Niles Round 2---Neg vs.

GBN CM---Wiki Doc

1NC
OFF
 OFF
Interp - Fiscal redistribution requires BOTH taxing and spending
Hicks 86, Researcher, Northwestern University (Alexander Hicks, 1986, “CLASS INFLUENCE ON
REDISTRIBUTIVE POLICY: THE CASE OF U.S. STATE GOVERNMENTS, 1951-1961,” Journal of Political and
Military Sociology, Vol. 14)//BB

The present redistributive policy focus is on a particular type of government redistribution that may be
called direct fiscal redistribution to the poor (hereafter DFRP). Fiscal redistribution refers here to
redistribution of money and in-kind income among strata of households by means of both
government spending and taxing (i.e., fiscal ) activities. For example, increased generosity in public
assistance payment levels and reliance upon progressive income as opposed to regressive sales taxes
can provide positive fiscal redistribution . Direct fiscal redistribution refers to that part of such
redistribution that can be accounted for in terms of government's relatively direct and immediate give-
and-take of expenditures and taxes to and from income strata of households. Current evidence
suggests that such redistribution is considerable in advanced capitalist political democracies, especially
vis-à-vis the poor (e.g., Reynolds and Smolensky, 1977; Hicks and Swank, 1984b). During the 1970s DFRP
apparently augmented the "pre-fisc" income share of poor households in the U.S. by over 100 percent
(see Reynolds and Smolensky, 1977: 74 on the U.S.; and Hicks and Swank, 1984b on advanced
capitalism).
OFF (for the mems)
 OFF
The fifty states and all relevant sub-national actors should:
- Implement a job guarantee,
- increase the progressivity of their respective income taxes,
- establish a multistate rainy-day fund,
- implement a payroll tax,
- implement a Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income regime,
- institute tax reforms to curb evasion,
- implement a value added tax, and
- implement an exit tax
- and use the above funds to fund the job guarantee.
RDF solves.
John R. Brooks II 14, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Fiscal Federalism
as Risk-Sharing: The Insurance Role of Redistributive Taxation, 68 Tax L. Rev. 89 //pipk

Therefore, it may be appropriate, or at least predictable, for a state to perform some of the
redistributive function of taxation, but costly for it to perform the insurance function. Given that states
use, and likely always will use, redistributive programs such as a progressive income tax, we should ask
whether there are ways to limit those insurance costs and thereby mitigate some of the painful revenue
volatility faced by states, due in part to their use of income taxes.

Because the costs of limited state-level progressive income taxation are related to insurance , rather
than redistribution, there is an obvious way to mitigate those costs, at least theoretically: reinsurance. If
it is possible to reinsure the state-level risks of a progressive income tax at the national level, then it
would be possible in theory to have our cake and eat (at least some of it) too. We could have some
state-level redistribution while still having largely national-level income insurance.

In particular, the most direct theoretical solution would be an actual pooled reinsurance fund, also
known as a multistate rainy-day fund (RDF). 14 A multistate RDF could pool the risks of state revenue
volatility and provide some of the national risk-pooling benefits of a federal income tax. Many states
already have their own independent [*93] RDFs, 15 which are essentially a form of self-insurance. The
multistate RDF would improve on these, much as pooled health or casualty insurance for individuals
is superior to self-insurance.

There has been relatively little work addressing the theory and design of a multistate RDF. What little
work there is tends to be limited to basic policy proposals cast as second-best options for managing
state fiscal volatility; 16 here, by contrast, I argue that, properly conceived, a multistate RDF would
actually be part of an appropriate risk-management system for the combined federal/state tax-and-
transfer system.
The legal literature tends to be dismissive of a multistate approach, mostly due to the classic insurance
problems of adverse selection 17 and moral hazard. 18 This Article suggests some design features to
mitigate those problems. In particular, a key insight of this Article is that some moral hazard, in the form
of increasing state reliance on income taxes, is a less of a threat when a purpose of the RDF is precisely
to help support state-level redistribution. In the social insurance context, some moral hazard can be
"good," in the sense that the behavior being motivated, while costly, is ultimately desirable. 19 Just as
health insurance coverage leads to more health care, 20 state revenue insurance could lead to more
redistribution. Therefore, moral hazard becomes less of a bug and more of a feature (though one that
still requires close management).

Payroll tax shaves $2.3 trillion off the budget.

CBO 22, 12-2022; Congressional Budget Office; "Impose a New Payroll Tax", Congressional Budget
Office, https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/58636, Accessed 6-27-2023 AQ

Payroll taxes are levied on the earnings, primarily wages and salaries, of people who work for an employer and
on the net earnings of people who are self-employed. Unlike the individual income tax, payroll taxes are not
applied to other sources of income, such as interest, dividends, or capital gains. The individual income tax
also includes many deductions, exemptions, and credits; by contrast, payroll taxes are generally more
straightforward and have few, if any, adjustments. A payroll tax can be paid by an employer or an employee, or by both.
Typically, payroll taxes are set at a single uniform rate.

In the United States, payroll taxes are used to finance social insurance programs and are the second-
largest source of federal revenues after the individual income tax. The two largest sources of payroll tax revenues are
Social Security payroll taxes and Medicare payroll taxes. Social Security payroll taxes are the primary source of financing for Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance. Only earnings up to a statutory maximum are subject to Social Security taxes. (That maximum
amount is $147,000 in calendar year 2022.) The Social Security tax rate is 12.4 percent of earnings: Employees have 6.2 percent of earnings
deducted from their paychecks, and the remaining 6.2 percent is paid by their employers. Self-employed individuals generally pay 12.4 percent
of their net self-employment income. The primary source of financing for Hospital Insurance (HI) benefits provided under Medicare Part A is HI
payroll taxes. The basic Medicare payroll tax rate is 2.9 percent of earnings. For employees, 1.45 percent is deducted from their paychecks and
1.45 percent is paid by their employers. Self-employed individuals generally pay 2.9 percent of their net self-employment income. Unlike
payroll taxes for Social Security, the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax is levied on all earnings, and no taxable maximum applies.

Option

This option consists of two alternatives. The first alternative would impose a new payroll tax of 1 percent on earnings. The second alternative
would impose a new payroll tax of 2 percent on earnings. For both alternatives, the income subject to the tax would match
that of the Medicare payroll tax, so there would be no taxable maximum. The new tax would be paid entirely by
employees. Self-employed individuals would face the same tax rates as those who work for an employer .

This option
would not make any changes to existing payroll taxes. Further, unlike existing payroll taxes, the taxes
described in the option would not be tied to the financing of a specific social insurance program.
Effects on the Budget

If implemented, the first alternative—imposing a new payroll tax of 1 percent—would reduce the deficit by $1.1 trillion from 2023
through 2032, according to estimates by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). JCT estimates that the second alternative—
imposing a new payroll tax of 2 percent—would reduce the deficit by $2.3 trillion over the same period,
roughly double the effect of the first alternative.

The higher payroll tax would create an incentive for employers and employees to seek to change the composition of compensation, shifting
from taxable compensation, such as wages and salary, to forms of nontaxable compensation, such as employment-based health insurance. The
estimates account for that behavioral response.
Taxing GILTI generates billions---state uniformity prevents evasion
Shanske 21 [Darien Shanske; Ph.D. from UC Berkeley in Rhetoric, clerk for Judge Pierre N. Leval of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; 2021; “HOW THE STATES CAN TAX SHIFTED
CORPORATE PROFITS: AN APPLICATION OF STRATEGIC CONFORMITY”;
https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Shanske.pdf]

Improving the taxation of the profits of multinational corporations—the topic of this Article—
represents a reform that would be efficient, progressive and relatively straightforward to administer.
Not only would such a reform thus represent good tax policy, but it would also raise significant
revenue. And, if substantial revenue, efficiency, progressivity and administrability are not sufficiently
motivating, then I will also add that it would be particularly appropriate to make these changes during
the pandemic so as to raise revenue from those best able to pay during the current crisis. To be sure, the
argument that states can and should tax multinational corporations (“MNCs”) more has the whiff of
paradox. After all, there is general consensus that no nation-state is currently taxing MNCs very
effectively and, further, that subnational governments are in an even worse position to do so. This is
because MNCs can exploit the mobility of capital even more easily between parts of the same country.
Nevertheless, I will argue that the American states find themselves in a particularly strong position to
do better at taxing MNCs and this is in part precisely because of the missteps made at the federal level.
I will briefly explain. The federal tax law passed in December 2017, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
(“TCJA”), includes a number of new antiabuse rules meant to combat income stripping. Income stripping
occurs when a profitable corporation engages in tax planning techniques (more on these shortly) so that
profits that are taxed in a relatively high-tax jurisdiction, like the United States, are formally earned in a
low or no-tax jurisdiction. One important new antiabuse rule is called the Global Intangible Low-Taxed
Income (or “GILTI”) regime. The essence of how the GILTI rules work is by identifying foreign assets that
are unusually profitable by means of a formula and then subjecting those excess profits to U.S. tax on
the theory that they were not really earned abroad, but shifted out of the United States. The size of the
income shifting problem is in dispute, but there is broad consensus that it is a large problem and one
that is not going to be much improved by the new federal laws meant to combat it.5 Current respected
estimates of the amount of income shifted out of the United States to low tax jurisdictions are about
$300 billion per year, with the federal government projected to lose about $100 billion per year.6 The
Penn Wharton Budget Model has found that the amount of income available to be taxed by the states
if they tax GILTI to be in the same range (about $200 billion in 2020). Based on that $200 billion
estimate, states could raise $15 billion in new revenue if they applied a 7% rate (about the current
average).7 This would represent about a 30% increase in state corporate revenue.8 That is a lot of
money. It is also important to keep in mind that states could borrow against a new revenue stream like
GILTI in order to help pay for the immediate crisis. For the over forty states with a corporate income tax,
the real question is why would they not raise this revenue from mobile capital and protect their tax
base. Of course, representatives of MNCs have argued over and over that they should not and indeed
that states cannot conform to GILTI.10 To date, these representatives have been successful in
convincing almost all the states—even blue states, even blue states that could have really used the
revenue before the current crises (I am looking at you, Illinois).11 Yet note that in many cases, states
have not acted one way or the other and that states are still considering the issue.12 Even states that
have affirmatively chosen not to tax GILTI can change their minds in light of recent events. Accordingly, I
will argue at length in this Article (and have argued briefly elsewhere),13 that the states should and
could conform to GILTI. Or, to be more precise, the states should strategically conform because, as we
will see, the states should not conform to every aspect of GILTI as applied at the federal level.14
Strategic conformity means that the state should conform in ways that make the state versions of the
law more effective at combating income stripping than the federal law on which it is based. Though I
cannot prove it, I suspect that the ferocity with which the industry has fought state conformity to GILTI
is related to a similar assessment about the possible effectiveness of state GILTI regimes as compared
to the federal regime.

VAT provides more than enough funding.

Oshan Jarow 5-19-2020; fellow with Future Perfect at Vox, degree in economics & philosophy; A
Negative Income Tax for the 21st Century; Musing Mind; https://www.musingmind.org/essays/negative-
income-tax-proposal; DL

We may either enact one single, large tax, or we may prefer implementing a series of smaller
progressive taxes. Options for the single tax include a value added tax (raising $600 billion - $1.3 trillion
in new revenue depending on exclusions), or an adaptation of Saez & Zucman’s proposed national
income tax that draws upon both labor and capital. They estimate a 6% flat rate could raise $1.2 trillion.
I estimate phasing the tax in on incomes above the NIT breakeven point to a top rate of 5% would be
sufficient to cover the remaining $744 billion.

Exit tax solves. California proves it works and uniformity is possible.

Nathanson 23 [Michael Nathanson; Chair and Chief Executive Officer of The Colony Group; 3/17/23;
“California Wealth and Exit Tax Shows a Window Into the Future”; https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-
insights-and-commentary/california-wealth-and-exit-tax-shows-a-window-into-the-future]

The recently introduced California wealth tax proposal essentially contains three components. The first,
a wealth tax of 1% on household wealth over $50 million and 1.5% on wealth over $1 billion, would
apply starting in 2024 and to those with over $50 million starting in 2026. It would be based on
worldwide net worth, with some exceptions, and would apply to full-time, part-year, and temporary
residents, subject to apportionment. The second component is an exit-tax structure that allows the
wealth tax to be applied for several years after a taxpayer leaves California. Also included are provisions
that enable certain taxpayers to defer payment by contracting to pay the tax in the future, even if they
leave. The third component is an enabling amendment to the California constitution. While the
California proposal is unlikely to pass, thanks in part to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s opposition, ultrawealthy
taxpayers should be wary of what it portends. The California proposal doesn’t stand alone. Proposed
legislation in Hawaii would impose a tax of 1% on state net worth exceeding $20 million, and proposed
legislation in Washington would impose a tax of 1% on taxable worldwide wealth over $250 million.
Other states, including New York, have taken steps toward taxing the ultrawealthy, though primarily
through higher taxes on capital gain and other income. Late last year, Massachusetts imposed a surtax
of 4% on income over $1 million through a ballot initiative—and this example is perhaps telling. The
“Massachusetts millionaires’ tax” had been introduced and defeated multiple times before finally
becoming law. The most recent wealth-tax proposals may not pass this year but, as in Massachusetts,
it’s not the first time such proposals have been considered. They, too, may be part of a trend in which
voters and politicians gradually become more comfortable with a targeted new tax. Adding to the
pressure, some state budget deficits are growing, forcing them to make difficult decisions. In California,
the projected deficit of $22.5 billion roughly coincides with the projected $21.6 billion of revenue
offered by the wealth tax proposal. Then there’s the national rhetoric surrounding wealth inequality,
with several politicians unsuccessfully calling for a national wealth tax. The political hurdles for a
national wealth tax, however, are greater than they are in progressive states, making these states a
natural testing ground. As for the potential for exit taxation, fears of losing revenue from wealthy
taxpayers moving to lower-tax jurisdictions aren’t unfounded. They’re the main reason why the eight
states mentioned above acted in concert. According to the US Census Bureau, such migration already
has been occurring.
 OFF
The United States federal government ought to implement a job guarantee, subject to
a judicially imposed sunset that requires review with the possibility of renewal,
alteration, or termination every twenty-five years.
Judicial sunsets solve and revitalize rule of law.
Michael Gentithes 14, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at University of Akron School of Law,
Master of Laws in Legal Theory from NYU, JD from DePaul University, 9/1/2014, "Sunsets on
Constitutionality & Supreme Court Efficiency," Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, vol. 21, pg.
373-420, christian

In addition,sunsets on constitutionality will promote several Rule of Law virtues that allow private actors
across the nation to comply with the Constitution’s requirements more efficiently . If the Court can
clearly announce that a particular government policy will remain constitutional for at least an extended
sunset period, citizens will not need to be experts at parsing divided opinions in order to understand the current state of constitutional
law. This added clarity in our nation’s foundational norms will in turn enhance their public accessibility, and will also render
the law of the Constitution more predictable and thus a more useful edifice upon which citizens can order
their private affairs.

