once they're on the first rung of the ladder of development, they'll start climbing just
like the rest of the world. MJ: So do you believe that past efforts, to get these less-developed countries on the "first rung," haven't been pragmatic enough?
JS: Part of it is that many of these countries are invisible places, neglected by us politically, neglected by our business firms, by international markets, and by trade.
We tend to focus on these countries only when they're in such extraordinary crises that they get shown on CNN because they're in a deep drought or a massive war,
which is something that impoverished countries are much more prone to falling to. There haven't been too many stories in our press about Senegal, Ghana,
Tanzania, Malawi, or Ethiopia, other than when the disasters hit. And yet these are places that are in very deep trouble all of the time, but with largely solvable
problems. And those are the kinds of the places that I'm talking about as being stuck in extreme poverty. MJ: If there's been no real effort to draw the world's
attention to those places, is there any hope that funding will go there? JS: The world got side-tracked from development issues during the post-9/11 crisis period.
During the war in Iraq there were bitter divisions in the world community, and the idea of being able to focus on the problems of extreme poverty or malaria or
drought and chronic hunger in Africa were just not at the top of the world's debate. But I think the tsunami in the Indian Ocean last December, in which we could
all see the scope of the devastation on our television screens, shifted discussion towards the plight of the world's poor. So now there are some positive signs. Tony
Blair has pushed for an Africa Commission which just produced a report in March that focuses on poorest of the poor in Africa. There will be a UN poverty summit
this September which is predicted to be the largest gathering of world leaders in history. And I'm traveling extensively around the world talking about these issues.
So I think that even in our country, there is a growing discussion. MJ: I know that former World Bank employee and economist William Easterly has criticized
your proposals and called for what he terms a "piecemeal reform" approach in which development efforts are carried out one step at a time, with subsequent
evaluation. What is your response to this? JS: Basically, I don't think that we should be choosing between whether a young girl has immunizations or water, or
between whether her mother and father are alive, because they have access of treatment for AIDS, or whether she has a meal at school, or whether her father and
mother, who are farmers, are able to grow enough food to feed their family and earn some income. Those all strike me as quite doable and practical things that can
be done at once. I make the analogy that farmers, to grow their food, need good soil, sunshine, proper rain, and heat. If you don't one of those, even if you have the
other three, your crop is still not going to grow. A lot of life in a poor village is like that. If you have a clinic but you don't have safe drinking water, or if you have
safe drinking water and a clinic, but you don't have bed nets to fight malaria, you just don't get the kind of needs met and the basic quality of life that gives you a
chance. I think that Bill Easterly misunderstands what I propose. I'm not proposing a single global plan dictated by some UN central command. Quite the opposite,
I'm proposing that we help people help themselves. This can be done without legions of people rushing over to these countries to
build houses and schools. This is what people in their own communities can do if we give them the resources to do it. MJ: Part of
Easterly's argument is that if you implement different strategies all at once, it will be difficult to isolate and understand which strategies worked effectively, and
which did not. Do you share this concern? JS: I have been working with over 250 of my colleagues on the Millennium Development Report. Everybody here is an
expert on a different thing. The soil scientists really know a lot about how to improve soil nutrients and the doctors really know a lot about how to keep children
alive. The malariologists really know how to control malaria and the hydrologists really know how to get safe drinking water in a community. One doesn't have
to test whether it's good to have more food production, or malaria bed nets or doctors or teachers. These are proven technologies. If
we were introducing something new, that would be different, but ours is not an approach based on new discoveries, this is an
approach based on the best of proven technologies.




                                   For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                       119/121


                               GLOBAL POVERTY CP – AT: CORRUPTION

Working with local governments solves corruption
Mother Jones 5 (“The End of Poverty: An Interview with Jeffrey Sachs”, May, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/end-
poverty-interview-jeffrey-sachs)
JS: My experience is that there's corruption everywhere: in the U.S., in Europe, in Asia, and in Africa. It's a bit like infectious
disease—you can control it, but it's very hard to eradicate it. And yes, there are some cases where the corruption is so massive that
unless you are really, really clever and come up with some radically new approach to the issue, you're going to have a hard time
accomplishing many development goals. It's quite hard in a place like Zimbabwe, now, where the current government, in a quite
despicable way, clings to power. Or, in a country where there is absolutely no transparency or where you have a family ruling
violently to stay in power. It's very hard to do a lot of the things that really need to be done to build an effective school system, a
health system, and so on. I don't have any magic solution for those situations.
But, let me note that the world successfully eradicated small pox, and not just in countries that scored high on a governance index but
in all parts of the world. This was an international effort which targeted a specific outcome undertaken by professionals using a proven
technology and a very extensive monitoring system. And that's the general model for our aid proposals. Nothing is done on trust.
Everything should be done on a basis of measurement and monitoring. When you really focus, there are so many ways to be clever
about how to do this to make it work better. Don't just send money; send bed nets, send in auditors, make targets quantitative. There
are a lot of tricks, a lot of ways, that if one is practical about this, one can get results.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                                   The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                          120/121


                                GLOBAL POVERTY CP – AT: US POVERTY

Standards for poverty are relatively high in the United States --- people are able to sustain basic needs
Rector 7 (Robert, Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “How Poor Are America's Poor?
Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America”, August 27, http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg2064.cfm)
Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United
States declaring that there were 37 million poor persons living in this country in 2005, roughly the same number as in the
preceding years.[4] According to the Census report, 12.6 percent of Amer-icans were poor in 2005; this number has varied from
11.3 percent to 15.1 percent of the population over the past 20 years.[5]
To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers—to look at the actual living conditions of the
individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide
a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million per-sons classified as
"poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and
severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few
generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of house-holds equal those of the
median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.[6]
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov-ernment reports:
Forty-three percent of all poor households actu-ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor
by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population
enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are over-crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other
cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consump-tion of protein, vitamins, and
minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor
children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above
recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernour-ished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10
pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
While the poor are generally well nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But even this condition
is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do
not have enough to eat.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrig-erator, a stove, a clothes washer
and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is
able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had
suf-ficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from
the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.




                           For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011                                                                              The Advantage Of Being Neg 2010
Gonzo                                                                                                                     121/121


                                                       DOE CP – 1NC

Counterplan Text: The United States Federal Government should permanently abolish the department of education.

Eliminating the DOE solves federalism
Cato “Cato Handbook for Congress” 2003 http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/index.html
The Constitution provides no authority whatsoever for the federal government to be involved in education. Eliminating the
department on those grounds would help to reestablish the original understanding of the enumerated powers of the federal
government.

Education is naturally a state right
Cato “Cato Handbook for Congress” 2003 http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/index.html
James Madison, who proclaimed that the powers of the federal govern- ment should be few and enumerated, would be shocked at
what the president and Congress are doing today in relation to an aspect of family life that was never intended to come under the
control of Congress, the White House, or any federal agency. Congress should take the enlightened view, consistent with that of
the nation’s Founders, and draw a line in the sand that won’t be crossed. Education is a matter reserved to the states, period




                          For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:2/19/2013
language:Unknown
pages:121