Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Contents
1NC Shell(1/2).........................................................................................................................................................3
1NC Shell(2/2).........................................................................................................................................................4
Fiscal Discipline Uniqueness.................................................................................................................................5
Fiscal Discipline Uniqueness.................................................................................................................................6
Fiscal Discipline Uniqueness.................................................................................................................................7
Link- Emergency Spending...................................................................................................................................8
Obama Fiscal D......................................................................................................................................................9
LINK - EARMARKS...........................................................................................................................................10
LINK - EARMARKS...........................................................................................................................................11
Snowball Link......................................................................................................................................................12
Snowball Link......................................................................................................................................................13
Link-Wind............................................................................................................................................................14
Link- Pork Barrel Spending...............................................................................................................................15
Link – Perception.................................................................................................................................................16
Link – Ag...............................................................................................................................................................17
Link – Hydrogen..................................................................................................................................................18
Link – Taxes..........................................................................................................................................................19
Link-Nuclear........................................................................................................................................................20
Link-Alternative Energy.....................................................................................................................................21
Link- Alternative Energy....................................................................................................................................22
Link-Alternative Energy.....................................................................................................................................23
Link-Alternative Energy.....................................................................................................................................24
Link-Alternative Energy.....................................................................................................................................25
Link – Foreign Aid...............................................................................................................................................26
Link – Military.....................................................................................................................................................27
Link – Military.....................................................................................................................................................28
Link – Military.....................................................................................................................................................29
Link education/health/science............................................................................................................................30
Link – development..............................................................................................................................................31
Link – Interior Policies........................................................................................................................................32
1
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link – Terrorism..................................................................................................................................................33
Link – Farm Bills.................................................................................................................................................34
Link – emergency spending.................................................................................................................................35
Link – elections cause snowball..........................................................................................................................36
Dollar Key to econ................................................................................................................................................37
Fiscal D Key to Econ............................................................................................................................................38
Fiscal D Key to Econ............................................................................................................................................39
Fiscal D Key to Econ............................................................................................................................................40
Fiscal D Key to Econ............................................................................................................................................41
Fiscal D Key to check Russia..............................................................................................................................42
Fiscal D K deficit..................................................................................................................................................43
Fiscal D K Biz Con...............................................................................................................................................44
Fiscal D K Heg......................................................................................................................................................45
Debt -> Recession.................................................................................................................................................46
Debt -> Recession.................................................................................................................................................47
Debt -> military aggression.................................................................................................................................48
US Deficit -> global econ collapse.......................................................................................................................49
2AC (1/2)...............................................................................................................................................................50
2AC (2/2)...............................................................................................................................................................51
FISCAL D Low ...................................................................................................................................................52
FISCAL D Low.....................................................................................................................................................53
FISCAL D Low.....................................................................................................................................................54
FISCAL D Low.....................................................................................................................................................55
NO SPILLOVER – EARMARKS .....................................................................................................................56
No increase in money...........................................................................................................................................57
McCain & Obama Fiscal D low..........................................................................................................................58
Spending -> boost econ........................................................................................................................................59
2
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
1NC Shell(1/2)
A. Uniqueness-- Bush and the Blue Dogs are holding the line on fiscal disc
Housing Wire,7/15/2008, “Bush: Congress Needs to Move on Housing Bill”, http://www.housingwire.com/2008/07/15/bush-
congress-needs-to-move-on-housing-bill/, BB
The largest source of Bush’s veto threat had centered around a proposed provision in the Senate that would add $3.9
billion in Community Development Block Grant funding to allow local governments to purchase foreclosed and
abandoned real estate for use as affordable housing. The House version of the package contains no such provision, and so-
called “Blue Dog” Democrats — a name given to a group of conservative Democrats in the House — have been strongly
opposed to the measure, as well.
3
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
1NC Shell(2/2)
D. Impact- Economic Collapse leads to Nuclear War
Walter Russell Mead, Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, "Depending on the Kindness of
Strangers," New Perspectives Quarterly 9.3 (Summer 1992) pp. 28-30.
There is, or there should be, nothing surprising about the fix we are in. Everyone has known since the ‘70s that the U.S.
could no longer, single-handedly, manage the global economy. But, like Blanche Dubois, America’s leaders preferred to
ignore the unpleasant reality, and made no provisions to meet the coming challenge. There is something breathtakingly
casual in the way the American elite responds to its failures. The savings and loan debacle, the disintegration of our
inner cities, the budget deficit: Our public and private elites don’t care about them. Perhaps because they grew up in the
years when the U.S. faced no real economic challenges and knew no real limits, they don’t understand that failure has a
price. If so this new failure—the failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide
depression—will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions—billions—of people around the world have pinned
their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles—and drawn
closer to the West—because they believe our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy
stagnates—or even shrinks? In that case we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich
against poor. Russia, China, India—these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a
much greater danger to the world order than Germany and Japan did in the ‘30s.
4
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Bush’s 2008 Budget promotes fiscal responsibility while cutting funding from
the war
Riskind, Johnathan (staff writer for the Columbus Dispatch); 2-08; http://web.lexis
nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=8d0ad08ce66e37be0f75322a2721e67b&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkVk&_md5=b2aa89c2ad6ffaa695e99b74bdf9aa92
Voinovich said Bush is being fiscally dishonest in portraying his proposal as starting to erase what will be about a $400 billion federal deficit this year. The deficit is
ballooning from the 2007 mark of $163 billion in large part because of the expected passage of a stimulus package. But Voinovich says Bush's budget fails to include
the true costs of the war in Iraq and wrongly counts revenue from the alternative minimum tax. Congress continues to act to keep that levy -- meant only for the super-
wealthy -- from hitting the middle class.Voinovich failed last year to pass legislation to force Bush to fully account for war spending in the budget. Last month he called
on Bush to account for how he would pay for alternative minimum tax relief and to show how he would save money by curtailing Medicare physician payments. "This
budget only looks fiscally responsible because it ignores hundreds of billions of dollars in costs that the (Bush) administration itself
supports -- such as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, physician payment reform and AMT relief," Voinovich said. Bush saves money on
Medicare and Medicaid by freezing payments to hospitals, physicians and other health-care providers. The reduced growth in
Medicare hospital payments alone would mean about $64 billion less over five years than hospitals anticipate, said Jonathan Archey of
the Ohio Hospital Association. The impact, Archey said, would be "traumatic." Meanwhile, Democrats said Bush's plan will be quickly reshaped by the House
and Senate. They noted that when Bush came into office there was a 10-year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. Rival-party lawmakers criticized the proposal's push to
extend tax cuts that Democrats say are too weighted toward the wealthy, while not including the full costs for the war. Bush's budget calls for spending $70
billion on war efforts when about $200 billion is expected to be needed.