First, there is significantRule of Law value to a legal regime that is clear. Such clarity is needed to guide the
actions of citizens, provide fair warning if life, liberty, and property are at stake, and protect expectations of how others,
including the state, will behave.148 Sunsets will allow the Court to specify a period during which a policy will remain
constitutional while delineating precisely how and when the Court is willing to revisit the issue, rather than
leaving it open to conjecture when the Court might again see fit to issue new edicts on the topic that unsettle vast swathes of the
legal regime.

Clear, intelligible Supreme Court opinions in turn open constitutional law for public consumption . There are
gains to be reaped from ensuring that the law of the land is openly promulgated to the masses, even if the majority of the citizenry will react
indifferently.149 Decisions announcing a constitutional sunset bring the status of the law into the sunshine
where all can at least potentially view it. This is a vast improvement from leaving the public on edge as they try to anticipate
the whim of a few key Justices who might revisit an opinion at any time. The reduced opacity in the Court’s jurisprudence
creates a virtuous cycle whereby its relationship to the public at large is more responsive and far more useful in citizens’ daily lives.

Finally, sunsets that clarify the status of certain constitutional decisions will add stability to the Court’s
jurisprudence, again serving important Rule of Law goals. Actors seeking to order their affairs in compliance with
government policies and programs can rest assured that those policies and programs will remain
stable , thereby significantly lowering their transaction costs.150 Such a stable legal regime is more predictable,
generating viable expectations amongst citizens as to how a policy’s constitutionality will be viewed for at least a significant period of time.151
That predictability allows those subject to its constraints to utilize their talents within the consistent bounds
of the law.

That’s key to global stability.

Norman L. Eisen 22, senior fellow in governance studies at Brookings, executive chair of the States
United Democracy Center, former White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform,
10/31/2022, "Rule of law continues five-year decline, but bright spots emerge," Brookings,
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rule-of-law-continues-five-year-decline-but-bright-spots-emerge,
christian

The world is slowly recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. But the blow it struck to the rule of law
remains persistent and widespread, according to fresh survey data collected in 140 countries. While declines in
performance were not as extreme as in 2021, this year’s findings from the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index
underscore the alarming drops in nearly every rule of law factor measured , especially in fundamental rights
and checks and balances , which are two critical pillars of the rule of law.

Overall, these trends

toward authoritarianism and away from rules-based liberal democracy portend dark
trouble ahead . As big-power geopolitical competition continues to heat up, the differences in how states govern
themselves will have outsized influence in shaping solutions to some of our most intractable problems –
digital disruption and disinformation , corruption and illicit trafficking, and outright war . Russia’s illegal
invasion of Ukraine, and its sophisticated disinformation tactics, shows just how dangerous this divergence has
become.

Extinction.
George Eaton 20. Senior online editor of the New Statesman. Citing Noam Chomsky, Laureate
professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Arizona and professor emeritus at MIT,
Ph.D. in linguistics from Penn. “Noam Chomsky: The world is at the most dangerous moment in human
history”. The New Statesman. Sept 17 2020. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2020/09/noam-
chomsky-the-world-is-at-the-most-dangerous-moment-in-human-history

Noam Chomsky has warned that the world is at the most dangerous moment in human history owing to the climate
crisis , the threat of nuclear war and rising authoritarianism . In an exclusive interview with the New Statesman, the 91-year-old US linguist
and activist said that the current perils exceed those of the 1930s.

“There’s been nothing like it in human history,” Chomsky said. “I’m old enough to remember, very vividly, the threat that Nazism could take over much of
Eurasia, that was not an idle concern. US military planners did anticipate that the war would end with a US-dominated region and a German-dominated region… But even that, horrible

enough, was not like the end of organised human life on Earth , which is what we’re facing .”
Chomsky was interviewed in advance of the first summit of the Progressive International (18-20 September), a new organisation founded by Bernie Sanders, the former US presidential
candidate, and Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister, to counter right-wing authoritarianism. In an echo of the movement’s slogan “internationalism or extinction”, Chomsky

We’re at an astonishing confluence of very severe crises. The extent of them was illustrated by the
warned: “

last setting of the famous Doomsday Clock . It’s been set every year since the atom bombing, the minute hand has moved forward and back. But last January,
they abandoned minutes and moved to seconds to midnight, which means termination . And that was before the scale of the pandemic.”

This shift, Chomsky said, reflected “the growing threat of nuclear war, which is probably more severe than it was during the Cold War. The
growing threat of environmental catastrophe, and the third thing that they’ve been picking up for the last few years is the sharp
deterioration of democracy , which sounds at first as if it doesn’t belong but it actually does , because the only hope
for dealing with the two existential crises , which do threaten extinction , is to deal with them through a
vibrant democracy with engaged , informed citizens who are participating in developing programmes to
deal with these crises.”

Trump has accomplished something quite impressive: he’s succeeded in increasing the threat of each of the three dangers. On nuclear weapons, he’s
Chomsky added that “[Donald]

moved to continue, and essentially bring to an end, the dismantling of the arms control regime, which has offered some protection against terminal disaster.
He’s greatly increased the development of new, dangerous, more threatening weapons, which means others do so too,
which is increasing the threat to all of us.

“On environmental catastrophe, he’s escalated his effort to maximise the use of fossil fuels and to terminate the regulations that somewhat mitigate the effect of the coming disaster if we
proceed on our present course.”

“On the deterioration of democracy, it’s become a joke. The executive branch of [the US] government has been completely purged of any dissident voice. Now it’s left with a group of
sycophants.”

Chomsky described Trump as the figurehead of a new “ reactionary international” consisting of Brazil, India, the UK, Egypt,
Israel and Hungary. “In the western hemisphere the leading candidate is [Jair] Bolsonaro’s Brazil, kind of a small-time clone of President Trump. In the Middle

East it will be based on the family dictatorships, the most reactionary states in the world. [Abdel al-] Sisi’s Egypt is the worst dictatorship that Egypt

has ever had. Israel has moved so far to the right that you need a telescope to see it, it’s about the only country in the world where young people are even more reactionary than
adults.”

Modi is destroying Indian secular democracy , severely repressing the Muslim population, he’s
He added: “[Narendra]

just vastly extended the terrible Indian occupation of Kashmir . In Europe, the leading candidate is [Viktor]

Orbán in Hungary, who is creating a proto-fascist state. There are other figures, like [Matteo] Salvini in Italy, who gets his kicks out of watching refugees drown in the
Mediterranean.”
 OFF
The United States federal government ought enter into prior, timely, and binding
consultation with American Indian Tribal Governments on whether to implement a job
guarantee. The United States federal government ought announce that it will
implement the outcome of the consultation, and ought do so once said consultation
has concluded.

The CP ensures the AFF is done in good faith – resolves Native American concerns with
the plan and circumvention.
Department of Treasury 21 [The Department of the Treasury operates and maintains systems that
are critical to the nation's financial infrastructure, such as the production of coin and currency, the
disbursement of payments to the American public, revenue collection, and the borrowing of funds
necessary to run the federal government., 01-26-2021, "UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
ACTION PLAN FOR TRIBAL CONSULTATION AND COLLABORATION,"
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/226/Treasury-Action-Plan-Tribal-Consultation.pdf]

Tribal Consultation on Treasury’s Tribal Consultation Policies

On April 6, 7 and 8, 2021, Treasury joined the Social Security Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Small Business Administration in holding joint
consultations on existing Tribal consultation policies in response to the Presidential Memorandum for Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation to Nation
Relationships. Over 205 Tribal leaders and stakeholders participated in the 11.5 hours of consultation held over six sessions. Thirteen Tribal leaders or their
designees and seven Tribal stakeholders provided oral comments. Twelve Tribes, five intertribal organizations, and two stakeholders provided written comments.

Tribal Recommendations with General Consensus

• The goal of consultation should be a good faith effort to get to consent in advance of implementing
any policies, regulations or guidance, or funding disbursements. If consent is not possible, then consensus should be the goal.

• Consultations should be initiated as early as possible, but definitively before final policy decisions are
made.

• Consultation is a two-way engagement that requires more than one round of meetings or written comments. Goals of consultation should
be to listen and seek to understand each other’s opinions, beliefs, and desired outcomes.

• Engagement should include the sharing of information, any analyses, or pre-decisional documents with Tribes prior to conducting meetings or finalizing policies or
formulas.

• Consultations should be scheduled with ample time to hear from all Tribal leaders or their Designees.

Treasury should:
• Define the terms “meaningful” and “robust.”

• Determine the specific actions that constitute meaningful and robust consultation.

• Have a process in place for determining when consultation should occur, who should be involved in
consultation and the channel for conducting consultation (in person, virtual conference such as Zoom or telephone, in conjunction
with Intertribal conferences or meetings.)

• Ensure that Treasury staff with decision-making authority is always present in consultation.
• Educate senior leadership and staff within Treasury on Treasury’s Tribal consultation responsibilities.
• Incorporate consultation with Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) and Alaska Native Village Corporations (ANVCs) into their Tribal consultation policies.

Other Notable Recommendations

• The federal government should adopt a uniform Tribal Consultation policy based on the principles of
“free, prior and informed consent” in keeping with the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People.5 This policy
should establish minimum standards for federal agency consultation policies.
• The federal government should create a clearinghouse of federal policies that require consultation.

• The federal government should adopt a dispute resolution process that includes accountability by
requiring that departments and agencies document disputes and resolutions in an annual report to OMB. OMB should compile a report of these actions.

• The White House Council on Native American Affairs should resume meeting quarterly and host an Annual Native American Summit to address cross-cutting
federal issues impacting Tribes.

• Federal agencies should consider meeting every four years at the beginning of a Presidential term to share background, data, evidence, and other information that
will guide decisionmaking, discuss existing and future policy development, and define priorities and goals for the term.

• Treasury should develop an Office of Native American Affairs.

• Treasury should place a high value on Advisory Committee(s)

Preparing for Consultation:

1. Minimum advance notice should be no less than two weeks, preferred is at least 30 days.

2. Consultation notice should include all necessary background, including:

a. Relevant legal or regulatory citations/

b. Scoping documents or agency working drafts

c. Nature of proposed action (rulemaking, funding, policy guidance)

d. Subject matter of proposed action (reference to applicable law and regulations)

e. Geographic location of regulation

f. Anticipated impacts on Tribal communities

3. When published in Federal Register:

a. the link and description should be published on Treasury website

b. a link to the Dear Tribal Leader Letter (DTLL)

4. When scheduling consultations, differences in time zones should be taken into consideration.

5. Treasury should consider whether groupings of Tribes have sufficient shared interests for that
grouping. Regional and/or statewide consultations may better serve the Tribes.

During Consultation

• Adequate time should be taken to hear from all primary Tribal leaders or their Designees.
• Primary Tribal leaders who are present should be given priority in speaking order.

• Tribal designees should be recognized next in order.

• Consultation is an active process. Treasury officials are encouraged to engage with Tribal leaders, ask clarifying questions and when possible,
provide background on statutory constraints or other requirements and conditions that need to be met when considering policy decisions.

Post-Consultation
• Treasury should provide a summary of the consultation that identifies key issues of concern and Tribal
considerations for addressing these concerns.

• Proposed rules, guidance, or formulas developed should be published in advance of any final
decisions and Tribes be given an opportunity to response before these are finalized. Funding
• Treasury should have a designated budget for conducting Tribal consultation. Funding should support travel to Tribes and to attend national and regional
conferences.

• The budget should include funds for Tribal leaders or designees to travel to consultation and reimburse them for consultation-related costs (production of
analyses, reports, contracting expertise, etc.)

Communication and Outreach

• Treasury should provide and/or post transcripts or recordings of consultations.

• If transcripts are not available, Treasury should provide a summary of the consultation or a report on the issues and recommendations shortly after consultation.

• All forms of communication are welcome and should be customized to meet the needs of the Tribes.
For example, the Zoom platform with the ability to participate using telephone dial-in was cited as a best practice since more remote Tribes have difficulty securing
reliable Internet connectivity.

• Treasury should develop individual relationships with Tribes. Treasury should also develop
relationships with inter-tribal organizations that represent the diverse interests of Tribes.

• Communication, whenever possible, should include engaging with Tribes in their own communities and
through their networks. These can include site visits to Tribes and Tribal regions, attendance and participation in national and regional conferences,
and other face-toface interactions.

Accountability

• Treasury should produce a summary of their findings during consultation and provide responses that
incorporate how decisions were made and why recommendations were either adopted or rejected.
• Treasury should consider adopting a certification process that confirms both parties agree that meaningful and robust consultation has occurred.

• Treasury/Federal government should include an enforceability mechanism (such as an Administrative Procedure Act
claim) or resolution dispute process for resolving conflicts. Litigation should not be the primary response

action when disagreement arises.

