1NC

Off Case
 CP---1NC
The fifty states and relevant subnational actors, including the National Governors
Association, should suspend their cooperation in the administration of federal
programs until the United States federal government provides a Universal Basic
Income.
It competes and solves---conditioning the plan never fiats it, but results in federal
adoption AND aggressively expands dual sovereignty.
Bloomberg ’21 [Scott; September 17; Associate Professor of Law, University of Maine School of Law;
Social Science Research Network, “Frenemy Federalism,” Draft Manuscript, p. 2-40]
i. Uncooperative Federalism

Dean Heather Gerken and Professor Jessica Bulman-Pozen have categorized state legalization of marijuana as an instance of uncooperative
federalism.108 In their influential 2009 essay, Uncooperative Federalism, Gerken and Bulman-Pozen observe that scholars had traditionally
conceived of our system of federalism through one of two lenses. Under the “ state autonomy ” model of federalism, the
states and the fed eral government are dual sovereign s who act as autonomous rivals , allowing states
to act as dissenters to federal policies they deem undesirable. 109 In contrast, under the “cooperative federalism” approach, the
states are like agents or servants of the federal government, dutifully carrying out a federal program to achieve a shared objective.110

Uncooperative federalism presents a third type of relationship between the states and the federal government, one that
recognizes a principal’s or master’s dependence on their agents or servants, and the concomitant power of an
embedded agent or servant to push back against their superior. 111 Sometimes, the states do not dutifully
cooperate in administer ing a federal program, but actively seek to change or undermine that
program. They are uncooperative .
Gerken and Bulman-Pozen identify three categories of state actions that constitute uncooperative federalism. The first is “licensed” dissent,
which occurs when “Congress explicitly contemplates that states will deviate from federal norms in implementing federal policy, but states take
that invitation in a direction the federal government may not anticipate.”112 State efforts to catalyze federal welfare reform provide an
example. In the 1980s, states such as Wisconsin and Michigan utilized a waiver provision of the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children
welfare program (“AFDC”) to “recast an entitlement for poor families struggling to raise children into a temporary grant for recipients who
would quickly move into the private workforce.”113 Departing from the existing federal policy, the states began enacting welfare-to-work
requirements that required welfare recipients to actively seek employment and terminated AFDC benefits after a set period of time.114
These uncooperative state s largely succeed ed in changing federal welfare law when Congress passed the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.115

The second form of uncooperative federalism occurs when states exploit gaps in federal regulatory schemes. In such cases,
“the federal government does not contemplate state variation but states have sufficient discretion that they find ways to

contest federal policy .”116 Gerken and Bulman-Pozen offer California’s efforts to regulate air pollution more stringently than the EPA
as an example of this strain of uncooperative federalism. The
state has successfully exploited a narrow exception to the
Clean Air Act’s preemption provision to drive federal emissions standards for decades.117

The third, and “strongest,” form of uncooperative federalism is civil disobedience, where states “simply refuse to comply with
the national program or otherwise obstruct it .”118 Gerken and Bulman-Pozen cite state pushback to the Patriot Act as an
example. After Congress passed the Act, several states enacted resolutions that prohibited their agencies from assisting the federal government
in enforcing the Act.119 This uncooperative action had real effect , as “the fed eral government relies on the
states for enforcement assistance .”120
In early 2009, the federal-state relationship regarding marijuana fit within the uncooperative federalism framework, falling into the civil
disobedience bucket.121 At that point, thirteen states had legalized medical marijuana, a costly blow to the federal government due to its
dependence on the states for assistance in enforcing marijuana prohibition.122 The DEA, meanwhile, was “actively working to undermine the
decriminalization efforts underway in California, the state with the most nationally visible decriminalization policy.”123 Indeed, federal
prosecutions of individual medical marijuana users and marijuana businesses in California were commonplace in the early 2000s.124

ii. Increased Federal Cooperation

There is a great deal more cooperation in the federal-state marijuana relationship than there was when Gerken and Bulman-Pozen originally
described it as uncooperative federalism. Since 2009, dozens more states have legalized medical marijuana and many have also legalized the
drug for recreational use. In conjunction with these state policy change s , the fed eral government ’s policy
changed as well: It became far more cooperative with the states.