5
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
6
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
7
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
8
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Obama Fiscal D
Obama is going to be fiscally responsible, Cooper proves
John Rodgers, City Paper staff writer, July 18, 2008, “Cooper says Obama best choice to reform America”
(http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=61509)
While both are Democrats and Harvard Law graduates, Jim Cooper and Barack Obama don’t share many similarities.
Cooper is a fiscally conservative congressman representing Nashville and Obama, by Cooper’s own admission, has “sterling
liberal credentials” hailing from Chicago, serving as Illinois senator and heading the Democratic ticket. Stylistically, Obama
packs arenas with his soaring oratory, inspiring millions. Conversely, Cooper employs a quick wit while training his spectacles on line
items in the federal budget in his ongoing quest to trim wasteful spending. Policy-wise, the gulf between the two is almost as wide,
especially on fiscal issues. For example, unlike Obama, Cooper thinks the likely Democratic presidential nominee’s Social Security
plan is “way too specific” and “way too premature,” his trade policies too “protectionist” and Obama’s opposition to expanded
offshore drilling “mistaken.” Yet, for all of their differences, the conservative fiscal hawk Cooper thinks a President Obama is the
only one who could fix Washington and its spendthrift ways. “Opposites attract in politics, like only Nixon could go to China,”
Cooper said this week, recalling the strident anti-communist president’s trip to China. “Well probably only a liberal and an African-
American could reform runaway entitlement program spending. Now there’s no guarantee of that, but I don’t see a Republican doing
it.” Cooper’s fiscal reputation and fervent support for Obama has even spurred some speculation that Cooper would be considered for
a position in an Obama administration, possibly as budget director — something Cooper for now is downplaying. Cooper thinks
Obama is the man to change a Washington and curb the influence of special interests who fervently protect spending
programs benefiting them in the federal budget. The two main entitlement programs Cooper often references — Medicare and
Social Security — need reform, he says, and Obama’s “liberal credentials” are what is needed to get the job done. “I’m pretty darn
conservative,” Cooper said. “But that’s why moderates and conservatives like me can enthusiastically support Barack.”
9
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
LINK - EARMARKS
Earmarks are linked to Pork Barrel Spending
Huffington Post, The internet newspaper, June 18, 2008, “Bipartisanship Thrives -- At Least When it Comes to Earmarks”
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/bipartisanship-thrives_b_107667.html)
Plus, you have to wonder just who Congressman Reyes sees as his "constituency." The U.S. is more than $9 trillion in debt, and
polls show that most Americans don't like earmarking . Americans nationwide are struggling with rising gas and food costs.
Communities across the country are suffering from the mortgage meltdown. Maybe the congressman thinks he should only focus on
Texans, but you really have to ask exactly how many Texans benefit from a nice, new, not-asked-for by the Defense Department
contract for Digital Fusion. Perhaps the best defense of earmarks is that all of them added up together don't make much of a
difference in the country's $3 trillion dollar budget. The best ballpark estimate is that this kind of pork-barrel spending adds
up to about $17 billion in 2008, and many budget hawks think that getting upset about them deflects attention from far more
serious fiscal problems. It is a pretty small piece of the pie, and maybe some of these earmarks do some good. Somewhere.
Unfortunately, every single one of them was paid for with red ink, and the very worst thing about them is the cynicism and pessimism
the practice engenders in the American public. Are elected officials oblivious to that? If they are wondering why public ratings for
Congress are so low, this is a clue. In an era when Congress is too divided to balance the budget , reform the country's broken
immigration system, craft a long-term energy policy, fix our mishmash of a health care system, or protect Social Security, there is still
one area of broad bipartisan agreement -- earmarks will live for yet another day.
10
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
LINK - EARMARKS
11
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Snowball Link
In 1994 -- the last year Democrats controlled the appropriations process -- there were 4,126 earmarks totaling $26.6
billion. That dropped to 3,000 earmarks when the Republicans became the majority. Pledges of fiscal responsibility
became overshadowed by more and more earmarks, until the 2006 budget contained 15,500 earmarks totaling $64
billion.
As Malmstrom's Comptroller, I am required to align recommended spending with "military utility" as I provide
financial advice and decisions on where to use our scarce dollars in an effort to eke out the greatest return in
accomplishing the mission. Military utility means that if an item is capable of fulfilling its purpose for the military
mission, it doesn't need replacing. Instead, there are many other competing expenditures where we can use our
money to further advance our mission effectiveness and efficiency. No longer do we have the luxury of replacing or
upgrading based on color, scratches and faded material. In these times of leaner budgets, health, safety and mission
must drive our decisions.
SNOWBALL DOWNHILL: This "emergency" bill demonstrates how such measures can grow like a snowball rolling downhill
-even in a Republican Congress. After Bush presented his $92.2-billion request, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R.-Tex.), a leading
member of conservative House Republican Study Committee (RSC), prepared an amendment that would have offset all $92.2
billion by cutting unobligated funds from fiscal 2006 appropriations. But the House Rules Committee, chaired by Rep. David
Dreier (R.-Calif.), refused to allow Hensarling to offer that amendment on the floor.Twenty-nine members of the RSC, led by
Rep. Mike Pence (R.-lnd.), then voted on the floor against Dreier's rule. It passed anyway, however, when 22 Democrats
crossed party lines to join with most Republicans to ensure passage of a bill without offsets. The Senate Appropriations
Committee, chaired by Sen. Thad Cochran (R.-Miss.), voted 27 to 1 to add more than $14 billion to the bill, sending the full
Senate a $106.5-billion version. (Sen. Judd Gregg (R.-N.H.) was the only committee member to dissent.) On the Senate floor,
the bill grew by another $3.5 billion, despite efforts by Sen. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.) to force embarrassing rollcall votes on
pork-barrel earmarks.