The plan’s failure to consult rationalizes hegemonic assertions of power that

perpetuate the stranglehold of colonial oppression—only the CP solves.
Robert N. Clinton, Professor of Law at the University of Iowa, 1993, “Redressing the Legacy of Conquest:
A Vision Quest for a Decentralized Federal Indian Law,” Arkansas Law Review, 46 Ark. L. Rev. 77, ln

Federal Indian law, while sometimes protective of Indians, basically began as a set of legal doctrines that
rationalized and legitimated colonial expansion, first over resources and then over the political and
cultural destinies of the Indians themselves. While the national self-image of the United States is not one of a colonialist
nation, it continues to have a large unfinished colonial problem within its borders and imbedded in the
fabric of its law - its hegemonic assertion of power over the peoples of the fourth world in North
America, the aboriginal nations. Certainly, federal Indian law, like any legal regime, can be cleansed of its
colonialist roots, but that task requires consistent commitment . To achieve a decolonized [*159] federal
Indian law, the nation must relinquish its claim to plenary authority over the political life of peoples who
rarely consented to such expansions of American governing power. It must deal with the tribes as it
should other sovereigns, on a government-to-government basis. Decolonization of federal Indian law
requires that the government no longer dictate Indian policy to tribes but consult and negotiate with them
actively to reach decisions of mutual accommodation, returning in some modern form to the bilateral treaty process with
which it began. It also requires that Indian governments and their people be respected and accorded the presumption of good will and capacity
accorded to other governmental leaders. Direct
federal oversight and (mis)management (as opposed to monitoring)
of their governmental actions, their land, and their natural resources reflect continuing fears of Indian
intellectual or legal incapacity and should be ended if federal Indian law is to be decolonized. Finally,
decolonizing federal Indian law also requires a significant reconsideration of the manner in which federal law deals with Indian land and Indian
land claims in favor of solutions designed to protect and secure for tribes a continuing land base. In
short, the quintcentenary of
the contact between the invaders of the Old World and the inhabitants of the New World might be an
appropriate time to reconsider the exploitative colonial legal relationships that have existed between
these peoples for five centuries and begin to replace them with a legal regime more reflective of the
respect and sense of equality that one hopes will prevail for the next five centuries . But perhaps, like some
visions, this is all just a dream - a vision of another world that may never become a present reality for this one. Only time and the nation's moral
sense will tell.
 OFF
The United States federal government should decrease fiscal redistribution in the
United States by exempting innovative activities from taxation and implementing a
job guarantee.
It competes:
The CP is a PIC out of the mandate implementing a job guarantee is part of an
‘increase’ in fiscal redistribution.
‘Increase’ means on net.
Words and Phrases ‘8 [Words and Phrases; 2008; English language dictionary; v. 20a, p. 264-265]
Cal.App.2 Dist. 1991. Term “ increase ,” as used in statute giving the Energy Commission modification jurisdiction over any alteration,
replacement, or improvement of equipment that results in “increase” of 50 megawatts or more in electric generating capacity of existing
thermal power plant, refers to “ net increase ” in power plant’s total generating capacity; in deciding whether there has
been the requisite 50-megawatt increase as a result of new units being incorporated into a plant, E nergy C ommission cannot
ignore decreases in capacity caused by retirement or deactivation of other unit s at plant. West’s Ann.Cal.Pub.Res.Code §
25123.

Exempting innovative activity from taxation catalyzes innovation across all sectors.
Hart ’19 [David and Elizabeth Noll; December 2; Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University,
Ph.D. in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Senior Fellow with the ITIF’s
Center for Clean Energy Innovation; Energy and environmental policy consultant, M.Sc. in Public Policy
from the Georgia Institute of Technology; Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Less
Certain Than Death: Using Tax Incentives to Drive Clean Energy Innovation,”
https://itif.org/publications/2019/12/02/less-certain-death-using-tax-incentives-drive-clean-energy-
innovation/]
Tax Incentives as Energy Innovation Policy

Taxation is one of the most powerful tools in the policy tool kit. As the old saying goes, along with death, it is one of
only two certainties in the human experience. Yet, like all such admonitions, this one is not always true. Indeed, the power to exempt
an activity from taxation is almost as potent a tool as taxation itself .
U.S. lawmakers have long recognized and utilized this tool. Many policies that are implemented directly by governments in other countries are
carried out through tax incentives in the United States. The federal tax code contains a large array of provisions that support particular
activities, industries, professions, and other groups of taxpayers.

Although some of these incentives make little economic sense, this tool can be a powerful and efficient one to drive
innovation and growth. For instance, tax incentives can and should be used to stimulate firms to
support research that benefits their competitors or the public, as well as themselves. Such incentives
compensate firms for the risk that the research they fund may “ spill over ” in this fashion. Virtually all
leading countries performing r esearch and d evelopment (R&D) provide tax incentives for private research spending.
The U nited S tates was the first to enact such a policy, but its generosity now lags well behind its competitors.12
Similarly, tax incentives for capital goods may lead to private investments that spill over to the rest of
society. Firms purchasing new capital equipment receive only about half of the returns these investments provide. Customers, workers,
other industries, and even competitors share in the gains.13

A similar line of thought allows us to identify when tax incentives are most likely to drive clean energy innovation. If a tax incentive encourages
economic actors to carry out an activity that benefits society as well as themselves, then it is well targeted. If the activity only benefits the
economic actor, then it is most likely an unwarranted subsidy.

The technology adoption “ S curve ” provides a framework for making this distinction. As pictured in figure 1, the curve
shows that the uptake of a new technology is very slow in its early stages, when the costs and risk of adoption are high. As the
tech nology becomes better , cheaper , and more familiar , it may hit the takeoff stage , when the pace
of adoption is quickest. As the market becomes saturated and the technology matures, the pace slows again.
Figure 1: The technology adoption “S curve”

Figure 1 is highly stylized. The slope of the curve varies dramatically across technologies. Some technologies are widely adopted in just a few
years, while others take decades. Some never reach takeoff, flatlining instead. Still other technologies go through a series of S curves, regularly
reinvigorated by successive technological breakthroughs.

The sources of technological progress change as one moves along the curve. To the left of the curve, in the early stages of adoption, R&D
investments are the driving force , and may be made by the public or private sector ( aided by R&D tax
incentives ), or both. To the right of the curve, in the late stages of adoption, mass production leads to cost reduction
through economies of scale . Profits and private investments provided by capital markets typically fuel
these stages.
In the middle, as technologies move through the takeoff stage and enter the steepest part of the curve, the sources of progress are more
numerous and complex. They include learning by doing in production and implementation, and learning through feedback from early adopters,
as well as R&D and scale-up. Ideally, adoption and innovation feed off one another in this stage, thereby forming a virtuous cycle.14

However, takeoff may be slowed or interrupted for a variety of reasons, such as when capital is scarce ,
as is likely when the market is small, or if imitation is cheap, thereby discouraging risk-taking. Technology-specific tax
incentives may overcome such obstacles by reducing the risks of adoption in this stage, as they give the
buyers of early versions of innovations a discount. Lower prices mean higher sales. Higher sales provide funding for R&D, learning, and scaling
up, all of which, in turn, should lead to further innovation, resulting in even lower prices and better performance.

Public-private risk sharing in the takeoff stage of clean energy innovation makes sense because the public
benefits along with private investors—assuming large-scale adoption can be unlocked and the curve made steeper.
In the earlier stages of adoption, the public must bear most of the risk because the benefits are difficult for private investors to capture. In the
later stages, the benefits are largely privatized, as long as there is a carbon price or regulatory policy that addresses the environmental
externality.

Proper targeting of tax incentives therefore strongly influences their effectiveness. Some innovations are not
mature enough to respond quickly to the market signals incentives provide. In such cases, the problems encountered by early adopters do not
lead to learning, and few mainstream adopters are drawn into the market. In these cases, developers must go back to the drawing board and
do more R&D. Innovations that have already taken off, on the other hand, are so far up the adoption curve that the incremental market growth
provided by incentives does relatively little to drive down costs or improve performance. Rather, they subsidize private interests without
creating a public benefit.

In particular, the energy sector---extinction.

Werikhe ’22 [Aaron; 2022; Planner Environment and Natural Resources at National Planning
Authority, MSc. Sustainability and Environmental Management from the University of Derby, Master of
Economic Policy and Planning from Makerere University, BA in Economics from Makerere University;
Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, “Towards a Green and Sustainable Recovery from
COVID-19,” vol. 4]
1. Introduction

Whilst it is evident that the COVID -19 pandemic containment measures including lockdowns have slowed down
anthropogenic activity (closure of transport systems, less industrial activity etc) resulting into reduced emissions,
accompanied by incidental natural environment gains such as cleaner air , clearer skies and water ways, and
recuperating ecosystems (EEA, 2020), the question is how long these benefits will last, and whether they will
move the world closer to its environmental sustainability and carbon neutral goals espoused in the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change
and 2030 Transformative Agenda on Sustainable Development. The lockdowns have been identified as one of the COVID-19 containment
strategies in the absence of a specific vaccine or treatment in the short term (WHO, 2020).
Evidently, cities across the world registered gains in the natural environment with significant reductions in pollution of several environmental domains such as soil, water and air (Khan et al., 2020). The European Environmental
Agency (EAA) reported decreasing amounts of air pollutant concentrations attributed to reduced traffic especially in major cities under lockdown measures (EAA, 2020). Relatedly, Sharma et al. (2020) reported that COVID-19
induced lockdowns improved air quality in various cities across the globe due to reduced emission levels of Particulate Matter (PM2.5, PM10), Carbon monoxide, and Nitrous Oxide. At city level, the scale of registered transitory
planetary benefits seemed to depend on the length of the lockdowns. For instance, two weeks after the lockdown announcement on March 23rd, Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) pollution in some of the UKs cities fell by 60% (Khoo, 2020)
compared to the same time in 2019 while the worlds most polluted capital New Delhi (India) recorded a 60% drop in fine particulate matter (Meredith, 2020), a pollutant that is considered as the worlds deadliest air pollutant by
the World Health Organization (WHO, 2020). Relatedly, Chinas carbon emissions plummeted by a quarter during the peak of its COVID-19 outbreak (Lauri Myllyvirta, 2020). However, the World Economic Forum (2020) expressed
uncertainty about the length of these benefits asserting that although the COVID-19 pandemic triggered cleaner air through its containment measures, it will do little to address the issue of air pollution in the long term. Therefore,
it can be concluded that celebrating the COVID-19 generated incidental positive gains on the natural environment is premature and focus should rather be on how to sustain the accrued gains through granular policy decisions
during the design of COVID-19 stimuli and recovery packages.

Besides, albeit the COVID-19 pandemic has thrown a wrench into the 2020 global climate change and environmental action calendar, there is an opportunity to ramp up action by harnessing several stimuli and recovery packages
being prepared by governments to energize their economies. For this reason, this article succinctly cautions against the premature celebration and focus on the positive environmental spillovers generated by COVID-19 induced
lockdowns, enumerates the likely environmental and climate change setbacks triggered by COVID-19, and highlights strategies for adoption by governments to build back better by using the 2030 Agenda and 2015 Paris Agreement
as pointers for the design of stimuli and recovery packages.

2. Methodology and approach

This article primarily relied on COVID-19 relevant literature in the form of articles and papers published in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic between March 2020 and December 2020. It also inferred earlier reports such as the
2016 UN Environment Programme Frontiers Report which establishes an inextricable relationship between the health of the planet and public health. The Paper leverages these data sources to discuss how the world can
simultaneously deal with the economic meltdown triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic while ensuring sustainable environmental management and climate change action.

3. Misleading narrative

Undoubtedly, the short term environmental and climate change benefits triggered by the COVID-19 induced lockdowns are commendable.
However, since these have been achieved when the global economy is almost fully closed, caution ought to be taken to avert misconceptions
and a misleading narrative that achieving climate change responsive goals and environmental sustainability will be largely disruptive, requires
global lockdowns and is synonymous with economic decline. The incidental environmental benefits owing to COVID-19 containment measures
have been accompanied by economic losses with the International Monetary Fund forecasting an imminent severe economic meltdown only
second to the 1930s Great Depression (IMF, 2020). Conversely, climate change action and a green economy can be
achieved with less disruptive interventions that decouple development from g reen h ouse g as emissions
while building competitive economies and inclusive resilient societies simultaneously. The missing link is the recognition of climate change
and environmental degradation as existential threats that equally require urgent prioritization and
action to be contained.
Although there is a likelihood of COVID-19 incidentally contributing towards the attainment of certain SDGs such as segments of SDG 6 on Clean Water and Sanitation since hand washing with water and soap have been widely
embraced as a preventive measure, a conclusive impact can only be ascertained at the end of the pandemic. Besides, the length of the current environment and climate change benefits owing to COVID-19 induced slowed
economic activity is uncertain and may be wiped out on the onset of recovery programs implementation. Using the 2008 global financial crisis as an example, global carbon emissions fell by 1.4% in 2009 relative to 2008 but grew
by 5.9% in 2010 in fossil-fuel combustion and cement production alone thus outstripping the incidental gains garnered during the financial crisis (Peters et al., 2011). The astronomical resurge in emissions was largely driven by
global efforts to resuscitate economies. This implies that the longevity of accrued planetary benefits from the lockdown can only be established when the pandemic dust settles and their sustainability is tied to the direction of
recovery packages, and the stimuli earmarked for revitalizing economies.

In the face of these short-term environmental benefits, the pandemic has also spurred setbacks in local and global action to combat climate change and ensure environmental sustainability as unearthed in the subsequent section.

4. Likely impact of COVID-19 on the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated partial and total lockdowns present a profound test of the resilience of the SDGs and the ability to achieve them by the set deadline of 2030. The intricate linkage and inter-relatedness
nature of the various SDGs where none can be achieved in isolation of the rest is likely to compound the scale of dire implication of the pandemic on the goals realization. Notably, existing global inequalities will be exacerbated by
the COVID-19 total and partial lockdowns. This is because whereas the global north can sustain lockdowns and provide adequate safety nets to its vulnerable sections of the population, the same cannot be said about the global
south which hosts a greater proportion of people living in extreme poverty, with the World Bank, 2020a, World Bank, 2020b indicating that Sub-Saharan Africa alone accounts for 63% of the global poor population. Partial and total
lockdowns in the global south will thus worsen pre-pandemic existing vulnerabilities such as income poverty and food insecurity directly reversing gains accrued in the race towards realizing SDGs. Therefore, although some
sections of the population who live from hand to mouth with casual labour as their biggest asset may be shielded from COVID-19 through lockdowns, they will have to wrestle with other life-threatening challenges such as hunger
and other forms of poverty– income and energy. Relatedly, albeit partial and total lockdowns were flagged as a silver bullet to COVID-19 containment by WHO, they are blind to the housing deficit experienced especially in the
global south where several households live in single rooms with others lacking basic housing facilities. The lockdowns thus only cause congestion while fueling domestic conflict driven by scarcity of resources.

