Dizzle Ranch Debate

AT: Spending DA/Fiscal D High Speed Rail Aff

We outweigh Magnitude: We outweigh, wars over oil and those due to economic competitiveness affect billions of people, and CAUSE economic collapse and resource wars. Prefer our solvency, we solve for more scenarios of resource conflict. Their only impact is an economic collapse while ours is widespread nuclear war. Timeframe: Our impacts could occur at any moment now. US-Iran relations are at a breaking point and our transportation infrastructure is NOT economically efficient. Probability: We have a 100 percent chance of our impacts occurring. Without investing in a high-speed-rail system US dependence on oil will continue and the current state of the transportation infrastructure won't change. Also, prefer our systemic impacts versus their one shot disad thats based on speculation. We KNOW that if oil becomes scarcer it WILL lead to oil wars, AND the current state of America's transportation infrastructure will only worsen its economy. Extend our Heinberg 03 and Zhang 11 cards. High-speed-rail is CRUCIAL to stopping such impacts from occurring that affect BILLIONS of lives.
Non-unique Hurricane Isaac struck the southern mid-west regions of the US recently and costs millions of dollars of damage. Congress is forced to spend money in issues like Hurricane Isaac so spending is inevitable in the status quo. Also congress passes bills and spends on a daily basis. The negative's impacts should have happened already. US economy failing now fiscal discipline is collapsing, unemployment is high, and recovery is unlikely Portman 6/13 (Senator Rob Portman,(R-Ohio) serves on the Budget Committee, Director of the Office of Management and Budget from May 2006 - June 2007 under President George Bush, We Can Do Better on Economy, Politico News, June 13, 2012, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77389_Page2.html#ixzz1yS3sieyN)//AS) We are living through the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression. More than 20 million Americans cannot find work, have given up searching or have been forced to accept part-time jobs. We must do better. The unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for more than three years the longest stretch since the Great Depression. The average unemployed worker spends nearly 40 weeks looking for a job. Thats nine months of stress, uncertainty and wondering how to make ends meet. President Barack Obama correctly points out that he inherited this recession. But the question is: What did he do with it? His policies, unfortunately, have failed to turn things around. Typically, the steeper a recession, the stronger the recovery. In recoveries, millions of unemployed Americans return to work and idled factories, and resources are put in use again, giving the economy lots of room to grow. This is what occurred after the 1981-82 recession. In terms of unemployment, that recession was as deep as the most recent one was. The unemployment rate peaked at 10.8 percent, which is higher than the 10 percent peak in the

Dizzle Ranch Debate

AT: Spending DA/Fiscal D High Speed Rail Aff

recent recession. But the 1980s recession was followed by five consecutive quarters of strong economic growth rates of between 7 percent and 9 percent. The economy gained more than 1.1 million net jobs in a single month. By this point after the beginning of that recession, the economy had recovered all jobs lost in the downturn and gained 7 million new jobs. Obama promised his policies would bring a similarly steep recovery. However, in contrast to Ronald Reagan who encouraged the recovery by reducing tax rates, cutting red tape and limiting government, Obama spent more than $800 billion on a stimulus bill, has supported far higher tax rates, jammed through Congress a government health care takeover and expanded regulation. Obama and his team promised the unemployment rate would fall below 6 percent by now with his stimulus bill. He also pledged to cut the budget deficit in half in his first term and reduce annual family health costs by up to $2,500. Instead, the unemployment rate remains above 8 percent, $4 trillion has been added to the debt, this years budget deficit remains at well over $1 trillion and health care costs continue to rise. Rather than follow a steep recession with a steep recovery, the economy grew only 1.7 percent last year. Perhaps worst of all, were still 5 million net jobs down since the recession began. By this point after the 1981-82 recession, the economy was 92 percent of the way back to what economists call its potential performance. After the recent recession, its only 27 percent of the way back. It wont return to its potential level until 2018, according to Congressional Budget Office projections. By then, the recession and weak recovery will have cost $6.7 trillion in lost output. Thats $55,000 per household. Remarkably, Reagans recovery took place even as the Federal Reserve was strongly contracting the money supply. Obamas policies have failed despite the Federal Reserve loosening the money supply. Part of the lesson is that government policies matter. Between 1969 and 1982 a period dominated by high tax rates, expanded government and excessive red tape the economy was in recession 32 percent of the time. Since then, with lower tax rates and restrained government, the economy has been in recession less than 10 percent of the time including this past recession. Rather than follow Obamas 1970s-era vision of ever-rising taxes to chase everrising spending, we need a pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda. We should pursue pro-growth tax reform by lowering marginal tax rates and pay for it by closing loopholes that only complicate the Tax Code and slow growth. We should also provide regulatory relief to small businesses, open up more export markets to better reach the 95 percent of the worlds consumers who live abroad and encourage domestic energy production to create jobs and lower prices. We should replace the presidents health care law with a policy that lowers costs by putting consumers in control of their health care and forcing insurance companies to compete for our business. We must also rein in runaway spending to close this staggering budget deficit before we have a fiscal crisis. We can do better. These pro-growth policies would unshackle the economy and encourage hiring. They would bring long-term sustainability to the budget and new revenues through growth. There is no reason the economy cannot return to the higher growth that occurred in past recoveries. We have the blueprint; we just need the will.