12
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Snowball Link
Plan Increases funding opening the floodgates to an earmark strategy that
funds everyone.
Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy
Studies at The Heritage Foundation, November 10, 2004 [
“Is Pork Barrel Spending Ready to Explode? The Anatomy of an Earmark”, Heritage Foundation]
The article also noted that “The cost of hiring Alcalde and Fay would be $5,000 per month, with an 18-
month recommended contract.” While the average American family might consider this a steep price, the
prospective arrangement’s payoff reveals what a bargain it is for the county. With their fees totaling $90,000
for a prospective federal grant of $3.5 million, Alcalde and Fay are, for all intents and purposes, selling
federal taxpayer money for just 2.6 cents on the dollar. Anyone who has suspected that Washington
places little value on taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars now has an idea of just how diminished that value is—
somewhat less than the market price for defaulted Argentine debt. How the Culpeper transaction unfolds
bears watching for several reasons. From the perspective of federal fiscal integrity, this new earmark strategy
could open the floodgates to me-too projects across the country that would otherwise be funded with local
resources. Just thirty miles down the road from Culpeper is the town of Fredericksburg, which is now in the
process of committing itself, and its budgetary resources, to a $6 million recreation complex with indoor and
outdoor swimming pools. Now apprised of Culpeper’s prospective earmark, could the elected officials in
Fredericksburg be faulted for ringing up a lobbyist of their own?
And in the not-too-distant future it is quite likely that the federal budget process will no longer take place in
the halls of Congress, as the Constitution requires, but in the dozens of offices of Washington’s top lobbyists
—largely driven by generous contracts between the firms and their clients.
13
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link-Wind
Wind costs at least $15 Billion a year
Smart Money, 7/8, 2008, Igor Greenwald, Staff Writer, “Foreign Oil Cheaper Than Pickens Plan”,
http://www.smartmoney.com/invisiblehand/index.cfm?story=20080708-foreign-oil, BB
He proposes generating wind power to save the natural gas burned in our power plants and redirecting that gas into
compressed vehicle fuel. This looks simple in PowerPoint or Flash. In reality, a wholesale transition is so cumbersome that
$150-a-barrel oil has hardly budged it off the demonstration-project stage. Remote wind farms need expensive
transmission lines linking to cities — which are liable to cost some $200 billion, according to the self-described "Man with
the Plan." Compressed natural gas requires its own fuelling station network, as well as specially fitted and significantly more
expensive vehicles. Neither seems likely to spread without substantial federal tax breaks. The Pickens Plan says nothing of
the subsidy costs, but Dow Jones Newswires estimates $15 billion a year for the wind component of the project alone.
14
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in, and Alison Acosta Fraser is Director of, the Thomas
A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 4/17/2006 [ “The Senate's Deadly Sin: Larding Up
Emergency Appropriations” Heritage Online]
President George W. Bush requested an emergency appropriation of $92 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and
another round of hurricane recovery. The House approved the request, but the Senate Appropriations Committee has loaded
the measure with $14 billion in new spending, most unrelated to national security or hurricane recovery. Still not satisfied,
Senators are now readying floor amendments to add as much as $10 billion more in spending, which would push the price tag
to $24 billion above the President’s request.[1] This new spending is tremendously irresponsible considering the state of the
budget. Congress has already boosted spending by 45 percent since 2001 to a post-war record of $23,760 per household.[2]
On top of that, the Senate started this year by adding $16 billion to the President’s discretionary budget request.[3] This is at a
time where the new Medicare prescription drug benefit is projected to cost over $1 trillion through 2016. Entitlement
programs’ liabilities, public debt, and other liabilities such as veterans’ and federal employee retirement costs already total
$375,000 for every full time worker in America. [4] The Senate’s actions show a clear disregard for this huge fiscal burden
Americans already face. The Senate should reject all additional spending proposals, strip all items not part of the President’s
request, and go one step further by identifying offsets to pay for the bill’s new spending. The President should draw a line in
the sand by promising to veto any supplemental that is either beyond the scope of his request or above its total level of
funding.
15
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link – Perception
Failure to veto the plan will collapse Bush’s perception of fiscal restraint
Christian Science Monitor, Gail Russell Chaddock, staff writer, 10/4/2007, “GOP looks to reclaim fiscal responsibility
mantle”, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1004/p02s01-uspo.html, BB
Washington - With the new fiscal year under way and no spending bills completed, President Bush and Congress are heading
into a fight over fiscal responsibility that is likely to dominate politics on Capitol Hill until the end of the year. President
Bush's veto of a popular bill to provide health insurance for poor children, the S-CHIP program, on Wednesday marked a first
volley. The White House says the proposed bill is $30 billion more than what America can afford. Democrats say that the veto
is a sign that Mr. Bush and Republican lawmakers who refuse to back a veto override have the wrong priorities. "Today the
president showed the nation his true priorities: $700 billion for a war in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids," said
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D) of Illinois, in a statement. But the 12 pending appropriations bills
for fiscal year 2008 – and a new war-funding request expected this fall – will test the credibility of both sides of the aisle.
For Republicans, battered by Bush's low approval ratings, the fall budget battles are a chance to show angry conservatives
that the GOP is getting back to a concern over a restraint in spending. "This marks the president's last chance to
reassert control over the budget process that's been allowed to flail along wildly for six years now," says Pete Sepp, a vice
president at the National Taxpayers Union in Alexandria, Va. "If this is an effort to reestablish credentials [with fiscal
conservatives], there is a lot more reestablishment to do beyond S-CHIP. The sincerity of this effort will be judged by
the number of vetoes."