Considering the above, COVID-19 and its containment measures is likely to reverse progress on the achievement of SDGs on ending poverty (SDG1), zero hunger (SDG2), gender equality (SDG5), reduced inequalities (SDG 10) and
climate action (SDG13) among others. In agreement, Naidoo and Fisher (2020) affirm that two thirds of the 169 SDG targets are either under threat as a result of this pandemic or not positioned to mitigate its impacts. This is
premised on the SDGs success factors which is sustained economic growth and globalization, both thwarted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Quantitatively, the World Bank, 2020a, World Bank, 2020b projects that between 40 million
to 60 million people will be pushed back into poverty by the end of 2020 making ending poverty by 2030 out of reach. Additionally, about 130 million people or more risk facing acute food insecurity as part of the damage trail left
by COVID-19 (WFP, 2020). The World Bank in its Reversals of Fortune Report (2020) reported that for the first time in over twenty years, global poverty rose in 2020 due to the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the
pandemic will erode progress made towards SDGs and may undermine their achievement by 2030 if the recovery packages are not designed in a way that salvages and builds on reminder gains garnered over the years.

5. Environmental and climate change setbacks triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic

The incidental natural environment gains from the pandemic notwithstanding, there are some setbacks in global environmental and climate
action owing to the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. For instance, with global and local focus on saving lives and containing the pandemic, the
concern for climate change and environmental sustainability has dimmed, despite of 2020 being earmarked as the year of enhanced global
climate action. Unfortunately, the climate change threat is an equally urgent emergency whose severity is
increasing by day. Besides, a warm er planet will imply more frequent lethal pandemics given the scientifically
proven nexus between environmental ecosystem health and public health.1
A 2016 UN Environment Programme Report2 indicates that 60% of all infectious diseases in humans are zoonotic (transmitted to humans via animals) as are 75% of all emerging infectious diseases with environmental degradation
being the underlying driver. Therefore, failure to reverse the current trend of environmental degradation poses a huge threat to public health since habitat loss and deforestation bring humans into closer contact with wildlife,
thereby compounding the risk and frequency of zoonotic pathogens spillover from wildlife to humans. All this disrupts economic, social, and environmental action. Specifically, the COVID19 pandemic has triggered the following
setbacks to environment and climate change action:

i. Increasing volumes of unrecyclable waste and organic waste emanating from limited trade in perishable agriculture products due to travel restrictions, disruptions in supply chains and dumping of surplus
produce (WEF, 2020). Severe cuts in agricultural and fishery exports followed by low domestic markets absorption have led to significant accumulation of organic wastes yet municipalities have suspended
waste collection and recycling activities for fear of spreading COVID-19 in recycling centers (UNCTAD, 2020). Leaving waste to decay produces methane emissions (Shirmer et al., 2014) and these are likely
to rise during and after the COVID19 crisis. Besides the organic waste, a new strain of waste (COVID-19 medical waste) has also emerged especially the single use masks, sanitizer containers which may
aggravate the poor solid waste management systems in some cities across the globe;
ii. With deployment of security forces to enforce COVID-19 lockdowns and containment measures, it implies that less security is available to protect habitats and curb illegal poaching and logging. For
instance, illegal fishing remains high in Malaysia (Dian Septiari, 2020) while the rising unemployment caused by the crisis is likely to compound environmental degradation in the form of deforestation for
charcoal making and land use changes in fragile biodiverse ecosystems such as wetlands.
iii. Expectedly, the response to the pandemic at global and national level will be marred by budget cuts and reallocations. Saving lives and containing the pandemic are likely to receive the first call on
resources at the expense of other pressing needs such as sustainable environmental management and climate action. The budget cuts and reallocations will be more apparent in developing countries with
weaker disaster preparedness systems. The possibility of reallocating resources earmarked to combat climate change and environmental degradation cannot be ruled out. The Monitoba province
government has already cut environmental funding (Lamber, 2020) as part of its plan to cope with the fiscal deficit resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, this will be counterproductive in
the longrun since the health of the planet is intricately linked to public health;
iv. There is likely to be a decline in Official Development Assistance flows between advanced economies and developing countries. This spells doom for climate action and environmental management
projects and plans in Sub-Saharan Africa most of which are externally funded by development partners. The pandemic has diluted globalization indicated by growing nationalism rather than
internationalism where countries are closing borders and mobilizing gigantic country or region-specific recovery packages with peanuts ear marked for concerted global recovery. For instance, whilst
developed economies are poised to spend an estimated USD 11 trillion on domestic responses to COVID-19, appeals to raise only 0.3% of this amount (USD 35 billion) to avail COVID-19 vaccines,
diagnostics, and treatments to all countries (Homi Kharas and John McArthur, 2020) are failing to come to fruition.
v. The UN Climate Change 26th Conference of Parties (COP 26) initially scheduled for November 2020 in Glasgow was postponed to 2021 (UNFCCC, 2020). Importantly, this conference was supposed to be
preceded by submission of country specific enhanced climate change action (reviewed Nationally Determined Contributions - NDCs), as a five-year milestone towards achieving the 2015 Paris Agreement
Goal of limiting global average temperature rise to below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, and pursuing efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels by the end of this century.
With the discussions postponed, there is likely to be a delay in submissions of enhanced NDCs thus putting the Paris Agreement to a test regarding the achievement of its first milestone.

6. How to build back better

The COVID 19 pandemic has exposed the volatility of the current economic and development system, and it will be unfortunate to emerge out
of the crisis and continue with the same frail system unaltered. The planet , financial and economic systems, and governments may lack
the current resilience to withstand and recover from future related disasters if the global system is
simply rebuilt back to the pre COVID-19 state. The price of oil, a life blood of several economies, fluctuated by 300% (Julianne Geiger,
2020) between January and April 2020, plunging to negatives in April, implying that oil producers and traders had to pay consumers to get rid of
their black gold. Economies that are fully reliant on export of this fossil fuel are at a higher risk of the economic meltdowns triggered by the
COVID-19. Therefore, building back better implies using the holistic sustainable development goals as the compass to design recovery packages
and prioritizing interventions that work for the planet, people, and economy. This direction will hedge against addressing one challenge of the
pandemic while worsening another – climate change and biodiversity loss. Design of the recovery packages should thus be underpinned by the
following strategies:
1. Adoption of the One Health Approach in the design of Recovery packages. One health approach loosely means ensuring harmonious and healthy co-existence of people, animals, and ecosystems. It has increasingly been proven
that the health of the planet determines public health and as such, building resilience against future pandemics requires holistic policies and strategies that cater for the health and integrity of biodiversity, humans, and ecosystems.
WHO (2019) defines “One Health” as an integrated unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems. Recovery packages should desist from the temptation of fully
focusing on economic recovery and resuscitation at the expense of social and environmental strategies that build happy resilient societies while conserving and sustainably managing biodiversity;

2. Conditioning highly polluting corporations, businesses and industries' access to recovery packages, bail outs and economic stimuli to a commitment to embark on sustainable reporting and reduced carbon footprint. A great deal
of the recovery packages and bailouts will be disbursed to businesses in energy, transport and agriculture among others who have been prioritizing economic gain and profitability at any cost of the environment and biodiversity in
the pre-pandemic era. Ensuring that one of the bailout packages access requirement is commitment to improved corporate environmental and climate action performance will go a long way in ensuring that COVID-19 recovery
packages move the world closers to its climate and sustainability goals espoused in the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Importantly, this does not imply denying highly polluting or environmentally non-
compliant corporations bailouts but rather using them (bailouts) as an impetus to prompt corporations move towards sustainable corporate reporting, integration of climate risk in their conventional risk analysis, and reducing their
carbon footprint with the access of the recovery or bailout packages henceforth. This will be a win-win for the economy, corporations, and the planet;

3. Integrate environmental sustainability and climate change action in the design of quick, short term, medium to long term COVID-19 stimuli and recovery packages respectively. As development gains traction, consumption
patterns inevitably change thereby stimulating agriculture intensification to feed the growing global population estimated at 7.7 billion (UNDESA, 2019). This is accompanied by land use changes which habitat loss, deforestation,
and biodiversity loss culminating into environmental degradation, both a key driver and an effect of climate change. Environmental degradation and climate change have been singled out as significant explanatory factors for the
increased frequency of zoonotic infections (UNEP, 2019) such as Corona viruses. Accordingly, sustainable recovery will require a global paradigm shift from the status quo of waiting for the zoonotic diseases to strike and race
towards finding a vaccine to a systemic approach that deals with underlying drivers of such pandemics. With environmental degradation and climate change identified among the underlying drivers, a robust recovery programme
should move the globe towards addressing illegal wildlife trade, protecting water resources and oceans from pollution particularly plastics, conserving biodiversity and habitats, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a bid to
achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century and limit temperature rise to below 2 °C by 2100 as committed in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. This implies that sustainability must permeate across quick responses such as
stimuli and medium to long recovery packages and plans. Prioritizing environmental sustainability and climate response in COVID-19 recovery measures will not only resuscitate ailing economies but also act as a medium to long
term preventive strategy against related future zoonotic pandemics. Environmental degradation accompanied by habitat loss, biodiversity loss, and a warmer climate creates an amiable environment for emergency of dominant
species, and viruses that cannot be controlled ecologically which evolve with the changing temperatures to find new hosts (UNEP, 2019). Fig. 1 below enumerates the primary drivers of previous disease emergencies while Fig. 2
indicates the past four major zoonotic diseases and their impact;

4. Pursue an inclusive approach in the design of COVID-19 Recovery packages to address the diversity of needs of all victims of the pandemic. Unlike previous global crises such as the 2008 global financial crisis that left largely
financial and economic impacts, the COVID-19 pandemic is littered with multifaceted dire impacts transcending the economic, social, and environmental spheres. Therefore, addressing or recovering from these multiple setbacks
cannot be solely addressed by governments but rather a consortium of actors such as the private sector, civil society, government, and development partners to thoroughly deal with various segments of the challenges at hand in
the short, medium, and long term. These actors ought to foster a recovery that is hinged on futuristic planning that builds resilient competitive economies and inclusive societies, to reduce the severity of disruptions posed by
future related disasters. Besides, replication of the scale of government coordination and public behavioral change demonstrated in the response to the pandemic to deal with other existential threats such as climate change and
biodiversity loss is essential albeit its success will also be hinged on partnerships.

5. Leverage the rare window of gigantic government expenditures to combat climate change and
environmental degradation. Albeit science has proven that climate change is an emergency , and a warmer
planet will only imply increased frequency of disasters (IPCC, 2018), the response over the years has not matched with
the magnitude of this existential threat , yet, the economic and social cost of climate change is evident . Achievement
of the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature rise to 2° C by the end of this century, through racing towards
carbon neutrality by mid-century will remain a mirage , if the recovery packages work against flattening the climate
change and environmental degradation curve. The global economy is likely to rise with immense oomph to offset losses incurred during the
COVID-19 lockdowns. The recovery process is therefore capable of sparking off an exponential rise in greenhouse gas emissions above normal
circumstances thereby throwing the planet into a deeper dungeon of climate change and falling short of the required 7.6% annual reduction
target in global missions to achieve zero net emissions by 2050 (UN environment 2019). There are granular
interventions that can be
captured in the recovery packages. These include; stimulat ion of uptake and deployment of affordable renewable

energy tech nologies; de-risking of green investment opportunities to trigger private sector capital and
ingenuity ; leapfrogging to green tech nology to reshape unsustainable production patterns and foster
green industrialization and circularity; and formulation of green fiscal instruments (subsidies on green technologies, carbon taxes and
pricing) to nurture green capital markets expansion without imperiling financial stability . Equally important is resuscitating cities
through retrofitting buildings to enhance energy efficiency, augmenting green public transport, and prioritizing affordable green housing since
some catastrophes like COVID-19 call for self-isolation at home.
 OFF
Momentum now for legislation to avoid shutdown with limited time window –
avoiding unnecessary fights is key.
Groves and Jalonick 9/5 [Stephen Groves is a correspondent for AP News based in South Dakota.
Mary Clare Jalonick covers Congress for the Associated Press in Washington., 09-05-2023, "GOP weighs
impeachment inquiry as Congress tries to avert shutdown," PBS NewsHour,
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/gop-weighs-impeachment-inquiry-as-congress-tries-to-avert-
shutdown]

WASHINGTON (AP) — After months of struggling to find agreement on just about anything in a divided Congress, lawmakers are returning to
Capitol Hill to try to avert a government shutdown , even as House Republicans consider whether to press forward with an
impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

A short-term funding measure to keep government offices fully functioning will dominate the
September agenda , along with emergency funding for Ukraine, federal disaster funds and the Republican-driven probe into Hunter Biden’s overseas
business dealings.

Time is running short for Congress to act. The House is scheduled to meet for just 11 days before the
government’s fiscal year ends on Sept. 30, leaving little room to maneuver . And the deal-making will play out as two
top Republicans, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, deal with health issues.

The president and congressional leaders , including Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, are focused on passage of a
months-long funding measure , known as a continuing resolution, to keep government offices running
while lawmakers iron out a budget. It’s a step Congress routinely takes to avoid stoppages, but McCarthy faces resistance
from within his own Republican ranks, including from some hardline conservatives who openly embrace the idea of a government shutdown.