Though the fed eral government indisputably has the constitutional authority to prosecute marijuana businesses
and users operating in states where marijuana is legal, over the years it has agreed – expressly at times and tacitly at others – to allow
those businesses and users to avoid prosecution. This form of federal cooperation began with a series of DOJ memoranda instructing U.S.
Attorneys not to prosecute marijuana businesses and users acting in compliance with state law.

In 2009, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden issued a policy memorandum to U.S. Attorneys titled “Investigations and Prosecutions in States
Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana.”125 The “Ogden Memo,” as it has become known, instructed U.S. Attorneys in states that legalized
medical marijuana to deprioritize the enforcement of federal marijuana law against individuals who use medical marijuana in compliance with
state law.126 As a result, the federal government stopped prosecuting medical marijuana users unless the user failed to comply with
state law in a manner that implicated one of several “potential federal interest[s]” listed in the Ogden Memo.127

Reasserting state sovereignty counterbalances governance failures from federal

encroachment – extinction.
Mihalakas ’19 [Nasos; May 21; Global Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, LL.M. from
University College London, J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law; The Federalism Project,
“The Need for Governance Reform – Symptoms vs. Cause,”
https://the-federalism-project.org/2019/05/21/the-need-for-governance-reform-symptoms-vs-cause/]

There is no doubt that we live in “challenging” times. We face ‘social challenges,’ from racial discrimination to gender
inequality, women’s rights (reproductive or otherwise) that will have to be addressed, LGBTQ issues (recognition of gay
marriage), a gun violence epidemic due to both inadequate gun control laws but also excessive violence in our society, etc. We also face
‘economic challenges,’ like stagnant salaries and low wages, job insecurity (due to automation or outsourcing), taxes

that are too high for some and not high enough for others, mounting student debt, and yes massive income inequality . And, of course,

we do face ‘external challenges’, from nuclear proliferation in the Korean peninsula, to ISIS and religiously motivated global
terrorism , to global warming and climate change !

Yet, most of these issues are but symptoms of a greater cause. Their existence, or our inability to overcome them, is being
caused by a much greater problem in our society that unless we address soon we risk permanent societal
failures within the next 20 to 30 years.

This greater cause is our very own failing system of governance !!!
Though brilliant in its original construction by the founding fathers, our Federal system of governance (separation of powers,

check and balances, separate Federal and State governments) is grossly off track and highly unbalanced .
During the past 200 years, we witnessed a steady transfer of power away from the States and into the Federal government, and within the
Federal government we saw a similar steady concentration of power in the hands of the Executive (the singular President), and to a certain
extend the Supreme Court (due to Congressional acquiescence).

This did not happen due to some conspiracy by the ‘powerful elite’ or through interference by foreign powers. It happened gradually (almost
naturally), as a response to major failures at the State level: in dealing with slavery and racial discrimination (see Civil War and Jim Crow laws in
the south), in dealing with market failures and the need to regulate business and provide a safety net (see Great Depression, The New Deal and
the Great Society), in fighting a Cold War with the Soviet Union (see expansion of military and intelligence services to advance US foreign
policy).

Today, power and authority to deal with issues and solve problems is highly concentrated at the Federal level, away
from ordinary people and their ability to monitor let alone influence elected politicians.

There is so much power concentrated at the Federal level , and in particular in the hands of one person (the President)
that it makes Washington politicians constant targets of special interests and lobbying organizations ,
makes negotiations for compromise impossible because there is so much at stake, and it has created a highly unbalanced
system (where “checks and balances” are not fully implemented and more often can’t work effectively).