Dizzle Ranch Debate

AT: Spending DA/Fiscal D High Speed Rail Aff

Unhappy New Fiscal Year Young, J. T. "Unhappy Fiscal New Year." Unhappy Fiscal New Year - By J. T. Young - The Corner - National Review Online. National Review Online, 1 Oct. 2012. Web. 10/12. <http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/328927/unhappy-fiscal-new-year-j-t-young>. Washingtons done it again: another $1 trillion-plus deficit. The federal governments new fiscal year begins today, and you can be forgiven for overlooking it we all would like to. How much has Washingtons spending gone up in recent years? In 2008, the federal government spent $2.983 trillion, the largest amount in its history up to that point. In 2009, federal spending jumped to $3.518 trillion an 18 percent increase and equal to 25.2 percent of GDP. This year the Congressional Budget Office estimates federal spending to be $3.563 trillion and 22.9 percent of GDP. Over the past four years, federal spending has averaged $3.534 trillion and 24 percent of GDP. Thats far more than Washington has ever spent before and a quarter of everything America produced. The only precedent for such spending is WWII. There is no peacetime precedent. To put that figure in perspective, the total level of debt held by the public did not reach $3.5 trillion until 2002.How much has Washingtons deficit gone up? In 2008, the federal deficit was $459 billion, the largest in its history up to that point. In 2009, the federal deficit tripled to $1.413 trillion equal to 10.1 percent of GDP. Over these past four years, the federal deficit has averaged $1.283 trillion and 8.8 percent of GDP. The nations entire debt held by the public did not reach this level until 1984. Total federal spending did not reach that point until 1991.Of course, Washingtons debt has accumulated accordingly. At the end of 2008, debt held by the public equaled $5.8 trillion. CBO estimates that at the end of 2012 it will equal $11.3 trillion just short of doubling in four years. Put another way, Washington racked up as much debt in the last four years as it had accumulated over all of Americas previous history. And as a percentage of everything America produces, debt held by the public increased from 40.5 percent to 72.8 percent from well under half, to almost three quarters over just the last four years. And what has America gotten from Washingtons enormous investment? The worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. In 2009, the nations economy shrank 3.1 percent. In 2010, it grew just 2.4 percent. In 2011, it grew even less: 1.8 percent. Thus far this year, it grew just 2 percent in the first quarter and just 1.3 percent in the second quarter. Of the past fourteen quarters, just two have registered growth above 2.6 percent. Unemployment has been just as bad and would be even worse if people had not simply quit looking for work, thereby dropping out of the official calculations. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment was 5.8 percent in 2008. In 2009, it was 9.3 percent. In 2010, 9.6 percent. In 2011, 8.9 percent, and as of August, 8.1 percent. One out of every twelve Americans looking to work cannot find it. And it would be one out of nine, if all the Americans originally looking were still looking. So if you are not celebrating the end of Washingtons fiscal year, you are in good company. There has been nothing to celebrate over the past four fiscal years. Washington had the party, Americas economy got the hangover, and the taxpayer gets the bill. To rephrase Churchills famous quote: Never have so many owed so much for so little. Happy New Year indeed. Infrastructure investment is uniquely effective at stimulating the economy highest multiplier effect. Xue Han, visiting scholar at Global Infrastructure Asset Management, February 2012, Why Invest In Infrastructure? Necessities and Benefits of Infrastructure Investments, Global Infrastructure Asset Management, http://www.globalinfrastructurellc.com/pdfs/Why_Invest_in_InfrastructureNecessities_and_Benefits_of_Infrastructure_Investments.pdf With the economy still in the prolonged slump after the financial crisis in 2008, the stimulating effects of infrastructure investments on economic growth becomes even more important for