“Honestly, it’s a pretty big mess ,” McConnell said at an event in Kentucky last week.
Here are the top issues as lawmakers return from the August break:

Keeping the government open

When Biden and McCarthy struck a deal to suspend the nation’s debt ceiling in June, it included provisions for topline spending numbers. But under pressure from
the House Freedom Caucus, House Republicans have advanced spending bills that cut below that agreement.

Republicans have also tried to load their spending packages with conservative policy wins. For example, House Republicans added provisions blocking abortion
coverage, transgender care and diversity initiatives to a July defense package, turning what has traditionally been a bipartisan effort into a sharply contested bill.

But Democrats control the Senate and are certain to reject most of the conservative proposals. Senators are crafting their spending bills
on a bipartisan basis with an eye toward avoiding unrelated policy fights .
Top lawmakers in both chambers are now turning to a stopgap funding package, a typical strategy to give the lawmakers time to iron out a long-term agreement.

The House Freedom Caucus has already released a list of demands it wants included in the continuing resolution. But they amount to a right-wing wish list that
would never fly in the Senate.

The conservative opposition means McCarthy will almost certainly have to win significant Democratic support to
pass a funding bill — but such an approach risks a new round of conflict with the same conservatives who in the past
have threatened to oust him from the speakership.

Democrats are already readying blame for the House GOP.

“The last thing the American people deserve is for extreme House members to trigger a government
shutdown that hurts our economy, undermines our disaster preparedness, and forces our troops to work without guaranteed pay,” said White House
spokesman Andrew Bates.

In a letter to his colleagues Friday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote that the focus when the Senate returns Tuesday will be
“ funding the government and preventing House Republican extremists from forcing a government
shutdown .”
It leaves McCarthy desperate to get the votes to keep government offices running and avoid the political blowback. As he tries to persuade Republicans to go along
with a temporary fix, McCarthy has been arguing that a government shutdown would also halt Republican investigations into the Biden administration.

“If we shut down, all of government shuts it down — investigations and everything else — it hurts the American public,” the speaker said on Fox News last week.

Impeachment inquiry

Since they gained the House majority, Republicans have launched a series of investigations into the Biden administration, with an eye towards impeaching the
president or his Cabinet officials. They have now zeroed in on the president’s son, Hunter Biden, and his overseas business dealings, including with Ukrainian gas
company Burisma.

The inquiries have not produced evidence that President Biden took official action on behalf of his son or business partners, but McCarthy has called impeachment a
“natural step forward” for the investigations.

An impeachment inquiry by the House would be a first step toward bringing articles of impeachment. It is not yet clear what that may look like, especially because
the speaker does not appear to have the GOP votes lined up to support an impeachment inquiry. Moderate Republicans have so far balked at sending the House on
a full-fledged impeachment hunt.

But Donald Trump, running once again to challenge Biden, is prodding them to move ahead quickly.

“I don’t know how actually how a Republican could not do it,” Trump said in an interview on Real America’s Voice. “I think a Republican would be primaried and lose
immediately, no matter what district you’re in.”

Ukraine and disaster funding

The White House has requested more than $40 billion in emergency funding, including $13 billion in military aid for Ukraine, $8 billion in humanitarian support for
the nation and $12 billion to replenish U.S. federal disaster funds at home.

The request for the massive cash infusion comes as Kyiv launches a counteroffensive against the Russian invasion. But support for Ukraine is waning among
Republicans, especially as Trump has repeatedly expressed skepticism of the war.

Nearly 70 Republicans voted for an unsuccessful effort to discontinue military aid to Ukraine in July, though strong support for the war effort remains among many
members.

It is also not clear whether the White House’s supplemental request for U.S. disaster funding, which also includes funds to bolster enforcement and curb drug
trafficking at the southern U.S. border, will be tied to the Ukraine funding or a continuing budget resolution. The disaster funding enjoys wide support in the House,
but could be tripped up if packaged with other funding proposals.

Legislation on hold

The Senate is expected to spend most of September focused on funding the government and confirming
Biden’s nominees, meaning that major policy legislation will have to wait . But Schumer outlined some priorities for the
remaining months of the year in the letter to his colleagues.

Schumer said the Senate would work on legislation to lower the costs of drugs, address rail safety and provide disaster relief after floods in Vermont, fires in Hawaii
and a hurricane in Florida.

Senators will also continue to examine whether legislation is needed to address artificial intelligence. Schumer has convened what he is calling an “AI insight forum”
on Sept. 13 in the Senate with tech industry leaders, including Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, the CEO of X and Tesla, as well as former Microsoft CEO Bill
Gates.

JG causes polarization and wrecks bipartisanship.

Gregory Krieg 18, reporter at CNN Politics, 4-26-2018, "Why a 'federal jobs guarantee' is gaining steam
with Democrats," CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/politics/federal-jobs-guarantee-gaining-
steam-democrats/index.html
Research published for the Center on Budget Policy Priorities by William Darity Jr., a professor of public policy at Duke University, New School economist Darrick Hamilton and Duke
postdoctoral associate Mark Paul has been influential in shaping both the Sanders and Booker plans. In an interview with CNN, Darity said he has also been in contact with the offices of

Gillibrand and Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, both of whom, along with Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and California's Kamala Harris, are co-sponsors of the Booker bill. " The
domestic models (for these new bills) date back to the Great Depression, with the implementation of the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps,"
Darity said. "What would be different about this type of a project is that it would be a universal program of employment -- everyone would be eligible to take

advantage of this public option -- and it would be permanent." Having spent a decade advocating for a job guarantee, Darity reasoned that President Donald Trump's election

-- its "shock effect" -- was the blow that pushed mainstream Democrats in his direction. The party, he said, is no longer working under the illusion

that Republicans would agree to any form of meaningful compromise and has stopped "self-censoring themselves before they put
forth legislation to be considered." The emerging jobs guarantee debate, like with health care, has tracked the broader left's ideological spectrum. Whether to pursue universal programs at the
expense of means-tested or more narrowly targeted ones has roiled Democratic politics for ages. The question lay at the wonky core of the fissure that opened up during the 2016 presidential

primary. Naturally, it looks set to divide minds over the prospects of a jobs guarantee.

Shutdown greenlights cyberattacks.

Pal 19 (Monica; 1/24/19; Engineer, over two decades of experience; TechCrunch, “Senate Dems filibuster pro-Israel bill, demand vote to
reopen government,” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/10/democrats-filibuster-pro-israel-bill-demand-vote-r/; RP)

Putting political divisions and affiliations aside, the

government partially shutting down for the third time over the last year is
extremely worrisome , particularly when considering its impact on the nation’s cybersecurity priorities . Unlike
the government, our nation’s enemies don’t “ shut down .” When our nation’s cyber centers are not actively
monitoring and protecting our most valuable assets and critical infrastructure , threats magnify and
vulnerabilities become further exposed . While Republicans and Democrats continue to butt heads over border security, the
vital agencies tasked with properly safeguarding our nation from our adversaries are stuck in operational
limbo . Without this protection in full force acting around the clock , serious extraneous threats to
government agencies and private businesses can thrive. This shutdown, now into its fourth week, has [devastated] crippled
key U.S. agencies, most notably the Department of Homeland Security, imperiling our nation’s cybersecurity defenses .
Consider the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which has seen nearly 37 percent of its staff
furloughed. This agency leads efforts to protect and defend critical infrastructure, as it pertains to industries
as varied as energy , finance, food and agriculture, transportation and defense . As defined in the 2001 Patriot Act, critical
infrastructure is such that, “the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating
impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those
matters.” In the interest of national security, we simply cannot tolerate prolonged vulnerability in these areas.
Employees who are considered “essential” are still on the job, but the loss of supporting staff could prove to be costly, in
both the
short and long term. More immediately, the shutdown places a greater burden on the employees
deemed essential enough to stick around. These employees are tasked with both longer hours and expanded
responsibilities, leading to a higher risk of critical oversight and mission failure , as weary agents find
themselves increasingly stretched beyond their capabilities . The long-term effects, however, are quite frankly,
far more alarming. There’s a serious possibility our brightest minds in cybersecurity will consider moving to the
private sector following a shutdown of this magnitude. Even ignoring that the private sector pays better, furloughed
staff are likely to reconsider just how valued they are in their current roles. After the 2013 shutdown, a
significant segment of the intelligence community left their posts for the relative stability of corporate
America. The current shutdown bears those risks as well. A loss of critical personnel could result in
institutional failure far beyond the present shutdown, leading to cascading security deterioration . This
shutdown has farther-reaching effects for the federal government to attract talent in the form of recent college
grads or those interested in transitioning from the private sector. The
stability of government was once viewed as a guarantee
compared to the private sector, but work could incentivize workers to take their talents to the private sector. The IRS in
particular is extremely vulnerable , putting America’s private sector and your average taxpayer directly in the cross-hairs. The

shutdown has come at the worst time of the year, as the holidays and the post-holiday season tend to have the
highest rates for cybercrime . In 2018, the IRS reported a 60 percent increase in email scams. Meanwhile, as the
IRS furloughed much of its staff as well, cyber criminals are likely to ramp up their activity even more. Though the
agency has stated it will recall a “significant portion” of its personnel to work without pay, it has also indicated there will be a lack
of support for much beyond essential service. There’s no doubt cybercriminals will see this as a lucrative opportunity. With
tax season on the horizon, the gap in oversight will feed directly into cyber criminals’ playing the field, undoubtedly

resulting in escalating financial losses due to tax identity theft and refund fraud. Cyberwarfare is no
longer some distant afterthought, practiced and discussed by a niche group of experts in a back room. Cyberwarfare has
taken center stage on the virtual battlefield . Geopolitical adversaries such as North Korea , Russia ,
Iran and China rely on cyber as their most agile and dangerous weapon against the United States. These
hostile nation-states salivate at the idea of a prolonged government shutdown . From Russian
interference in the 2016 presidential election to Chinese state cybercriminals breaching Marriott Hotels, the necessity to
protect our national cybersecurity has never been more explicit . If our government doesn’t resolve this
dilemma quickly , America’s cybersecurity will undoubtedly suffer serious deterioration , inevitably
endangering the lives and safety of citizens across the nation. This issue goes far beyond partisan politics, yet needs both parties
to come to a consensus immediately. Time is not on our side.

Extinction.
Peck 2018 - Contributing Writer for The National Interest. Senior analyst for Wikistrat
Michael, "How Russia, China or America Could Accidentally Start a Nuclear War," Aug 14,
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-russia-china-or-america-could-accidentally-start-nuclear-
war-28692
Accidental nuclear war, that's what could happen.

That's the warning by a Washington think tank, which argues that the
U.S. is inviting nuclear war by using the same
command and communications systems to oversee both nuclear and conventional forces. But such "dual
use" systems risk an inadvertent nuclear war, because an attack on non-nuclear assets, such as satellites
or radars, could be perceived as an attempt to cripple [harm] America's nuclear deterrent.
The Trump administration's draft nuclear policy already states that cyberattacks against America, or attacks on U.S. satellites, could constitute a
strategic threat that merits a nuclear response. But this raises a problem called "nuclear entanglement," where the traditionally bright lines
between nuclear and non-nuclear systems become blurred.

In a study earlier this year , the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace pointed out that Russia and China were guilty of entanglement. For
example, Russia keeps nuclear submarines and bombers at the same bases as conventional ships and planes: thus a strike by conventional U.S.
forces against conventional Russian forces -- the sort of operation common in World War II -- could be mistaken by Russia as an American strike
on its nuclear forces, triggering Russian nuclear retaliation. China plans to attack American satellites to disable U.S. command systems and
smart weapons that rely on satellite guidance, because China believes this to be a part of conventional warfare -- despite the Trump
administration declaring otherwise.

But a new Carnegie study says the U.S. is making the same mistake. "Starting in the last decade of the Cold War, the United States has increased
reliance on dual-use systems by assigning nonnuclear roles to C3I assets that used to be employed solely for nuclear operations," writes James
Acton, co-director of Carnegie's Nuclear Policy Program. "Until the mid-1980s, for example, U.S. early-warning satellites were used exclusively
for detecting the launch of nuclear-armed missiles. Today, they enable a variety of nonnuclear missions by, for example, providing cuing
information for missile defenses involved in intercepting conventional ballistic missiles."
The U.S. has also scrapped its Cold War land-based communications systems for controlling nuclear forces. Which
means that
satellites have become virtually the only means for nuclear command and control, and those precious
satellites are also handling non-nuclear communications.

Even as cyberwarfare and anti-satellite weapons have emerged as major threats, U.S. satellite systems
have become less redundant. In the 1980s and 1990s, the U.S. had two satellite-based communication systems for nuclear weapons.
"Today, the United States is in the process of deploying just four Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites that will be the nation's
sole space-based system for transmitting nuclear employment orders once legacy Milstar satellites have been retired," writes Acton. Similarly,
one of two radio networks for communicating with nuclear missile submarines has been shut down.

Acton explores several scenarios where the U.S. could overreact. "Russia might attack ground-based or space-based U.S. early-warning
assets to defeat European missile defenses that were proving effective in intercepting its nonnuclear missiles," he writes. " Washington
might see such attacks, however, as preparations to ensure that limited nuclear strikes by Russia could
penetrate the United States' homeland missile defenses."
Unemployment Adv
 1NC---AT: Secular Stagnation
[2] No secular stagnation.
The Economist ’15 [The Economist; March 5; Finance & Economics, “Still, not stagnant,”
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2015/03/05/still-not-stagnant]

IS AMERICA stuck in a rut of low growth, feeble inflation and rock-bottom interest rates? Lots of economists believe in the
idea of
“secular stagnation”, and they have plenty of evidence to point to. The population is ageing and long-run growth prospects look dim.
Interest rates, which have been near zero for years, are still not low enough to get the American economy zipping along. A new paper published
by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, however, reckons that secular stagnation is not quite the right diagnosis for America’s
ills.*

A country in the grip of secular stagnation cannot find enough good investments to soak up available savings. The drain on demand from these
underused savings leads to weak growth. It also leaves central banks in a bind. If the real (ie inflation adjusted) “equilibrium” interest rate (the
one that gets an economy growing at a healthy clip) falls well below zero, then central bankers will struggle to push their policy rate low enough
to drag the economy out of trouble, since it is hard to push nominal (ie, not adjusted for inflation) rates deep into negative territory. Worse, in
the process of trying, they may end up inflating financial bubbles, which lead to unsustainable growth and grisly busts.