Washington gridlock, dysfunction, polarization, and partisanship have led to the inability to pass a budget
(balanced or otherwise), or address the need for immigration reform, or provide for adequate healthcare coverage and

affordable prescription drugs, or even implement proper tax reform . Therefore, unless we address these ‘systemic’
failures of our system of governance, unless we implement institutional changes and fix the process, we will never get lasting
solutions to our current and future societal challenges.

Unfortunately, there is no one thing we can do, no ‘magic bullet’ that can fix the dysfunction of our Federal system of governance (because it’s
not just ‘the Federal government’ that needs reform, but also/primarily Congress and the Judiciary). Rather, there are several things (from
specific process changes through laws/regulations to Constitutional amendments) that we will have to changes now, in order to see
improvement in the function of our system of governance in the next 20 to 30 years.

There is a parallel example to this system of governance failures, and it’s that of ‘global warming.’ Global temperatures have been rising, due to
greenhouse gases (caused by human activity – burning fossil fuels like coal and oil), presenting an existential threat to our planet and our way of
life. However, fossil fuels are not inherently evil, used by certain people bent on the destruction of humanity! Energy from fossil fuels was
instrumental in facilitating the industrial revolution, which brought progress and technological innovations during the past 150 years, that
helped the whole world to advance, prosper, and better connect. It was not until recently that we realized that the constantly expanding use of
fossil fuels by humans is contributing to rising temperatures, and if we don’t do something now to ‘bent the curve’, then in 20 to 30 years from
now temperatures will rise to levels that can be devastating to the planets ecosystem, and by extension us humans.

Concentration of power at the Federal level , over the past 200 years, though not inherently evil (downright necessary and
proper during some critical periods), has reached a point of pure dysfunction . The proof of the unsustainable nature of
our current system (like rising temperatures are a proof of global warming) is income inequality . During the past 50 years, we have
witnessed a steady concentration of wealth at the hands of the top 10% (and primarily the top 1%).

And although one can look at our society today statically and say: “things are still ok: there are rich people and poor people, and we are still the
most powerful and wealthy nation in the world – so what’s the problem?”… the trend keeps going upwards: currently over 70% of our national
wealth is concentrated at the hands for the top 10%. When do we need to do something to stop this trend? When it gets to 80%, or 90%?

Democrats and Republicans (now thanks to Donald Trump) both agree on the existence of a ‘powerful elite, in cahoots with the political
establishment, bent on exploiting the middle class’… yet both party’s solution is the same: win political power and cut or raise taxes, regulate
more or less, appoint some type of judges… in essence, deal with the symptoms and not the underlying cause!
If we want to address the underlying cause of income inequality (and outsourcing of jobs, health-care failures, racial

tensions, education funding, women’s rights, public housing, etc.), then we need to reform our system of governance , before we
can consider specific policy priorities. By fixing the legislative process, restoring proper checks , correcting the imbalance within the
and returning powers back to
government branches the States … we can get on a path where we see real
results within the next 20 to 30 years.

Otherwise, gridlock and dysfunction at the Federal level will only get worse!
 CP---1NC
The United States federal government should provide a Universal Basic Income,
financed by deficit spending.
 DA---1NC
IRS Tradeoff:

IRS modernization will succeed now based on careful sequencing that avoids
distractions [like new “social programs”]. That restores IRS credibility.
Elder 23, tax professional at Caplin & Drysdale (Niles, “High Hopes for IRS Funding Boost,” Talking Tax
Podcast, transcribed by Brett Bricker and AI)//BB
So last week, you may recall we heard from some Bloomberg tax reporters about what the IRS has on its to do list for 2023. We're going to stay on that theme this
week. But this time we'll be hearing not from journalists, but from a tax professional. Niles elder is a member at the firm Caplin and Drysdale past chair of a

committee at the ABA tax section, and a fellow at the American College of tax counsel, he's keeping a close eye on the $80 billion infusion of
cash that the IRS will be receiving , and what that will mean for taxpayers, Elbert spoke with Bloomberg taxes, Jeff Leon about how the new
hopes will happen, you
aggressively funded IRS will behave in 2023, he gets to what he thinks will happen in a bit, but first announced talks about what he