16
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link – Ag
Agriculture policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven
Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)
As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified by
CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money.
<<Every year appropriators and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) perform their little dance: USDA
requests very little funding for special research grants through the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service (CSREES) and appropriators add millions of dollars for their own pet projects. The fiscal 2005 budget is no different.
This tango with our tax dollars continued as USDA requested only $3 million while appropriators added $121 million for CSREES
projects, or 3,933 percent more than the budget request. As a result, the fiscal 2005 Agriculture Appropriations Act has something old,
something new, something borrowed, and something blue. Total agriculture pork in fiscal 2005 was $526.1 million, or 44 percent
more than the fiscal 2004 total of $365 million. The number of projects decreased by 1 percent, from 512 to 505.>>
17
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link – Hydrogen
Hydrogen is expensive-requires $55 billion in subsidies
Environmental News Service, J.R. Pegg, Staff Writer, 7/18/08, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2008/2008-07-18-10.asp
WASHINGTON, DC, July 18, 2008 (ENS) - It will take massive subsidies from the U.S. government to make hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles a significant part of the nation's transportation future, according to a National Research Council report
released Thursday. The study finds that even under a best-case scenario only about two million hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles will be on American roads by 2020, less than one percent of the nation's estimated total number of cars and
trucks. Achieving that goal would require the government to pump at least $55 billion in subsidies over the next 15
years to make hydrogen vehicles cost competitive with conventional cars and trucks, the report concluded. Current
government spending has equaled some $879 million since 2004.
18
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link – Taxes
Pork Barrel projects are placed in Tax Bills
Hon. Paul Ryan, a representative in congress from the state of Wisconsin, June 8, 2006, HEARING
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION, (Serial No. 109–19)
The amount of pork-barrel spending included in the Federal budget continues to increase every year. According to Citizens
Against Government Waste (CAGW), the Federal Government spent $29 billion on 9,963 pork-barrel projects in Fiscal Year
2006 (FY 2006), an increase of 6.3% from 2005, and an increase of over 900% since 1991. Overall, the Federal Government
has spent $241 billion on pork-barrel projects between 1991 and 2005, an amount greater than two-thirds of our entire deficit
in FY 2005. This includes irresponsible spending on items such as the $50 million Rain Forest Museum in Iowa; $13.5 million to pay
for a program that helped finance the World Toilet Summit; and $1 million for the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative. To make
matters worse, this total does not include earmarks placed in authorization bills or special-interest tax pork placed in tax
legislation. As an example, last year’s highway authorization bill contained approximately 6,371 earmarks, with a total cost of $25
billion. Many of these pork-barrel spending projects are quietly inserted into the conference reports of appropriations,
authorizing, and tax bills at the end of the process where there is little transparency and accountability. Not only do most
Members not have the ability to scrutinize these provisions at all, but even if wasteful spending items are identified at this stage,
Congress is unable to eliminate them using the amendment process. In fact, the only time that Members actually vote on these items is
during an up-or-down vote on the entire conference report, which includes spending for many essential government programs in
addition to the pork-barrel earmarks. In this situation, it is very difficult for any Member to vote against a bill that, as an overall
package may be quite meritorious, despite the inclusion of wasteful spending items. Unfortunately, the current tools at the President’s
disposal do not enable him to easily combat these wasteful spending items either. Even if the President identifies numerous pork-barrel
projects in an appropriations or authorizing bill, he is unlikely to use his veto power because it must be applied to the bill as a whole
and cannot be used to target individual items. This places the President in the same dilemma as Members of Congress. Does he veto an
entire spending bill because of a few items of pork when this action may jeopardize funding for our troops, for our homeland security
or for the education of our children? The President’s ability to propose the rescission of wasteful spending items under the
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 has been equally ineffective at eliminating wasteful spending items. The problem with the current
authority is that it does not include any mechanism to guarantee congressional consideration of a rescission request, and many
Presidential rescissions are simply ignored by the Congress. In fact, during the 1980’s, Congress routinely ignored President Reagan’s
rescission requests, failing to act on over $25 billion in requests that were made by the Administration. The historic ineffectiveness of
this tool has deterred Presidents from using it with any regularity
19
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link-Nuclear
Nuclear power is expensive
Wall Street Journal, Rebecca Smith, Staff Writer, 5/12/08, “New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs”,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055252677483933.html?mod=googlenews_wsj, BB
A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some
sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Nuclear power is regaining
favor as an alternative to other sources of power generation, such as coal-fired plants, which have fallen out of favor because
they are major polluters. But the high cost could lead to sharply higher electricity bills for consumers and inevitably
reignite debate about the nuclear industry's suitability to meet growing energy needs.
20
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link-Alternative Energy
Spending on Alternative Energy Incentives will be perceived as wasteful
Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor, Editor of Regulation Magazine, Senior Fellow @ CATO Institute, 2/3/2006, “Stuck on
Empty”, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5438)
President Bush began his energy riff by noting that since 2001, the federal government has spent nearly $10 billion on
"cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources." Perhaps, but what do we have to show for it? Nothing. The
market share for non-hydro renewable energy (presumably what the president is referring to when he talks about "reliable
alternative energy sources") has languished between 1 and 3 percent for decades, depending upon how you define your
terms. Still, past spending was offered as a rationale for a 22-percent increase in funding for "zero-emission" coal-fired
plants, solar and wind technologies, and nuclear energy. Fuel from corn, weeds, grass, mulch, trees, and whatever else the
combines can harvest were also given a tip of the president’s budgetary hat. For the most part, everybody who’s already
getting a federal energy handout will get a little larger sack of taxpayer loot if the president has his way.