Stagnationists argue that this is not a bad description of America since the 1980s. Real interest rates have been falling for years, they note, a
sign of a glut of savings. Recoveries from recent recessions have been weak and jobless. When growth has perked up, soaring asset prices and
consumer borrowing appear to have done the heavy lifting.

The authors of the Chicago paper—James Hamilton, Ethan Harris, Jan Hatzius and Kenneth West—dispute this interpretation
of events. Stagnationists are right, they note, that real interest rates have been falling, and have in fact been negative for much of the past 15
years. But low real rates do not necessarily imply that future growth will be weak, as many economic models assume. The authors
examine central-bank interest rates, inflation and growth in 20 countries over 40 years. They find at best a weak relationship
between economic growth and the equilibrium rate. If there is a long-run link, they argue, it tends to be overshadowed by other factors.

After the second world war, for example, government controls on rates (“financial repression”) prevented the market from having its say. In
recent years short-run woes have dragged down the equilibrium rate, such as the “50-miles-per-hour headwinds” that Alan Greenspan, the
chairman of the Federal Reserve, described in 1991, when bad loans pushed big American banks to the brink of insolvency. The authors note
that such stormy periods are usually short-lived, and that when the headwinds abate the equilibrium rate tends to pop back up.

They also reckon the stagnationists are misinterpreting some of the evidence. Growth in the 1990s was not illusory,
they argue. The stockmarket boom only really got going in 1998, after America’s unemployment rate had already fallen below 5%.

The expansion of the 2000s looks like a better example of secular stagnation. Investment in housing, which rose from 4.9% of GDP in 2001 to
6.6% at the market’s peak in 2006, helped sustain the boom. Rising house prices made Americans feel flush, propelling consumer spending.
Expanding credit added about one percentage point to growth each year, says the paper.

Yet the behaviour of the economy in this period looks more like a product of distortion than stagnation. At the time
China and oil-producing states were running enormous current-account surpluses with America and building up large foreign-exchange
reserves, contributing to what Ben Bernanke, Mr Greenspan’s successor as Fed chairman, labelled a “global saving glut”. Expensive oil and rising
Chinese imports placed a drag on growth that more or less offset the boost from housing. Take away the savings glut and the housing boom,
and the American economy would not necessarily have grown any faster or slower, just more healthily.

Inequality’s declining.
Wright et. al ‘19 [Joshua D., Elyse Dorsey, Jonathan Klick, and Jan M. Rybnicek; University Professor
and Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute at Scalia Law School; Attorney Advisor to Commissioner
Noah Joshua Phillips, United States Federal Trade Commission; Professor of Law, University of
Pennsylvania; Counsel in the antitrust, competition, and trade practice of Freshfields, Bruckahus
Deringer LLP; Arizona State Law Review, “REQUIEM FOR A PARADOX: The Dubious Rise and Inevitable
Fall of Hipster Antitrust,” vol. 51]

2. The Empirical Evidence: Is Inequality Really Growing?

All of the papers discussed above assume
that inequality has increased in recent years. This view is fairly
common among economists and would seem to be borne out as seen in Figure 2 below, which presents
the Gini coefficient for U.S. incomes for the last fifty years.166

Figure 3, which plots the ratio of the share of US income among the fifth quintile of income-earning households to the share among the first
quintile of households167 tells a similar story.

Robert Kaestner and Darren Lubotsky underscore the point that inequality measures can be significantly affected by a
failure to account for government transfers and employee benefits that presumably substitute for cash
income.168 Given that healthcare costs have grown faster than inflation in recent years, a failure to
account for health insurance benefits could significantly affect economic inequality measures.
Reviewing estimates from the literature, Kaestner and Lubotsky find that including health insurance substantially
reduces the gap between incomes at the high end of the distribution and those at the low end .169
Interestingly, however, the authors find that there is still an upward trend in inequality over time when the cash
equivalent of health insurance and government transfers are included.170 The trend, however, is
substantially muted.171 Specifically, including government transfers and the imputed value of employer
subsidized health insurance, Kaestner and Lubotsky indicate that the ratio of income between households at
the ninetieth percentile and the tenth percentile was about five in 1995, growing to 5.2 in 2004 and to
5.6 in 2012.172
 1NC—AT: Populism
Populism is inevitable.
Juul ’23 [Peter; June 21; MA in Social Welfare at the University of California: Berkeley, BA at Boston
University; John Halpin; Executive Editor of TLP; “Populism rising,” The Liberal Patriot,
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/tlpm-digest-populism-rising, WWIS]

Populist sentiments run deep among Americans

What happened? New Ipsos polling finds nearly 7 in 10 American adults agreeing with the idea that,
“The American economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful,” including 8 in 10 Democrats,
nearly three quarters of independents, and more than half of Republicans.

Why does it matter? Americans across party lines hold deep populist views about the country, including
nearly three quarters of Americans who believe that, “The mainstream media is more interested in
making money than telling the truth,” and almost two thirds of Americans who feel that, “Traditional
parties and politicians don’t care about people like me.”

Disconcertingly in terms of liberal democratic norms, more than 6 in 10 Americans currently believe
that, “America needs a strong leader to take the country back from the rich and powerful,” including
equal proportions of Republicans, Democrats, and independents.

TLP’s take: America’s politics and its economic model clearly aren’t working for most Americans.
Populist sentiments throughout history have provided a necessary release valve for pent up anger and
demands, and sometimes lead to important political reforms. But the public openness to authoritarian
rule in response to perceived structural problems in American life augurs nothing good for our
government.
Green Jobs Adv
1NC—no spillover
 1NC---AT: Warming
[3] Not even 20 degrees gets to extinction.
Ord 20, research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, has advised the World
Health Organization, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, and the UK Prime Minister’s Office
and Cabinet Office. (Toby, “4. Anthropogenic Risks”, The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of
Humanity, Oxford)

Major effects of climate change include reduced agricultural yields , sea level rises , water scarcity ,
increased tropical diseases , ocean acidification and the collapse of the Gulf Stream . While extremely

important when assessing the overall risks of climate change, none of these threaten extinction or
irrevocable collapse .

Crops are very sensitive to reductions in temperature (due to frosts), but less sensitive to increases . By all
appearances we would still have food to support civilization.85 Even if sea levels rose hundreds of
meters (over centuries), most of the Earth’s land area would remain . Similarly, while some areas might conceivably become
uninhabitable due to water scarcity, other areas will have increased rainfall. More areas may become susceptible
to tropical diseases , but we need only look to the tropics to see civilization flourish despite this . The
main effect of a collapse of the system of Atlantic Ocean currents that includes the Gulf Stream is a 2°C cooling of
Europe—something that poses no permanent threat to global civilization.

From an existential risk perspective, a

more serious concern is that the high temperatures (and the rapidity of their change)
might cause a large loss of biodiversity and subsequent ecosystem collapse . While the pathway is not entirely
clear, a large enough collapse of ecosystems across the globe could perhaps threaten human extinction. The idea that climate change could
cause widespread extinctions has some good theoretical support.86 Yet the evidence is mixed . For when we look at many
of the past cases of extremely high global temperatures or extremely rapid warming we don’t see a
corresponding loss of biodiversity.87
So the most important known effect of climate change from the perspective of direct existential risk is probably the most obvious: heat stress.
We need an environment cooler than our body temperature to be able to rid ourselves of waste heat and stay alive. More precisely, we need to
be able to lose heat by sweating, which depends on the humidity as well as the temperature.

A landmark paper by Steven Sherwood and Matthew Huber showed that with sufficient warming there would be parts of the world whose
temperature and humidity combine to exceed the level where humans could survive without air conditioning.88 With 12°C of warming, a very
large land area—where more than half of all people currently live and where much of our food is grown—would exceed this level at some point
during a typical year. Sherwood and Huber suggest that such areas would be uninhabitable. This may not quite be true (particularly if air
conditioning is possible during the hottest months), but their habitability is at least in question.

However, substantial regions would also remain below this threshold . Even with an extreme 20°C of
warming there would be many coastal areas (and some elevated regions ) that would have no days
above the temperature /humidity threshold .89 So there would remain large areas in which humanity and
civilization could continue. A world with 20°C of warming would be an unparalleled human and environmental tragedy, forcing mass
migration and perhaps starvation too. This is reason enough to do our utmost to prevent anything like that from ever happening. However, our
present task is identifying existential risks to humanity and it is hard to see how any realistic level of heat stress could pose such a risk. So the
runaway and moist greenhouse effects remain the only known mechanisms through which climate change could directly cause our extinction or
irrevocable collapse.
Food insecurity is unlinked from war.
Cliffe 16 – Sarah F. Cliffe, the director of New York University’s Center on International Cooperation,
International Relations and International Economic Policy MA at Columbia University. [Food Security,
Nutrition, and Peace, 4-3-16, https://cic.nyu.edu/news_commentary/food-security-nutrition-and-
peace]//BPS

However, current research does not yet indicate a clear link between climate change, food insecurity and
conflict, except perhaps where rapidly deteriorating water availability cuts across existing tensions and weak institutions. But a series of
interlinked problems – changing global patterns of consumption of energy and scarce resources, increasing demands for food imports (which
draw on land, water, and energy inputs) can create pressure on fragile situations. Food security – and food prices – are a highly political issue,
being a very immediate and visible source of popular welfare or popular uncertainty. But their link
to conflict (and the wider links between
climate change and conflict) is indirect rather than direct. What makes some countries more resilient than others? Many
countries face food price or natural resource shocks without falling into conflict. Essentially, the two
important factors in determining their resilience are: First, whether food insecurity is combined with other
stresses – issues such as unemployment, but most fundamentally issues such as political exclusion or human rights abuses. We sometimes
read nowadays that the 2006-2009 drought was a factor in the Syrian conflict, by driving rural-urban migration that caused societal stresses. It
may of course have been one factor amongst many but itwould be too simplistic to suggest that it was the primary
driver of the Syrian conflict. Second, whether countries have strong enough institutions to fulfill a social compact with
their citizens, providing help quickly to citizens affected by food insecurity, with or without international assistance.
During the 2007-2008 food crisis, developing countries with low institutional strength experienced more food price protests than those with
higher institutional strengths, and more than half these protests turned violent. This for example, is the difference in the events in Haiti versus
those in Mexico or the Philippines where far greater institutional strength existed to deal with the food price shocks and protests did not spur
deteriorating national security or widespread violence.
2NC
Sunsets
2NC---O/V
 Solvency---2NC
It’s comparatively better---allows for updating based on changing economics AND
avoids administrative drift. Empirics prove.
Roberta Romano 21, Sterling Professor of Law at the Yale Law School; Simon A. Levin, director of the
Center for BioComplexity at Princeton University, 6/25/2021, "Sunsetting as an adaptive strategy,"
PNAS, vol. 118, no. 26, christian
How Sunsetting Resolves Key Problems of Crisis-Driven Financial Legislation.

There are multiplerationales for sunsetting statutes, including improving the information available to legislators
and policymakers for reassessing legislation (40); enhancing legislative oversight over executive agencies to
reduce administrative “drift” whereby an agency is following policies contrary to congressional
preferences (34); and meeting budgetary requirements in tax laws by limiting duration of a tax credit or
reduced rate (41). The rationales are not equally laudable: For instance, tax provisions set to expire are perpetually extended, and
sunsetting thereby simply facilitates evading budgetary restrictions (41). However, concern over such a use of sunsetting is orthogonal to our
context. Of the rationales for adopting a sunsetting strategy, the key justification in the financial regulatory domain is that sunsetting mitigates
the predicament of legislating with minimal information in the aftermath of a crisis. It sets into motion a process by which
postenactment information can be incorporated into regulation.

While Congress has included sunset provisions in a variety of contexts, and a broad application may well be reasonable, our advocacy of
sunsetting is narrowly focused on financial legislation and its implementing regulations ; sunsetting fits the
shortcomings of crisis-driven financial legislation well. It not only resolves the informational deficiency of the legislation’s crisis-
driven enacting environment, but also manages effectively the other two challenges of crisis-driven legislation. It eliminates the
stickiness of legislation and implementing regulations because it alters the status quo , requiring legislative
action for existing rules to continue in effect. It also facilitates a regulatory response to the dual problems
characterizing financial regulation, that financial markets are subject to both radical and dynamic
uncertainty. Economic and technological conditions may well have dramatically changed in the interim
between enactment and sunset review, with financial innovation occurring apace, undermining the efficacy of
regulation. An altered environment, which may render a statutory or regulatory provision unwittingly destabilizing of the financial system,
can be addressed in the legislative second look mandated by sunsetting. As lessons from evolutionary biology make plain, these aspects of
sunsetting are crucial for the long-term effectiveness of regulation.

For example, the risk weights of bank capital regulation preferencing securitized mortgages established in
the late 1980s were not updated in the mid-2000s despite the innovation of subprime mortgages, which
operated differently from prime mortgages with greater risk, and the shift in repo transactions and commercial paper markets—wholesale
financing markets for financial institutions—to be collateralized by subprime mortgage-backed securities rather than government securities, the
instruments and markets that sparked the global financial crisis (42). This does not mean that the risk weights would have been changed had
sunsetting been in effect for the Basel regime. The timing of the sunset review matters—the prevalence of subprime mortgages occurred well
over a decade after the initial Basel accord. However, had
the accord been subject to a periodic sunsetting
requirement, there would at least have been the possibility that the preferencing of mortgages would have been
reconsidered before they sparked a global crisis, as the characteristics of securitized mortgages changed over time and their
increased risk became more visible to Basel committee members.