know, what we want, particularly, you know, I think those of us who, you know, spend our lives dealing with the services that they're able to stick to

their core mission, and not get sidetracked as they have in recent years by having to
administer social programs , you know, there was the PPP loans, child tax credit payments, etcetera. That's my

hopes, what might actually happen, the first thing that, you know, I would expect to see at the service is hiring, the ranks of the IRS
top to bottom are severely depleted, you don't have enough revenue agents, you don't have enough appeals officers, you don't have enough revenue officers, you

don't have enough special agents. And you certainly don't have enough, you know, customer service personnel that 's impacted every
aspect of the agency. IRS knows this. They 've been begging for funds for many years now. So that's the
first thing, you know, part and parcel, Jeff, with hiring comes training. I don't know exactly what the numbers are. But there's been a
significant depletion of seasoned IRS employees who were working with, you know, the agency for many years, they're gone. So, you
know, I would certainly anticipate there's going to be a lot of that happening in 2023. In addition to that, the IRS has been beaten over the head, about, you know,
the lack of customer service, almost at every level, you know, they're processing issues, there have been just pure communication issues. It's incredibly difficult,
unfortunately, to get in touch, you know, with a customer service rep when you have a problem. And then along with that, you've probably heard, because it's
certainly no secret that there's a tremendous backlog of unprocessed tax returns. And so the service, you know, in order to sort of get back on its feet needs to take
care of those unprocessed returns. Yeah, so there's a lot of things that are going on right there. So what do you feel is the mindsets at the IRS right now, especially
with the promise of new money and stuff like that? I mean, how do you feel that they're approaching things now? Well, again, this goes back to the beginning, my
hope versus wants, Jeff, now, I say this, you know, fully well, knowing right now you have an Acting Commissioner, Chuck Reddick, who was the former
commissioner stepped down in November, we have, you know, an Acting Commissioner. And you know, just in terms, at least in my experience, in terms of trying to
run a large organization, and, you know, the politics that come into play, particularly with respect to this government agency, it will certainly help to get a confirmed
Commissioner. But still, since you don't know how long you know, it might take to get confirmation to go through the organization, I would certainly suspect is doing

a substantial amount of strategic planning. It is a tremendous amount of money. And you've got to figure out how to get the most
bang for your buck . So you can't rush into anything. I am hoping that they are doing substantial strategic
planning , and part and parcel with you know, trenches trying to figure out how to get the most bang for your buck is how also
to get the best talent possible. And one of the downsides, you know, to having obviously to administer a government

agency is that you can be challenged in terms of the the resources and the funds that you have available to bring in
the talent that you would want it Jeff, it is paramount. We hear about it every day on TV on radio. There's so much contention about, you know, the

way the IRS operates, if you want to tamp that down so that the service can focus on its core mission. That And the service needs to show

competency . They need to be able to get particularly the politicians in Congress to back down. Now, that is
a very high hurdle, to be sure. But that's what they need to do. And they can do it by showing competency . I mean, again,
because of the political issues that are going on, on Capitol Hill, you know, there are already efforts to undercut the annual budget. And, you know, there's the
direct way of attacking it, by passing laws that, you know, would reduce that funding, but there's a sort of the indirect way of doing it, which is, you know, by just