Dizzle Ranch Debate

AT: Spending DA/Fiscal D High Speed Rail Aff

speeding up the recovery. Infrastructure investments contribution to economic growth come from two aspects: improvement of productivity and relatively larger multiplier effects. Firstly, both fundamental theories and statistical evidences tell us that investments in public infrastructure improve private-sector productivity, leading to a crowding-in instead of crowding-out of private investments. More specifically, as suggested by Heintz, Pollin and Peltier, a sustained one-percentage point increase in the growth rate of core public economic infrastructure leads to an increase in the growth rate of private sector GDP of 0.6 percentage points. Secondly, due to its relatively larger multiplier effects than that of other types of spending, infrastructure investment still has a strong stimulus on economic growth even without consideration of its productivity improving effects, which serves as the more ultimate reason. Using the reliable estimates on employment generated from a Input-Output model in How infrastructure investment support the U.S. economy (Heintz, Pollin and Peltier, 2009) and a solid assumption on the relationship between GDP increase and employment effects made by Romer and Bernstein, the multiplier effect featured by investment specifically in infrastructure is estimated as 2.8, a lot bigger compared to the general fiscal multiplier of all types of government spending at 1.88, as estimated in my previous research Deficit Reduction and Multiplier Effects. We are on the Verge of a Double-Dip aftershocks are likely Hussman, 12 June Ph. D. (John P, The Heart of the Matter, Hussman Funds, 12 June 2012, http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc120611.htm)//ST By our analysis, the U.S. economy is presently entering a recession. Not next year; not later this year; but now. We expect this to become increasingly evident in the coming months, but through a constant process of denial in which every deterioration is dismissed as transitory, and every positive outlier is celebrated as a resumption of growth. To a large extent, this downturn is a "boomerang" from the credit crisis we experienced several years ago. The chain of events is as follows: Financial deregulation and monetary negligence -> Housing bubble -> Credit crisis marked by failure to restructure bad debt -> Global recession -> Government deficits in U.S. and globally -> Conflict between single currency and disparate fiscal policies in Europe -> Austerity -> European recession and credit strains -> Global recession. In effect, we're going into another recession because we never effectively addressed the problems that produced the first one, leaving us unusually vulnerable to aftershocks. Our economic malaise is the result of a whole chain of bad decisions that have distorted the financial markets in ways that make recurring crisis inevitable. The plan is a drop in the bucket transportation infrastructure investment is less than 1% of the GDP. Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director, 6/28/12 [Dean, Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director, 6/28/12, CEPR, Transportation Spending: How About Some Context?, http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-thepress/transportation-spending-how-about-some-context, accessed 7/5/12, JTF] "A group co-chaired by former transportation secretaries Samuel K. Skinner and Norman Y. Mineta has estimated that an additional $134 billion to $262 billion must be spent per year through 2035 to rebuild and improve roads, rail systems and air transportation." Let's see, $134 billion to $262 billion per year over the next 22 years, is that a lot or is it a little? I really doubt that even 1 percent of the readers of the Post has any idea how much money is involved here. If you added or subtracted a zero from these numbers it would probably look the same to most readers. Suppose we put that as a share of GDP, this would be something like 0.6 to 1.2 percent