The natural world continuously evolves through processes not coterminous with the life of a single organism or the attaining of a specific state.
The dynamic environment in which financial institutions operate similarly would be best served by continuing, periodic
sunset reviews, not just one-time review a number of years postenactment. In this regard, the functioning of the ex
post reviews that sunsetting requires highlights a difference in the legislative parallel to evolutionary adaptative processes in that it is
intentionally undertaken, and the outcome determined by informed deliberation over how best to achieve specifically desired ends.
It allows for later revision that improves the plan.
Roberta Romano 21, Sterling Professor of Law at the Yale Law School; Simon A. Levin, director of the
Center for BioComplexity at Princeton University, 6/25/2021, "Sunsetting as an adaptive strategy,"
PNAS, vol. 118, no. 26, christian

Major financial legislation is invariably enacted in the wake of a financial crisis. However, legislating
following a crisis is hazardous , because information is scarce regarding causes of the crisis, let alone what would
be an appropriate response. Compounding the lack of information, crisis-driven legislation is sticky, but financial markets
are dynamically innovative, which can undermine the efficacy of regulation. As a result, it is foreseeable that
such legislation will contain at least some provisions that are inapt or inadequate or, more often, have
consequences that are not well understood or even knowable. This paper advocates the use of sunsetting as a
mechanism for mitigating the potentially adverse consequences of crisis-driven financial legislation. With
sunsetting, after a fixed time span, legislation and its implementing regulation must be reenacted to remain in force.
Such a requirement would compel a timely revisiting of crisis-driven legislation when far more
information is available than at the time of enactment.
 Solvency---Ext---Empirics
Empirics prove---Grutter.
Neal Katyal 04, Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law
Center, Former Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, 2004, "Sunsetting Judicial
Opinions," Notre Dame Law Review, vol. 79, pg. 1237-1256, christian

It was perhaps because the language of judicial sunsets had not been invented, that the one possible recent example of it, Grutter,
was itself hazy. Some of the haze is due, no doubt, to the way in which the Court shoehorned the sunset into the opinion. The Supreme Court
for years has insisted on affirmative action having a "logical stopping point."27 But this stopping point was one
internal to the program—the term was meant to refer to the time period in the affirmative action policy where the preference should end. In
Grutter, however, the Court appears to have imposed an external, judicial stopping point—one that had nothing to
do with the University of Michigan policy. The Court said, in essence, that it did not want to give the University carte blanche for all time.28
This does not really appear to be a claim about a "logical stopping point" as such; rather, it appears to be one about the vitality of a
Supreme Court opinion in the face of evolving circumstances.

Regardless of whether this 'Judicial sunset" reading of Grutter is descriptively correct, the above
characterization of it
enumerates a possible template for such sunsets . That is, the Court can hand down an opinion and
announce that its holding is entitled to the full effect of the stare decisis doctrine for a set number of
years (e.g., "In five years, we will be completely open to reconsideration of these claims."), or that it will be binding law until a
designated event (e.g., "Following the cessation of hostilities with Japan and Germany, we will be completely open to reconsideration.").
After the elapse of that time period, both lower courts and the Supreme Court would not be bound by
the decision, though they could of course follow its reasoning and logic. In effect, the decision would become something akin to an
out-of-circuit precedent for a federal court of appeals, in that it would have no formal binding weight as law, but its
reasoning could be cited as persuasive authority via an affirmative codification of the old decision.
 2NC – AT: PDB
[2] INCOMPLETE ADHERENCE – the perm footnotes the sunset requirement –
complete adherence is key to rule of law.
Alli Sutherland 19, University of California Hastings College of the Law 2019 J.D. Provost Scholarship
recipient Executive Editor for Acquisitions & Staff Editor, Winter 2019, Hastings Constitutional Law
Quarterly, "Ghosting in Tax Law: Sunset Provisions and Their Unfaithfulness"
https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2085&context=hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly //AS
Uncertainty is inherent in the estate planning profession. Both state and federal laws are constantly evolving as are the family dynamics and
economic circumstances that drive individual estate disposition wishes.208 The “death tax” did not get repealed per the initial goal of the
proposed tax plan as it never made the final cut. However, the exemption amount was doubled, which essentially had the effect of nearly
repealing the tax as only the estates of the uber-wealthy will reach the $11.2 million threshold. This amount though, will reverse to the old
rates come 2025.209 This means that if the law properly sunsets, taxpayers who thought they fell within the exempt amount are suddenly
deprived of their $5.6 million gross estate exemption. Since
there has been a deprivation, and that deprivation was of
property, there must be a process in which to give the taxpayers due process. The process is in place,
but not enforced or respected. Therefore, the judiciary should either declare sunset provisions
unconstitutional all together or order the legislature to actually enforce such provisions.

Conclusion Long term tax planning is essential for confidence in the future. The new Tax and Jobs Act was a major
shake-up for the country. It also appearsto be riddled with unfairness for a majority of Americans in the long run in terms of the deficit it is set
to create. Compensation
for such spending issues could come in the form of lost benefits, causing another
deprivation for taxpayers. The legislature is accountable to the rules and to how they impact the
country’s economics. This should be done through the enforcement of sunset provisions. The
runaround the legislature gets away with by not footnoteallowing sunset provisions to kick in harms
citizens and shows disrespect for the country’s constitutional system.

[3] Voidness---it’s an advisory opinion, prohibited by doctrines of ripeness, mootness,

and finality.
Varat ’86 [Jonathan; 1986; Professor of Law at the University of California at Los Angeles;
Encylopedia.com, “Cases and Controversies,” https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-
almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/cases-and-controversies]

As to extant factual circumstances, advisory opinions are banned . This limitation not only bars direct requests for
legal rulings on hypothetical facts but also requires dismissal of unripe or moot cases, because,
respectively, they are not yet live , or they once were but have ceased to be by virtue of subsequent events . The
parties' future or past adversariness cannot substitute for actual, current adversariness. Disputes that have not yet begun or have
already ended are treated as having no more present need for decision than purely hypothetical
disputes. (See ripeness; mootness).

The desire to preserve federal judicial power as an independent , effective, and binding force of legal
obligation is reflected both in the finality rule , which bars decision if the judgment rendered would be
subject to revision by another branch of government, and in the rule denying standing unless a judgment would likely redress
the plaintiff's injury. These two rules are the clearest instances of judicial self-limitation to insure that when the federal courts do act, their
judgments will be potent. To exercise judicial power ineffectively or as merely a preliminary gesture would risk undermining compliance with
court decrees generally or lessening official and public acceptance of the binding nature of judicial decisions, especially unpopular constitutional
judgments. Here the link between the limitations on judicial power and that power's independence and effectiveness is at its strongest.
 2NC – AT: PDCP
When used as a mandate, ‘should’ is immediate---this is the legal consensus.
Nieto ‘9 [Henry; August 20; Judge of the Colorado Court of Appeals; FindLaw, “People v. Munoz,”
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-court-of-appeals/1385406.html]
Defendant argues that the use of the word “should” in the court's instructions to the jury left the issue of whether the prosecution proved
defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury's discretion rather than informing the jury that it was obligated to return a not guilty
verdict if the prosecution failed to present sufficient proof. Defendant characterizes the word “ should ” as a permissive
request rather than a mandat ory command and argues that the use of the word rendered the instructions erroneous under
the Due Process Clause. Further, defendant contends that the instructions unconstitutionally lowered the prosecution's burden of proof.
Consequently, defendant argues, his conviction must be reversed.

Because we conclude that the common meaning of “should” conveys an obligatory command and not a
permissive request and after considering the use of the term in the context of all of the court's instructions, we conclude that the
instructions using that word adequately informed the jury of its obligation to adhere to the reasonable doubt standard in deciding defendant's
guilt. Further, when the instructions are read in context with the court's general instruction on reasonable doubt, it is evident that the jury was
adequately informed of its duty to decide the case based on the law and the evidence offered at trial.

Initially, we note that the challenged instruction was authorized for use by the supreme court in 1983. See CJI-Crim page V. We also note that it
has been used in many , if not most, criminal trials since that time without a challenge in the appellate
courts.

“Should” is “used…to express duty, obligation, propriety, or expediency .” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2104
(2002). Courts interpreting the word in various contexts have drawn conflicting conclusions, although the
weight of authority appears to favor interpreting “should” in an imperative , obligatory sense. A
number of courts , confronted with the question of whether using the word “should” in jury instructions conforms with
the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections governing the reasonable doubt standard, have upheld instructions using the word. In
the courts of other states in which a defendant has argued that the word “should” in the reasonable doubt instruction does not sufficiently
inform the jury that it is bound to find the defendant not guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial, the courts have squarely rejected the
argument. They reasoned that the word “conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be misunderstood by a jury.” See State v.
McCloud, 257 Kan. 1, 891 P.2d 324, 335 (Kan.1995); see also Tyson v. State, 217 Ga. App. 428, 457 S.E.2d 690, 691-92 (Ga.Ct.App.1995) (finding
argument that “should” is directional but not instructional to be without merit); Commonwealth v. Hammond, 350 Pa.Super. 477, 504 A.2d 940,
941-42 (Pa.Super.Ct.1986).

The CP is functionally distinct---sunsetted legislation is substantively different than

permanent legislation.
JOHN E. FINN, Professor of Government, Wesleyan University. PhD. Princeton University, ’10, “Sunset
Clauses and Democratic Deliberation: Assessing the Significance of Sunset Provisions in Antiterrorism
Legislation” 48 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 442 2009-2010

In sum, the benefits of sunset clauses as elements of statutory design generally fall into three categories-deliberative, informational and
distributive. This suggests strongly we should expect to see sunset clauses in policy environments dominated by informational
uncertainty, risk (both social and electoral) and typified by a high potential for political conflict regarding the allocation of power. In addition,
because sunset clauses "allocate transaction costs differently than permanent legislation," 29 we should
expect sunsetted legislation to be substantively different than legislation that would otherwise result.
This is because "legislators perceive (accurately or not) temporary legislation differently . ' 30
Resolved is certain.
OED 89 (Oxford English Dictionary, “Resolved,” Volume 13, p. 725)
Of the mind, etc.: Freed from doubt or uncertainty , fixed, settled. Obs.

‘Should’ is immediate and certain.

Sawyer ’17 [David; July 20; Judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals and J.D. from Valparaiso School of
Law; Court of Appeals of Michigan, “Spartan Specialties, Ltd. v. Senior Servs,” Lexis 1178]
The specifications in the drawings for the mini-piles stated that the capacity for the mini-piles was "to be" 6,000 or 8,000 pounds and that the
length of the mini-piles was "to be" adequate to get into undisturbed soil to a depth adequate for obtaining the required capacity. The
specifications in the project manual stated that the mini-piles "should" have a capacity of 4 tons and 3 tons, that the mini-piles "should" be
driven to minimum depth of 25 feet, and that a grout bulb "should" be formed at the base of a mini-pile. Kenneth Winters, an expert in
structural engineering, and Richard Anderson, an expert in geotechnical engineering, agreed with Steve Maranowski, plaintiff's president, that
the specifications in the project manual, because those specifications used the word "should," were permissive and suggestions of what plaintiff
could do to achieve the required capacity. However, the trial court, when it instructed the jury on how to interpret the contract, instructed the
jury that it was to interpret the words of the contract by giving them their ordinary and common meaning. An ordinary and common
meaning of the word "should" is that it denotes a mandatory obligation . See People v Fosnaugh, 248 Mich App 444,
455; 639 NW2d 587 (2001) (stating that "the
word 'should' can, in certain contexts, connote an obligatory effect");
Merriam-Webster's College Dictionary (11th ed) (defining "should," in pertinent part, as "used in auxiliary function to
express obligation, propriety, or expediency "). Accordingly, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to defendant, reasonable
jurors could have honestly reached different conclusions on whether the specifications in the project manual were mandatory and, because
Maranowski admitted that plaintiff did not use grout bulbs and did not drive all the mini-piles at least 25 feet into the ground, whether plaintiff
breached the contract. Morinelli, 242 Mich App at 260-261.

‘Should’ requires action be mandated.

Powell ’22 [Anthony; January 7; Judge on the Kansas Appeals Court for Sedgwick County; Kansas
District Court, “State v. Aurelio Renato Marmolejo,” Lexis]

Marmolejo also quibbles with the language of the district court's admonishment. Marmolejo complains the district court used the
word
" should " instead of "must," suggesting the instruction was just an encouragement and optional rather than
mandatory . We disagree . Admittedly, the district court's instruction is cloaked in polite language rather than as a strict command to
the jury. But no matter how the district court phrased its admonishment, it did instruct the jury to "disregard any comments
or behavior that you may have observed or heard as those people were asked to leave the courtroom." This admonishment, coupled with the
jury instruction to consider only the admitted evidence, was a sufficiently curative instruction.

It excludes purely advisory acts.

Riddle ’14 [Finis; December 22; Justice on the Supreme Court of Oklahoma; Westlaw, “St. Louis & S. F.
R. Co. v. Brown,” 45 Okla. 143]

The specific grounds of objection are that the court should have used the word “shall” instead of “should,” that the word
“ should ” is merely advisory , and that the jury was left at its discretion in the matter of reduction of the damages. It has been said
that the word “should” is the past tense of the word “ shall ,” and we think, in the connection in which it was used, the
jury understood that it meant more than simply advisory.
In the case of Smith v. State, 142 Ind. 288, 41 N. E. 595, the Supreme Court of Indiana held that it was more imperative than the word “may.”