21
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
22
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link-Alternative Energy
Alternative Energy Incentives cost $3-4 Billion a year
Michael Vickerman, director of RENEW Wisconsin, a nonprofit organization headquartered in Madison that promotes clean energy
strategies for powering the state's economy in an environmentally responsible manner, 7/16/2008, “Michael Vickerman: It's crucial
for Congress to extend renewable energy incentives”, The Capital Times, http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/296318, BB
Extending the renewable energy tax credits would cost U.S. taxpayers somewhere between $3 billion and $4 billion a
year, most of it going to wind generation. Some members of Congress consider that an unacceptably large expense. But
these are not permanent incentives. In the case of wind power installations, which have a book life between 20 and 30 years,
federal tax credits cover no more than 10 years of operation.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency (EPA) is legendary for tangling up businesses in red tape. Yet when it comes to
passing out millions in taxpayer money, it exhibits a casual, devil may-care attitude. In 1999 the agency passed out $1.3 billion of
its $7.5 billion budget in grants and contracts, often in complete disregard of the federal government's competitive bidding process. A
May 2001 report from the EPA'S Office of the Inspector General (QIG) discovered that the "EPA often awards non-competitive
assistance agreements to recipients based on the unsupported belief that those recipients were the only entities capable of
performing the work." That's bureaucratese for, "It gave the money to friends." To justify the awards, the envirocrats retreat to
the boilerplate retort that recipients were "uniquely qualified." In March 2002 the QIG returned to find that sweetheart deals accounted
for "1 out of every 5 dollars of the $1 billion" the EPA awarded in 1999 and 2000. Suspicious that the agency was using taxpayer
money to fund groups that were "uniquely qualified" to lobby for more money for the EPA, the Landmark Legal Foundation
took the agency to court in September 2000 to force it to disclose grant recipients. Some highlights of the $2 billion awarded
noncompetitively since 1993 included $47,000 to help the Seattle Mariners start a recycling program at their new $500 million
ballpark, $1,500 for academics to design a solid waste board game called the "Can Man Game," and $379 million to senior citizen
groups to recruit and pay senior citizens to work for the EPA. The agency even funds its ostensible enemies, providing $2 million in
grants to the National Association of Homebuilders and $4.9 million to the Natural Resources Defense Council, both of which have
sued the agency in the past.
23
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link-Alternative Energy
As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461
per capita ($257 million) and Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its
privileges: your money. <<The fiscal 2005 Energy and Water Appropriations Act overflowed with pork projects. Appropriators
funded nearly every creek, bay, and inlet from the coast of California to the shores of Florida. This year, the number of
projects swelled to 1,417, an increase of 130 percent from 617 in fiscal 2004. The total cost rose by 163 percent, from $714
million last year to $1.88 billion this year.>><<$51,132,000 for projects in the state of Senate Appropriations subcommittee member
Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and the district of House appropriator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), including: $36,693,000 for Yazoo River and
Basin projects; $3,750,000 for the Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure Program; $3,000,000 for the Mississippi Technology
Alliance Alternative Energy Enterprises Program; $1,500,000 for the Mississippi State University Biodiesel from Feedstock
Project; $1,060,000 for Pascagoula Harbor ($550,000 for operation and maintenance, and $510,000 for construction); and $100,000
for Okatibbee Lake. $43,813,000 for projects in the state of Senate appropriator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and the district of House
appropriator David Vitter (R-La.), including: $11,450,000 for the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway ($9,000,000 for construction and
$2,450,000 for operation and maintenance. A January 9, 2000 Washington Post article stated that the waterway "still carries less than
0.1 percent of the commercial traffic on America's government-run river transport system — even though it receives a remarkable 3.4
percent of the system's federal funds." In 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said the $2 billion worth of construction costs
won’t be justified until 2046); $2,000,000 for a sugar-based ethanol biorefinery at Louisiana State University; and $500,000 for
Livingston Parish alternative fuel plant construction.>>
24
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link-Alternative Energy
25
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money. <<As
the world continues to cope with the devastation caused by the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, Americans and their government
are generously providing hundreds of millions of dollars in relief. The dark side of foreign aid is the tidal wave of pork projects
that has been added to appropriations bills, money that could have been used to save lives instead of protecting the
incumbency of members of Congress. The number of projects decreased by 10 percent, from 20 in fiscal 2004 to 18 in fiscal
2005. But the cost of the pork increased by 5.4 percent, from $449.8 million to $473.9 million.>>
26
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link – Military
Military policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven
Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)
As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money.
<<Defending the United States is the top priority of the federal government. With a deficit of $427 billion and the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan costing more than $200 billion to date, congressional appropriators should be extremely careful with every
defense dollar. Unfortunately, appropriators have ignored the national interest and used the Defense Appropriations Act as
their own personal pork barrel. In fact, the number of projects jumped 25 percent from 2,077 in fiscal 2004 to 2,606 in fiscal
2005 while the total cost jumped 10.5 percent from $11.5 billion to $12.7 billion.>>
27
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link – Military
As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money.
<<$104,000,000 added for the Port Security Grant Program. The grants are provided "for projects to improve dockside and
perimeter security that is vital to securing our critical national seaports. These awards will contribute to important security
upgrades such as surveillance equipment, access controls to restricted areas, communications equipment, and the construction of new
command and control facilities." The department requested $46,000,000 for the program, but both the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees added funds. Despite appropriating more money, the House Appropriations Committee was "concerned
that port security grants made to independent terminal operators are not coordinated at the State, local port authority, or Captain of the
Port levels. Therefore, the Committee directs that…the coordination of all port security grants with the State, local port authority, and
the Captain of the Port, to ensure all vested parties are aware and that the limited resources are maximized." On September 13, 2004,
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the recipients of the fourth round of port security grants. Premier
Yachts, Inc., a private for-profit company with revenues of $40 million in 2003, was awarded three port security grants totaling
$208,100. Premier offers "fine dining and entertainment cruises" through its Odyssey, Mystic Blue, and Seadog Cruises in
Boston, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. Nothing like wining and dining at the taxpayers’ expense.>>
28
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link – Military
Military Construction policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven
Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)
As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your
money.<<Appropriators paid a little more attention to the Pentagon’s priorities than their parochial pork in the fiscal 2005
Military Construction Appropriations Act, but taxpayers still paid for too many wasteful projects. Total earmarks decreased
by 28 percent, from 199 to 143, and the total amount of pork decreased by 5 percent, from $1 billion in fiscal 2004 to $974
million in fiscal 2005.>>
29
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link education/health/science
As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money. Rep.
Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) got it right in a November 20, 2004 press release: "[E]very year, it’s the same thing — Congress passes
spending bills loaded with pork projects." The fiscal 2005 Labor/HHS Appropriations Act is the poster child for the appropriators’
excess. Of the 3,071 projects, 98 percent were added in conference; the total is a 57.4 percent increase over the 1,951 projects in fiscal
2004. The projects cost $1.69 billion, an increase of 79.6 percent over fiscal 2004’s $943 million<<$48,854,000 added in conference
in the state of Senate Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Tom Harkin (Diowa) and the district of House
appropriator Tom Latham (Riowa), including: $15,000,000 for the Iowa Department of Education to continue the Harkin Grant
Program (according to a September 4, 2004 press release, "Since 1998, Iowa schools have received a total of $101 million in
Harkin Grants, the only federal program of its kind"); $3,000,000 for the Iowa Department of Public Health to initiate the Harkin
Wellness Grant Program; $1,000,000 for the State Historical Society of Iowa in Des Moines, for the development of exhibits for the
World Food Prize; $235,000 for the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls to support youth fitness and obesity efforts for rural
preschool children; $200,000 for the Iowa Games to continue the Lighten Up Iowa Program (the games are held by the Iowa Sports
Foundation [ISF], which claims on its website that "the ISF receives no state or government financial support."); and $100,000 for
National History Day for a history competition in Iowa.<<$17,140,000 added in conference for projects in the district of House
Labor/HHS Appropriations subcommittee member Anne Northup (R-Ky.), including: $14,500,000 for the University of Louisville
($10,250,000 for the Baxter III Research Building;>> $1,500,000 for Eckerd College in St. Petersburg in the district of House
Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young (R-Fla.): $1,000,000 to upgrade educational computing and technology and
$500,000 for leadership training programs. The programs are part of the college’s Leadership Development Institute and its
network associate, the Center for Creative Leadership. The institute has a long list of corporate participants (including JP Morgan,
Citibank, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Pentagon, and Tropicana), and the center "has delivered internationally acclaimed
programs to thousands of local, national, and international clients."<<$450,000 added in conference for the National Baseball Hall of
Fame and Museum in Cooperstown for educational outreach using baseball to teach students through distance learning technology in
the district of Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.). Its website states that "baseball has connections to a variety of academic disciplines,
including mathematics, history, geography, technology, sociology, cultural diversity, character education, economics, women's
history." The hall of fame has received $1,569,000 since fiscal 2001 for educational outreach programs. The Baseball Hall of
Fame; a commission to examine steroid use among professional baseball players — looks like Congress put fiscal conservatism
on the bench and is throwing the taxpayers a bunch of junk.>>
30
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link – development
Development policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven
Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)
As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money<<The
amount of money appropriators can waste through the VA/HUD Appropriations Act is as vast as their imaginations. Even
though the Department of Housing and Urban Development did not request any funding for specific projects in the Economic
Development Initiative Program, appropriators added 1,039 projects totaling $264 million. The pork list includes a swank
hotel in Coral Gables, Fla. and the Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville, Tenn. After the bill had been greased, the total
number of projects increased by 16 percent over fiscal 2004, from 1,774 to 2,113. Total pork decreased by 11.9 percent, from $1.1
billion to $1 billion.>>
31
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money.<<
Following the trend of ever-growing appropriations bills, the fiscal 2005 Interior Appropriations Act was bursting with pork,
totaling $680 million, a 52 percent increase over last year’s $446 million. Total projects increased by 17.5 percent, from 473 in
fiscal 2004 to 556 in fiscal 2005.>>
32
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Link – Terrorism
Terrorism policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven
Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)
As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money.<<The
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State execute key objectives in the war on terror — they hold together diplomatic
coalitions, monitor intelligence for future threats, guard borders, and bring terrorists to justice. But this appropriation also
funds agencies such as the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Such widespread options are
always tempting to appropriators. Even though the total number of projects increased by 30 percent, from 896 in fiscal 2004 to
1,168 in fiscal 2005, the amount of pork decreased by 3 percent, from $1.38 billion to $1.34 billion.>>
33
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
34
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Prior to leaving for its August 1999 recess, the Senate approved a $7.6 billion "emergency" agricultural spending package that
will consume about half of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected on-budget surplus for fiscal year (FY) 1999.
Although emergency appropriations do not count against budget caps, increased spending, regardless of how its classified,
eliminates the possibility of Congress keeping its other commitments, like protecting Social Security and passing tax cuts.
During the floor debate, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, noted that
federal assistance payments for crop year 1999 will total $16.6 billion, excluding the "emergency" spending package. According to the
1997 Census of Agriculture, there are 1,911,824 farms, of which 685,029 receive federal monies, yielding an average subsidy of
$24,233 per farm. Nevertheless, the Senate voted to increase the agricultural assistance payments for this crop year by almost $8
billion, which will increase total payments to $24.2 billion, or $35,327 per farm. The Senate's generous allocation of taxpayer funds
was prompted by concern that the East Coast drought and falling commodity prices would lead to unacceptably low net farm incomes.
Confirmation came from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which reported that unless emergency measures were
enacted, net farm income in 1999 would be $300 million lower than in 1998. If correct, it would mean that over half a million farms
subsidized by the federal government might earn an average of $438 less in 1999 than they had in 1998. Apparently, this "emergency"
justifies rescinding recent commitments to dedicate the first federal surplus in 30 years to saving Social Security, reducing taxes, and
paying down the national debt. Conclusion. The level of "emergency" spending approved by the Senate makes a mockery of its
recent passage of tax cuts for working Americans and threatens to do the same to congressional commitments to protect 100
percent of the surplus for Social Security. Although the CBO projected a $14 billion on-budget surplus available for allocation for
FY 2000, many Members of Congress have already indicated that all or most of an on-budget surplus will be used to fund the 13
regular appropriations bills. Consequently, any "emergency" spending will exhaust the on-budget surplus and eat into the Social
Security surplus. Americans are a generous people willing to assist their neighbors when necessary. Nonetheless, Congress should
not abuse taxpayers' generosity by extending "emergency" assistance to those who do not need it. Farm households with an
unsubsidized net taxable income of more that $50,000 per year do not need tax subsidies. Likewise, Americans who derive less than
25 percent of their household income from agriculture do not need federal subsidies to sustain their hobbies. Congress should restrict
emergency agricultural assistance to only those farmers who demonstrate a loss of income that threatens the survival of their family or
business. Middle-income taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize someone else's "lifestyle" choices or six-figure incomes.