Dizzle Ranch Debate

AT: Spending DA/Fiscal D High Speed Rail Aff

of GDP over this period. (I'm assuming that these are nominal numbers, but the article doesn't tell us and the report is horribly written so I couldn't find the numbers upfront.) Or, the piece could have told readers that this was between 3 and 6 percent of projected federal spending over this period. Link - Turn: California HSR helps the economy- will pump 8 billion Krause, 12- executive director for Californians on High Speed Rail (Daniel, High-speed rail will bolster economy, budget The E.W. Scripps Co., 6/30, http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/jun/30/krause-high-speed-rail-will-bolster-economy/ )//LA As California faces yet another large budget deficit, and potentially more devastating cuts, there have been numerous calls that the high-speed rail project should be shelved. Opponents are claiming that Californians must choose between funding schools and high-speed rail. Not only is this a false choice, it would also be a tragic mistake economically for California in the short and long term. It is time to set the record straight. The high-speed rail project will provide a dramatic boost to California's economy and its budget outlook at just the right time. California is in the middle of an economic crisis and the jobs situation is atrocious, damaging the lives of untold numbers of people. This lack of jobs is sucking the life out of our state budget because tax revenues have plummeted while the unemployed draw on public services. The jobs high-speed rail will create, along with the sale of construction materials to build the project, will dramatically increase tax revenues flowing into the state budget. But what of the debt servicing cost to our state budget? Again, one word: jobs. The early investments in high-speed rail, both in the Central Valley and at the urban bookends, will pump more than $8 billion into California's economy, creating thousands of direct and indirect jobs. Over the next few years, at a time when we must kick our economy back into gear, the increased tax revenues generated from these jobs will more than offset debt servicing costs. Additionally, the state plans to direct underutilized truck weight fees, which statutorily must be used for transportation projects, to pay the interest on HSR bonds. These small but extremely important details debunk the high-speed rail versus school kids myth. In the long term, high-speed rail will help usher a much more efficient transportation system, which is a key component to sustained economic prosperity. Continued gridlock, coupled with volatile oil prices, hurts California businesses in the worst way. High-speed rail will ensure that workers and consumers can move efficiently, without being subject to unstable transportation costs a true boon for business. And when our business community is functioning efficiently and prospering, our state budget and our schools benefit. Extreme austerity in Europe is proving to be a flawed strategy, plunging much of the continent back into deep recession. Cutting investments to critical infrastructure projects such as high-speed rail, here at home, will only make our budget problems worse. We need to shake ourselves out of the downward economic spiral of divestment and cutting by boldly moving forward with a project that will inject billions directly into our economy. The fact that we are even considering rejecting these funds, which will put thousands of people back to work starting next year, is hard to believe. It doesn't make short-term sense, and it doesn't make long-term sense. In 2008, the voters of California endorsed a high-speed rail vision that would have a direct effect on relieving some our state's most challenging transportation and quality of life problems. That vision remains, and contrary to what many are saying, the economic case for high-speed rail is actually more important than ever. Let's start to realize that vision.

Dizzle Ranch Debate

AT: Spending DA/Fiscal D High Speed Rail Aff

Turn lack of infrastructure development is killing the economy, plan solves Ferry, 2011 (8/2/11, Daniel, Summer Associate at America 2050, B.A. in Poli Sci and Philosophy from Tufts University, grad student in City & Regional Planning and Real Estate Development at Cornell University, formerly worked in the Office of Planning for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Infrastructure Costs Americans More to Neglect than Maintain, America 2050, http://www.america2050.org/2011/08/infrastructure-costsamericans-more-to-neglect-than-maintain.html) The American Society of Civil Engineers has released a report, Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation Infrastructure, finding that deficiencies in transportation infrastructure cost Americans billions of dollars per year and hundreds of thousands of jobs. In 2010 alone, the poor condition of our highways, railroads, bridges, and transit systems cost $130 billion. This sum represents the higher operating costs of running vehicles on poor facilities, the expense of damages to vehicles inflicted by crumbling infrastructure, the value of the time wasted by travelers, and the added cost of repairing or replacing facilities after they have deteriorated or collapsed, rather than maintaining them in good condition. As our investment in infrastructure fails to keep pace with our maintenance needs, the mounting cost of our transportation deficiencies is projected to rise dramatically, to nearly $3 trillion by 2040. For comparison, to bring our infrastructure back up to minimum standards and avoid this harm to the economy, the United States would need to invest only $846 billion over 9 years, or $94 billion per year.