In the case of Lynch v. Bates, 139 Ind. 206, 38 N. E. 806, where the court charged the jury that in passing upon the weight of the evidence, etc.,
they “should” take into consideration *1081 the interest of the witness, etc., the court reversed the case, holding that the word “should” there
was too imperative.
In the case of Durand's Adm'r v. N. Y. & L. B. R. Co., 65 N. J. Law, 656, 48 Atl. 1013, the court held that the word “should” implies the
performance of some obligation or duty. Often the word “shall” is used to mean “may.” So, it will be seen that either of the terms
cannot be considered abstractly, but must be considered in connection with the subject-matter and sense in which it is used.
Offsets CP
2NC---O/V
2NC---AT: Perms---T/L
 2NC---AT: PDB
[3] Void in a court of law.
Agathocleous ’13 [Alexis; Spring 2013; Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights; Loyola
Journal of Public Interest Law, “When Power Yields to Justice: Doe v. Jindal and the Campaign to
Dismantle Louisiana’s Crime Against Nature Statute,” vol. 14]
These questions coalesced into a powerful campaign against the CANS law. Led by fearless community members and groups, the campaign
mobilized advocacy, lobbying, litigation, public education, and a press strategy to challenge the discrimination faced by those convicted of
CANS. And in two short years, despite the state's strenuous effort to defend this law, a coalition of community advocates,
lawyers and activists systematically and comprehensively dismantled its most pernicious effects, rendering the law
truly redundant and functionally void .
 2NC---AT: PDB---AT: “Plan Twice = More FR”
It can be scaled to swell by trillions.
Hughes ’23 [Joe; April 3; Federal policy analyst, M.A. in Applied Economics from George Washington
University; Just Taxes Blog, “It’s the Revenue Shortfall, Stupid,” https://itep.org/budget-deficit-revenue-
shortfall-caused-by-tax-cuts-for-wealthy/]
Republicans in Congress argue that federal spending has grown so out of control and created such a severe budget deficit that we should
default on the national debt accumulated under previous Congresses of both parties if the President doesn’t agree to substantial spending cuts.
They know full well that such a debt default would spark an economic cataclysm, but the premise underlying their argument – that
overspending by the federal government has caused the budget deficit – is wrong, according to a new report from the Center for American
Progress. The real problem is that tax cuts have drained trillions of dollars from federal coffers – tax cuts that have
mostly enriched the wealthiest Americans.
The report points out that as recently as 2012, the Congressional Budget Office projected the federal government would indefinitely collect more than enough revenue to cover federal
spending outside of interest payments on the debt, meaning the debt would fall over time. But the situation changed that year when Congressional Republicans pushed to extend the Bush tax
cuts past their expiration date at the end of 2012 and then-President Obama compromised and made some, but not all, of the tax cuts permanent. The fiscal outlook further deteriorated with
the enactment of the Trump tax cuts in 2017.

So, while it is true that federal spending has grown (primarily because demographic changes mean more people qualify for Social Security and Medicare), revenues would have covered this
spending if not for the tax cuts that have been enacted in the past 20 years. But rather than reversing any of those tax cuts, Congressional Republicans have proposed to make permanent the
temporary portions of the Trump tax cuts, which would add more than $300 billion every year to the deficit. According to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, their approach
to decreasing the deficit—program cuts for the middle class paired with tax cuts for the rich—is more unserious than it seems. It is mathematically impossible.

A Brief History of Time (and Budget Shortfalls)

When lawmakers insist that the current government funding gap is a function of runaway spending, they are putting blinders on to half of the federal budget. Budgets are always two-way
streets. If the money coming in is less than the money going out, then a thorough audit should look at both revenues and expenses.

This is the approach taken by Bobby Kogan at the Center for American Progress in a report that examines long-term budget projections since the end of World War II. Contrary to the
assertions of many budget hawks, Kogan finds that recent budget shortfalls are principally a result of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.

Kogan explains that the path to long-term budget stability involves a few factors. First, there is the “primary” deficit or surplus, which refers to the budget minus interest payments on existing
debt. The second factor is the ratio of economic growth to the government’s interest rate. If the government runs a primary surplus (that is, revenues exceed outlays), then economic growth
needs only to match the Treasury interest rate for the federal debt ratio to fall.

It’s fairly simple math, but somehow, starting in the 1980s, lawmakers got their arithmetic all wrong. Charlatans like Art Laffer, masquerading as serious economists, convinced politicians that
cutting tax rates would magically raise revenues and lower the debt because economic growth would be so strong. The argument was not entirely sensible and was proven wrong when the
Reagan Administration enacted tax cuts and severe budget deficits resulted.

Lawmakers from both parties realized the follies of the supply-side fraudsters and passed tax increases to reverse their mistakes. By the end of the Clinton Administration, the federal
government ran a primary budget surplus that was projected to extend into perpetuity. Government expenses were expected to rise through the next few decades as the Baby Boomer
generation aged and started drawing from Social Security and Medicare, but tax revenues were expected to rise even faster as income grew and the next generations entered their prime
earning years.

Inexplicably, Congress made the same arithmetic mistakes from the 1980s all over again. First, the Bush administration slashed tax rates—a move that was dressed as a tax cut for everyone
but overwhelmingly went to the rich. President Obama refused to make all of the Bush tax cuts permanent as Republicans who controlled the House of Representatives at the time demanded,
but he did agree in 2012 to make most of them permanent. And most recently, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted under former President Trump added significantly to the shortfall.

These tax cuts have cost more than $ 10 trillion in the first quarter of this century, according to the report.
ITEP previously found that, as of 2018, nearly two-thirds of tax cuts passed since 2000 had gone to the richest fifth of Americans and a little
under half had gone to the richest five percent of Americans. And that is not counting the significant portion of Trump’s
corporate tax cuts that ultimately flowed to foreign investors.

And if Congress extends the parts of the Trump tax law set to expire at the end of 2025, this shortfall will balloon by
trillions more .

Even for innovation alone, it’s trillions.

HCWYM ’15 [House Committee on Ways and Means; August 5; Committee in the United States House
of Representatives; Ways and Means Blog, “Lockout: Flawed U.S. Tax Structure Keeps Trillions Offshore
That Could be Invested Here,” https://waysandmeans.house.gov/lockout-flawed-u-s-tax-structure-
keeps-trillions-offshore-that-could-be-invested-here/]
Here’s a helpful illustration. Microsoft, a company that symbolizes American innovation , is now holding $108 billion of its
profits overseas. Just sitting there.
And why?

“What’s keeping Microsoft’s cash abroad is the U.S. tax code.” That, according to a Bloomberg News story that describes a serious and growing
obstacle for our economy.

It’s well known that the U.S.’s high corporate tax rate makes us less competitive with other nations.
But another deep flaw in our system is also weighing down our economy, keeping out trillions of dollars that could boost
investment and jobs in the United States, not to mention provide a windfall to the Treasury. It’s our “ worldwide ” system of
taxation, and it creates a big , costly lockout effect.
Let’s explain.

First, Microsoft is hardly alone. More than $2 trillion dollars of U.S. capital—profits earned by American companies doing business overseas—is currently parked outside our borders. Many
companies want to bring this money back to the U.S. to invest here. But there’s a problem. Doing so would sock them with a huge U.S. tax bill, so they opt to keep it elsewhere. This isn’t just
about tax avoidance. It’s a uniquely American problem stemming from our particular—and screwy—tax treatment of profits earned abroad.

You see, nearly every industrialized nation only taxes companies on the profits they make within the borders of that country. The U.S., on the other hand, taxes companies without regard for
where money is earned, requiring that they pay our full corporate tax rate—35 percent at the federal level.

It works like this: say an American manufacturer sells heavy farm equipment in Ireland. The company will pay the 12.5 percent corporate tax levied by Ireland. It will then need to make up the
difference between Ireland’s rate and the U.S’s. The IRS provides the company a tax credit to account for the tax paid in Ireland and then taxes it at our full 35 percent rate.

But here’s the thing: this tax is only payed if and when a company brings those earnings back to the United States. So, with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, it’s easy to
understand why our system discourages American companies from bringing those earnings back home. The manufacturer in our example stands to pay an extra 22.5 percent (35 minus 12.5) if
it returns—or “repatriates”—that money.

And now you can see why so much American capital remains overseas, locked out of the United States by a poorly-designed and uncompetitive tax code.

The solution, in part, is to modernize our system so that it’s consistent with the way the rest of the world treats foreign profits. By
transitioning to what’s called an exemption system , we can dramatically reduce or eliminate the tax
paid when returning earnings to the U nited S tates. This way, American companies can make products here, sell them over
there, and then bring that money back home to invest in American jobs without penalty.

This change would be a powerful boost to our economy, unleashing capital , investment , and good-
paying American jobs.

It exempts innovative activity, like investment---that’s up to trillions.

DOT ’22 [United States Department of the Treasury; November 3; National treasury and finance
department of the United States; Department of the Treasury, “Treasury Seeks Public Input on
Additional Clean Energy Tax Provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act,”
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1077]
These Notices are part of Treasury’s ongoing efforts to engage a broad spectrum of taxpayers and stakeholders to inform its work implementing
the Inflation Reduction Act. Nearly three-quarters of the bill’s $369 billion climate change investment - $270 billion – is delivered
through tax incentives , putting the Department at the forefront of this landmark legislation.

In addition to these Notices requesting public comment, the

Department has also been hosting a series of roundtable
discussions with key stakeholder group s representing thousands of companies, millions of workers, and trillions of

dollars in investment assets, as well as climate and environmental justice advocates, labor unions, community-based organizations,
and other key actors that are critical to the success of the Inflation Reduction Act.
State judges confirm.
Ortega ’91 [Reuben; December 31; Associate Justice on California’s Second Appellate District;
Westlaw, “Department of Water & Power v. Energy Resources Conservation & Development
Commission,”2 Cal. App. 4th 206]
Action was brought to determine whether California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission could exercise certification
jurisdiction over electrical power plant repowering project. The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. BS003230, John Zebrowski, J., ordered
issuance of preemptory writ of mandate commanding Commission to cease its exercise of such certification jurisdiction, and Commission
appealed. The Court of Appeal, Ortega, J., held that: (1) term “increase,” as used in statute giving the Energy Commission
modification jurisdiction over any alteration, replacement, or improvement of equipment that results in increase of 50 megawatts or more in
power plant's electrical generating capacity, referred to “ net ” increase in power plant's total generating capacity, and (2) Commission
could exercise construction jurisdiction only over construction at new, not existing, sites.

AND federal judges.

Rogers ‘5 [Judith; June 24; Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit in New York; Lexis, “Petitioners v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent, NSR
Manufacturers Roundtable, et al., Intervenors, 2005 U.S. App,” 12378]
Statutory Interpretation. HN16While the CAA defines a "modification" as any physical or operational change that "increases" emissions, it is
silent on how to calculate such "increases" in emissions. 42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(4). According to government petitioners, the lack of a statutory
definition does not render the term "increases" ambiguous, but merely compels the court to give the term its "ordinary meaning." See Engine
Mfrs.Ass'nv.S.Coast AirQualityMgmt.Dist., 541 U.S. 246, 124 S. Ct. 1756, 1761, 158 L. Ed. 2d 529(2004); Bluewater Network, 370 F.3d at 13; Am.
Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Glickman, 342 U.S. App. D.C. 7, 215 F.3d 7, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Relying on two "real world" analogies, government
petitioners contend that the ordinary meaning of " increases " requires the baseline to be calculated from a
period immediately preceding the change. They maintain, for example, that in determining whether a high-pressure weather
system "increases" the local temperature, the relevant baseline is the temperature immediately preceding the arrival of the weather system,
not the temperature five or ten years ago. Similarly, in determining whether a new engine "increases" the value of a car, the
relevant
baseline is the value of the car immediate ly preceding the replacement of the engine, not the value of the car five or ten
years ago when the engine was in perfect condition.

So do dictionaries!
Cambridge ’23 [Cambridge University Press & Assessment Dictionary; Last updated 2023; Cambridge
Dictionary, “increase,” https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/increase; pbk]

increase

verb [ I or T ]
UK /ɪnˈkriːs/ US /ɪnˈkriːs/

to (make something) become larger in amount or size :

 Incidents of armed robbery have increased over the last few years.
 The cost of the project has increased dramatically/significantly since it began.
 Gradually increase the temperature to boiling point.
 Increased/Increasing efforts are being made to end the dispute.2
2NC---AT: PD plan without mandate
States CP
2NC---O/V
2NC---AT: PDB
 2NC---AT: PDCP
‘Federal government’ is national.
Thompson ’21 [Thompson School District; 2021; Public school district for Loveland, Colorado and
surrounding area; Thompson Schools, “Structures of Government,”
https://www.thompsonschools.org/cms/lib/CO01900772/Centricity/Domain/3627/Structures%20of
%20Government.pdf]

Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Mexico, Germany, India, and some 20 other stats also have federal forms of government today. In the
U nited S tates, the term ‘ Federal Government ’ is often used to refer to the National Government, but
note that the 50 state government s are unitary in structure, not federal .
2NC---AT: Pd aff + parts of CP
 Solvency---RDF---Funding
Empirics prove the CP generates billions and even more under the CP.
Richard Mattoon, 2003, vice president and regional executive in the economic research department of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, B.A. from Kenyon College and an M.A. from the University of Chicago in
economics, " Creating a National State Rainy Day Fund: A Modest Proposal to Improve Future State Fiscal
Performance," Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago,
https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/working-papers/2003/2003-20

By the end of 2000, states had amassed total reserve balances of $ 48 .8 billion or 10.4% of spending. These reserves represented rainy day
funds plus other savings such as budget surpluses and other fund balances. (Rainy day balances peaked in 2000 at 5.85% of expenditures.) States have used this
money aggressively drawing balances down to 3.4% of spending by the end of FY 2003 and an estimated 1.3% by FY 2004. The use of this money has provided $33
billion in relief that otherwise would have been made up through program cuts or tax increases. The 10.4% reserve size would have proven adequate to bridge a
one-year deficit in 2002. The 2002 deficit was estimated at roughly $37 billion or 7.2% of spending. However larger deficits in 2003 ($79 billion or 15.1% of spending)
and 2004 ($78 billion or 15% of spending) have exhausted reserves.

The level of fund balance continues to vary widely suggesting the still ad hoc nature of these rainy day funds. While the aggregate balance by 2000 was 10.4%, and
the rainy day balance hit 5.85%, only 4 states, Michigan, Minnesota, Alaska and California were in fact carrying rainy day balances of greater than 10%. In fact, these
four states accounted for over 51% ($14.044 billion out of the $27.4 billion) of rainy day fund balances. (figure 1, table 2) Given this uneven level of savings effort, a

national contribution rule could substantially increase aggregate available balances .

2NC---AT: Uniformity Deficit
2NC---AT: 50 States Fiat
2NC---AT: Condo
Case
Unemployment Adv
Green Jobs Adv