underfunding in the, you know, annual budget. So, you know, they're gonna have to make sure that they're show ing that this,
you know, this amount of money that's been allocated to them, is used as effectively as possible . And yes, most
definitely, it'll be interesting to see what happens in the coming year, especially when it comes to money when it comes to what's the what happens next, and what
is going on with Congress as well. But I'm taking a step back from the IRS, looking at the tax world a little bit more broadly, what do you feel will be the big tax trends
in 2023? You know, I think it's probably, you know, going to be very much driven by what the IRS, you know, decides to do, we're looking at, you know, in an
economy that potentially, you know, goes into recession, when that happens, you know, it certainly impacts, you know, the way the tax system functions, you know,
then isn't necessarily, although I can't say that, you know, tax planning ever necessarily stops, if people aren't looking to, you know, try and find a way to offset or
reduce your income or gains, then, you know, tax planning itself, can, you know, ratchet down, you know, there's not an insignificant amount of litigation, you
know, that's going on right now, that may have some impact on various aspects of the tax system. And take, for instance, say, you know, taxation or reporting of
offshore assets. There's a big case at the Supreme Court right now, this is Bitner case, where the court is going to have to decide in the case of a non willful violation
of the F bar rules, what the appropriate, you know, penalty is going to be is also a lot of litigation going on, in the area of the Administrative Procedure Act, the IRS
tends to do a lot of regulation by notice, as opposed to actually issuing, you know, regulations that, you know, might be required by statute. So, I mean, I think that's
going to be something we haven't seen. They're always tax cases in a tax court. You know, it's fairly busy. But I'm not sure that we've seen the volume of significant,
you know, cases, I think that we're seeing right now that, you know, would we have a real impact on the way the tax system operates? Crypto, notwithstanding the
fact that cryptocurrencies have taken a bit of a hit, I would say probably over the last six months, it certainly seems that they're here to stay. More and more
businesses are, you know, accepting of them, more and more investors are using or acquiring. And so, you know, is the current treatment that cryptocurrencies
property? Is that really going to be the long term position? If it changes, then you have to shift gears? So, those are certainly trends that I think we're going to see,
you know, in 2023, that, you know, are going to be important to large numbers of taxpayers, and, you know, they're important to taxpayers are certainly going to be
important to the government, you know, as well, looking towards the New Year and everything like that. Is there anything else that you'd like to mention that
maybe we haven't covered? Well, I mean, I think, you know, we can talk just about enforcement. For a moment, Jeff enforcement is incredibly
important aspect of the tax system. I may be a tax lawyer, I may be a controversial or I may defend people who didn't pay their taxes. It doesn't
mean I don't believe that everybody should pay their fair share, so that the system properly operates now, there are certain steps the service

has to take before it really is fully functioning. So you know what we're going to see in what's going to hit the news particularly the tax
break, it's going to be things like the conservation easement cases, or captive insurance arrangements or promoter examine nations which go hand in hand with one
another, the service is going to want to make, you know headlines where it can't with crypto related type criminal cases. And, again, they've been pushing for a
while employment tax cases, and I don't expect there's going to be, you know, any let down, they're going back to, again, my theme of Hope versus wants, it would
be nice to see the service in a real way, move back towards domestic legal source type tax cases, we're talking about scams, embezzlement, just sort of garden
variety fraud, because you don't see a lot of that, and when it goes unchecked, you know, people will do what they will do, they will continue to go after, you know,
tax preparers in criminal cases. Because, you know, for every tax preparer who's investigated, prosecuted, and ended up going to prison, there are 1000s, often
1000s and 1000s of individual taxpayers, who no longer have, you know, a means of under paying their taxes, offshore enforcement remains a priority, I think we'll
still see a fair bit of that. And then, you know, there are a number of other things that, you know, the service really has to move on to because, you know, for every
aggressive tax strategy that they're dealing with, now, there are, you know, several others that are still, you know, sort of flying under the radar that first got to find
and then they've got to find a way to address it, they're looking at multiple pension plans, and we're looking at Puerto Rico act 22 cases and, you know, a more than
a handful of other, you know, aggressive, you know, planning structures. And so, you know, we're gonna see them make efforts, but, you

know, in the, in the concept of, you walk before you run, they've got to get the hiring done.
They've got to get the training done. They've got to clean up their act, and then , you know, they can
move into other areas , and, you know, try and, you know, bring the IRS and the system along. That was
Caplin, and Drysdale is Niles Elber. Speaking with Bloomberg tax reporter Jeff Lyon. And that's it for today's podcast. You can find up to the newest and latest tax
and accounting developments at our website news dot Bloomberg tax.com. That website once again is news that Bloomberg tax.com. Today's talking tax was
produced by myself, David Schultz. Rachel Daigle is our editor and executive producer is Josh block from Washington. I'm David Schultz. Thanks for listening.