35
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
36
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
37
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
38
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
39
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
40
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Robert Rubin, former secretary of the Treasury, also stresses the psychological importance for financial markets of expectations
concerning the American budget position. If that deficit is viewed as likely to rise substantially, without any correction in sight,
confidence in America's financial instruments and currency could crack. The dollar could fall sharply as it did in 1971-73, 1978-79,
1985-87 and 1994-95. Market interest rates would rise substantially and the Federal Reserve would probably have to push them still higher to limit the
acceleration of inflation. These risks could be intensified by the change in leadership that will presumably take place at the Federal Reserve Board
in less than two years, inevitably creating new uncertainties after 25 years of superb stewardship by Mr Volcker and Alan Greenspan. A very hard landing is not
inevitable but neither is it unlikely.
41
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
42
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Fiscal D K deficit
A loss of fiscal discipline balloons the deficit
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, June 8, 2008, “How to impose fiscal discipline”, The Washington
Times, lexis, BB
Fiscal responsibility is about more than balancing the nation's checkbook; it is about keeping our promises to our seniors and
our young people and promoting job creation and prosperity. Without fiscal discipline, America will pass on a legacy of
debt, fail to meet the demands the baby-boom generation will place on Social Security and Medicare, and undermine access to
capital, the lifeblood of new and growing businesses. In 2007, the new Democratic Congress began to restore our nation's
fiscal health while inheriting a fiscal challenge of historic proportions. President Bush and the Republican Congress turned
a $5.6 trillion, 10-year surplus inherited from the Clinton administration into a $3 trillion deficit. Thanks largely to the
cost of the war in Iraq and the Republican penchant for tax cuts for the wealthy, the deficit ballooned to $248 billion in
2006.
43
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
44
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Fiscal D K Heg
45
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
Although the ramifications of persistent and growing federal deficits are not often well-understood by the public, they will
become increasingly relevant in the future. Eventually, all those debts will have to be paid off, in the form of higher taxes or
spending cuts (unless, of course, the United States inflates its way out of debt or defaults—both unnerving, if far-fetched,
possibilities). The country may also face higher borrowing costs in the future, in the form of hikes in interest rates, which could
hamper the American economy and even induce a recession. If that's not bad enough, in just a few years, budget deficits will
grow even bigger as the government faces increasing costs associated with the retirement of the baby boomer generation. By
not preparing for this inevitability, the federal government is essentially doing what an individual in debt might do—that is, paying off
current obligations by taking out additional loans—but instead of mortgaging a house, the government is borrowing from future
economic growth. "By borrowing from abroad to finance U.S. investment, we our shortchanging our future standard of living," says
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "From a generational perspective, throwing a fiscal
party and passing along the bill is extremely unfair."
46
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
47
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
48
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
49
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
2AC (1/2)
1. Congress is overriding defenders of fiscal discipline
Belville News-Democrat, James Rosen, staff writer for McClatchy Newspapers 7/19/2008,“Senator who opposed expanding
global AIDS program vows to keep up pressure”,
Before voting 80-16 to pass the AIDS bill, the Senate defeated DeMint's amendments to cut its cost to $35 billion over
five years and to prohibit funds from being used for alleged "coercive abortion and forced sterilization" in China or
other countries.
50
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
2AC (2/2)
7. Earmarks Happening now, there’s bipartisan love for it.
Huffington Post, The internet newspaper, June 18, 2008, “Bipartisanship Thrives -- At Least When it Comes to Earmarks”
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/bipartisanship-thrives_b_107667.html)
Earmarks -- the Rasputin of Congressional budget politics - are back on the scene. If you don't remember your late tsarist
Russian history, Rasputin was the "mad monk" with scary eyes, decadent tastes and way too much influence over Tsarina
Alexandra. Eventually he was poisoned, shot, beaten, and finally drowned by a group of dissident Russian nobles. He drank
enough poison to kill multiple humans and had three bullets in his back, but he still led his killers on a chase through St.
Petersburg before they finally caught up with him, clubbed him and threw him in the Neva River. There were even rumors that
he sat up during his cremation. The Congressional earmark industry is proving equally hardy despite repeated attempts
to kill or at least weaken it, according to the Washington Post. The current House defense authorization bill contains
almost $10 billion dollars of earmarks according to figures compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. The Senate bill
hasn't been approved yet, but Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) Carl Levin
(D-MI), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Mel Martinez (R-FL) are among those
listed as requesting earmarks. Okay, so we have members from the House and the Senate, from the liberal northeast
and the conservative south, men and the women, Democrats, Republicans, an Independent, and what can they finally
agree on - the ritual of slipping those tasty little earmarks into the defense budget. And they've agreed to do this when
the country is at war and faces a budget deficit approaching half a trillion dollars for this fiscal year.
51
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
FISCAL D Low
52
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
FISCAL D Low
Congress has spent billions on Veteran Entitlement, Emergency Relief, and
Unemployment
Gail Russell Chaddock, Staff Writer of the Christian Science Monitor, 6/30/08, “Congress's spending goes unchecked, with more
likely”, Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0630/p25s01-uspo.html , BB
Washington - Before leaving town last week, Congress wrapped up a $162 billion war-funding bill and expanded
America's entitlement system by giving veterans the biggest boost in college benefits since the World War II GI bill.