Dizzle Ranch Debate

AT: Spending DA/Fiscal D High Speed Rail Aff

No Impact The US economy is resilient despite short-term bumps multiple factors prove Bangalore, 12- Senior Vice President and Economist at The Northern Trust Company (Asha, Economic Resilience is Firewall of the U.S. Economy, Northern Trust, 6/13, http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/SubmissionsArticle.aspx?submissionid=146174.xml&p art=3) The U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 2.2% in the first quarter, marking the eleventh consecutive quarterly increase from the trough in June 2009. Although this consistent growth trend is impressive, the magnitude of improvement of real gross domestic product (GDP) in the current economic recovery has been sub-par. Incoming economic data appear to cast a shadow on the ability of the U.S. economy to post strong self-sustained economic growth in the near term. However, a detailed investigation of economic reports suggests that, for the most part, the U.S. economy has been resilient and resistant to international economic woes, for now. Starting with the strong positives, the ISM manufacturing survey for April paints a factory sector humming along with activity outpacing the March performance. The Purchasing Managers Index increased to 54.8 in April, the highest since June 2011, while the index tracking new orders increased to 58.2, the best reading in the past year (see Chart 1). The survey of the National Federation of Independent Business shows an improvement in the outlook of small businesses, with the Small Business Optimism Index advancing to 94.5 in April, the highest mark since December 2007 (see Chart 2). From the details of the survey, 19% of respondents indicated that poor sales were the single biggest problem in April. This assessment of small business respondents is an improvement, because 22% held this opinion in March. More importantly, in April, the smallest number of businesses since August 2008 reported that demand for their products is problematic (see Chart 3). In addition to encouraging survey results about the economy in recent weeks, actual economic data also point to forward momentum in the U.S. economy. Consumer spending grew at an impressive clip of 2.9% in the first quarter, the largest quarterly gain since the fourth quarter of 2010. Growth in consumer spending advanced, despite atypical warm weather which resulted in a $14.5 billion and $9.1 billion reduction in consumer outlays on electricity and gas in 2011:Q4 and 2012:Q1, respectively (see Chart 4). U.S. economy is stagnant even if spending cuts are not made, it will still be far from the brink Armstrong 12 Michael, Columnist at Philadelphia Inquirer (Philly Inc: U.S. economy has been too boring to be on the brink, Philadelphia Inquirer, 06/07/12, http://articles.philly.com/2012-06-07/business/32079906_1_global-economy-economicrecovery-industrial-production)/CP This week, commentators on the financial-news networks were still deconstructing the godawful U.S. jobs report from Friday, which was weak but a far cry from the bad old jobdestruction days of 2008. Never say never, but economic forecasters have been putting the global economy "on the brink" of something or other every few months for quite awhile now. Just when I would start to get nervous about excessively high borrowing costs in Spain or Italy, along came an LTRO (long-term refinancing operation) to whisk away the pressure. With rhetorical extremes once again overwhelming the bland numbers of a weak U.S. economic recovery, it can be useful to consider blended measurements that try to describe current business conditions or future indicators. The widely watched Conference Boards Leading Economic Index is one. Even though it dipped 0.1 percent in April, the trend remains in "expansionary territory," the research

Dizzle Ranch Debate

AT: Spending DA/Fiscal D High Speed Rail Aff

group said. Were in Goldilocks territory (not too hot, not too cold) when the index hovers around zero, where it has been for the last two years. Though the index has spent more time in the negative zone during that time, it hasnt slumped much below -0.5. Neither has it rallied as high as 0.5 on the plus side of the axis. In some respects, the two-year line chart plotting the Aruoba-Diebold-Scotti index shows perfectly what this recovery has felt like: The U.S. economy hasnt gotten very far. So were stuck in a rut. That isnt as good as being stuck in the Bahamas for an extra day or two on vacation, but far better than being snowed in at the airport at Christmas. We wish things would return to normal, failing to recognize that this has become normal. Again, the economy wont collapse the Wednesday after New Years if Congress does nothing to change the expiring Bush-era tax cuts or automatic spending cuts. It would just make us Europe, where leaders have spent the last three years trying to convince the world they really are addressing their fiscal and debt challenges. We wont be on the brink. Rather, well be sitting at the kitchen table sifting through our checkbooks, monthly bills, and pay stubs, trying to come up with a plan that will pay for all we want. Turn: Our aff actually helps boost the economy because infrastructure investment stimulates the economy extend Han 12. The current state of our transportation is economically harmful and HSR solves extend Ferry 11. In addition it can lower American reliance on oil solves for nuclear war extend Klare 12 from 1AC. NOT DOING THE PLAN CAUSES THE IMPACTS OF THE DISAD. Government aid is needed to bounce back the economy.