Taxes on the wealthy wreck the IRS

Kiel and Eisenger 18, *covers business and consumer finance for ProPublica, **senior editor at
ProPublica (Paul and Jesse, “The IRS Tried to Take on the Ultrawealthy. It Didn’t Go Well. Ten years ago,
the tax agency formed a special team to unravel the complex tax-lowering strategies of the nation’s
wealthiest people. But with big money — and Congress — arrayed against the team, it never had a
chance.” ProPublica, https://www.propublica.org/article/ultrawealthy-taxes-irs-internal-revenue-
service-global-high-wealth-audits)//BB

In 2009, the IRS had formed a crack team of specialists to unravel the tax dodges of the ultrawealthy. In
an age of widening inequality, with a concentration of wealth not seen since the Gilded Age, the rich were evading taxes through ever

more sophisticated maneuvers . The IRS commissioner aimed to stanch the country’s losses with what he proclaimed would
be “a game-changing strategy.” In short order, Charles Rettig, then a high-powered tax lawyer and today President Donald Trump’s IRS commissioner,
warned that the squad was conducting “the audits from hell.” If Trump were being audited, Rettig wrote during the presidential campaign, this is the elite team that
would do it. The wealth team embarked on a contentious audit of Schaeffler in 2012, eventually determining that he owed
about $1.2 billion in unpaid taxes and penalties. But after seven years of grinding bureaucratic combat, the IRS abandoned its campaign. The agency informed
Schaeffler’s lawyers it was willing to accept just tens of millions, according to a person familiar with the audit. How did a case that consumed so many years of
effort, with a team of its finest experts working on a signature mission, produce such a piddling result for the IRS? The
Schaeffler case offers a rare
window into just how challenging it is to take on the ultrawealthy. For starters, they can devote seemingly
limitless resources to hiring the best legal and accounting talent . Such taxpayers tend not to steamroll tax laws;
they employ complex, highly refined strategies that seek to stretch the tax code to their advantage. It can
take years for IRS investigators just to understand a transaction and deem it to be a violation. Once
that happens, the IRS team has to contend with battalions of high-priced lawyers and accountants that
often outnumber and outgun even the agency’s elite SWAT team. “We are nowhere near a circumstance where the IRS could
launch the types of audits we need to tackle sophisticated taxpayers in a complicated world,” said Steven
Rosenthal, who used to represent wealthy taxpayers and is now a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings
Institution. Because the audits are private — IRS officials can go to prison if they divulge taxpayer information — details of the often epic paper battles between the
rich and the tax collectors are sparse, with little in the public record. Attorneys are also loath to talk about their clients’ taxes, and most wealthy people strive to
keep their financial affairs under wraps. Such disputes almost always settle out of court. But ProPublica was able to reconstruct the key points in the Schaeffler case.
The billionaire’s lawyers and accountants first crafted a transaction of unusual complexity, one so novel that they acknowledged, even as they planned it, that it was
likely to be challenged by the IRS. Then Schaeffler deployed teams of professionals to battle the IRS on multiple fronts. They denied that he owed any money,
arguing the agency fundamentally misunderstood the tax issues. Schaeffler’s representatives complained to top officials at the agency; they challenged document

Schaeffler’s team emerged almost

requests in court. At various times, IRS auditors felt Schaeffler’s side was purposely stalling. But in the end,

completely victorious. His experience was telling. The IRS’ new approach to taking on the superwealthy
has been stymied.