Lawmakers also added a 13-week extension to unemployment benefits and approved $2.7 billion in emergency relief for
the storm-lashed Midwest. Despite commitments to fiscal discipline on both sides of the aisle, none of it is paid for – at
least not by today's taxpayers. "There is absolutely no appetite to make hard choices," says Robert Bixby, executive
director of the Concord Coalition, citing the war-funding bill. "There's never been any attempt to pay for the war, and now
that's being used to expand a major entitlement program for veterans, which might be a good idea, but we ought to pay
for it."
53
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
FISCAL D Low
Bush is irresponsible, low fiscal discipline and is corrupt. Pork barrels
everything?
Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative figure head and writer in American politics. He is the current chairman of conservativehq.com,
August 9, 2006, “Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative
Cause- pages 6,7)
54
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
FISCAL D Low
CARD CONTINUED FROM
Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative figure head and writer in American politics. He is the current chairman of conservativehq.com,
August 9, 2006, “Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative
Cause- pages 6,7)
55
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
NO SPILLOVER – EARMARKS
Earmarks -- the Rasputin of Congressional budget politics - are back on the scene. If you don't remember your late tsarist Russian
history, Rasputin was the "mad monk" with scary eyes, decadent tastes and way too much influence over Tsarina Alexandra.
Eventually he was poisoned, shot, beaten, and finally drowned by a group of dissident Russian nobles. He drank enough poison to kill
multiple humans and had three bullets in his back, but he still led his killers on a chase through St. Petersburg before they finally
caught up with him, clubbed him and threw him in the Neva River. There were even rumors that he sat up during his cremation. The
Congressional earmark industry is proving equally hardy despite repeated attempts to kill or at least weaken it, according to
the Washington Post. The current House defense authorization bill contains almost $10 billion dollars of earmarks according
to figures compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. The Senate bill hasn't been approved yet, but Senators Saxby Chambliss
(R-GA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor
(D-AR), and Mel Martinez (R-FL) are among those listed as requesting earmarks. Okay, so we have members from the House
and the Senate, from the liberal northeast and the conservative south, men and the women, Democrats, Republicans, an
Independent, and what can they finally agree on - the ritual of slipping those tasty little earmarks into the defense budget. And
they've agreed to do this when the country is at war and faces a budget deficit approaching half a trillion dollars for this fiscal
year.
56
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
No increase in money
Alternative Energy can funded without an increase
States New Service 6/23/2008, “KIRK/BIGGERT: U.S. "MOON SHOT" PROGRAM TO GET OFF FOREIGN OIL "APOLLO
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ACT" ON SCALE OF NASA'S MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM TO LOWER GAS PRICES,
BOOST ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES AND IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY”, lexis
With Chicagoland leading the nation in gas prices, U.S. Representatives Mark Kirk and Judy Biggert joined with
environmental, business and research leaders today to announce new legislation dramatically boosting the federal
government's commitment to energy independence. With the backdrop of Chicago's premier space museum, the Adler
Planetarium, the legislation is modeled on NASA's $20 billion effort to land an American on the moon. The "Apollo Energy
Independence Act" establishes long-term market incentives to spur breakthroughs for the development and deployment
of alternative energies, vehicles and fuel. Increases in support for alternative energy are offset by spending reductions in
earmark and subsidy programs to ensure the bill does not require additional borrowing or taxes.
57
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
The problem is simple and depressingly familiar. This year, federal spending will exceed federal revenue by more than
$400 billion. Given the weak state of the economy, the deficit will get worse before it gets better. Actually, it may never
get better, because the current shortfall coincides with the start of the most dreaded fiscal event of all time: the
retirement of the Baby Boomers, who will soon consume eye-popping amounts in Social Security and Medicare. The
latest proof came when McCain unveiled his economic plan, in which he vows to eliminate the deficit in four years. His
plan to balance the budget is simple: He plans to balance the budget. Exactly which programs he will trim to reach that
goal are anyone's guess. For someone with a reputation as a fearless foe of congressional earmarks and pork-barrel waste,
McCain is amazingly timid in taking on the rest of the budget. About his only specific proposal is a one-year freeze in those
discretionary programs that don't involve defense or veterans. McCain doesn't say how much that would save, but it
wouldn't be a lot. Those expenditures amount to only 17 percent of all federal outlays. Eighty-three percent of the
budget would keep on growing. After a year, so would the other 17 percent. He vows to follow up with "comprehensive
spending controls." But promising to control spending in general means promising to control nothing in particular.
Just because voters will go along with a vague limit on total outlays doesn't mean they are willing to surrender funds
going to them or their favorite causes. It's one thing to inform a toddler that he shouldn't eat too much candy. It's
another to take the Tootsie Roll Pop out of his hand. The Republican standard-bearer, however, acts as though the task will
be easy. Among the methods offered in this plan: "Eliminate broken programs. The federal government itself admits that one in
five programs do not perform." How about naming one? How about promising to pound a stake through its heart? When it
comes to spending, though, Obama is even worse. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation added up all the promises
made by the two candidates and found that McCain's would cost taxpayers an extra $68 billion a year. Obama's add up
to $344 billion a year. The Illinois senator's pledge to get tough on unnecessary expenditures is as solid as cotton candy.
Among his vows is to "slash earmarks to no greater than what they were in 2001," but earmarks make up less than 2
percent of the budget. Trying to restore fiscal discipline by cutting earmarks is like trying to lose weight by adopting an
exercise program for your left index finger. Obama claims he'll pay for all his new spending with new revenues and
spending cuts. But like McCain, he has been hazy on the details. And it will be far easier for him to get Congress to approve
new spending than to enact the measures needed to pay for it. Unless Obama is willing to take on his own party with the veto
pen, we should expect four more years of irresponsible budgeting. His only defense is that he would not have to make up
as much lost revenue as his rival. The Tax Policy Center says his tax plan would cut federal receipts by $2.7 trillion over the
next decade, compared with $3.6 trillion for McCain. The details differ, but the basic picture is the same regardless of who
wins: Washington will spend more, red ink will roll down like a mighty river, and we as a nation will continue to dodge the
critical choices we face.
58
Fiscal Discipline
DDI 2008 SS
Fadi
59