Strong and credible IRS is key to democracy. The internal link alone turns solvency.
Anson and Kane 22, *associate professor in the department of political science at the University of
Maryland Baltimore County, **assistant professor at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University
(“Everyone loves to hate the IRS. That’s a problem. Our research found ways to increase public support
for funding the agency,” Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/22/irs-
underfunded-messaging-republicans-democrats/)//BB

With the 2022 tax season now officially over, many taxpayers are facing an unusual problem. The
Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. federal tax
collection agency, has warnedfilers of significant delays in processing federal tax refunds because of ongoing funding and
personnel cutbacks at the agency. While most Americans rarely give much thought to the IRS, this year’s even

slower customer service is likely to cause widespread dissatisfaction. Lukewarm public support for the IRS is nothing new.
But research finds that continuing negative attitudes toward the agency could exacerbate a second ongoing problem: a
steep decline in the IRS’s ability to enforce the tax code and collect revenue from tax cheats . Two things might
boost public support for the IRS: information about its underfunding and appeals to Republicans’ and Democrats’ core values. That increased support might push

Congress to invest in the U.S. central tax authority. Here’s what our research says. Why support for the IRS matters Political scientists
find that a lack of support for central tax agencies is remarkably bad for democracy . The IRS plays a key
role in supporting what social scientists call “ state capacity ,” or the U.S. ability to run a functioning
government . Without the IRS collecting taxes and enforcing the tax code, the U.S. f ederal g overnment
would very quickly collapse into total dysfunction.

Public support for state capacity is to democratic modeling. Solves great power war.
Magsamen 18, et al, Center for American Progress vice president (Kelly, Max Bergmann, CAP senior
fellow, Michael Fuchs, CAP senior fellow, and Trevor Sutton, CAP fellow, “The Case for a Democratic
Values-Based U.S. Foreign Policy,” Center for American Progress,
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2018/09/05/457451/securing-democratic-
world/)//BB
Reviving America’s strategic position in the world in the wake of President Donald Trump will require a foreign policy that both firmly embraces democratic values
and systematically pushes back against authoritarian competitors such as Russia and China. The Trump presidency has already severely undercut the United States’
global standing, causing immense harm to the nation’s strategic position, credibility, and moral authority. Allies
are losing faith in American
leadership while illiberal regimes are growing in number, stature, and audacity. Trump’s rise reflects a
pre-existing deterioration in the vitality of democratic systems, a global phenomenon which his
presidency has now turned into a crisis. The damage cannot be reversed simply by electing a different president or reverting to previous
foreign policy approaches. Instead, the United States must adopt bold new policies to regain the advantage in great

power competition and help vulnerable democracies, including its own, resist authoritarian influence
and strengthen a growing global democratic community. This report explains why a democratic values-based foreign policy is the
right choice for the United States on both a strategic and moral level. It also offers specific policy recommendations as a roadmap for how the next administration
could pursue a democratic values-based foreign policy. Today, democracy
is under strain in America and threatened across the
globe. The spread of democratic governance, which for decades seemed all but inevitable, has stalled
and now faces serious setbacks. Across the democratic world, ordinary people have lost trust in their
institutions of government and delivered stunning rebukes to their political establishments. These
setbacks have also emboldened authoritarian regimes . Russia, China, and other illiberal states have sought to exploit the openness
of democratic societies for their geopolitical advantage and have put forward an alternative autocratic model for politics and economic development that
security, prosperity, and strength depend on the survival and
undermines liberal democratic values. America’s enduring

success of democracy—both at home and abroad—as well as on the resilience of institutions, rules, and
norms that protect the liberal democratic values on which the United States’ global standing is built . Yet at
the very moment when liberal democracy faces its greatest ideological challenge since the Cold War, President Trump has chosen to reject America’s historic role as
leader of the world’s democracies. He has treated democratic allies as ideological foes and murderous dictators as respected friends and equals while stoking
nativist and isolationist impulses among the American people. President Trump has also systematically denigrated democratic values and norms at home through
unprecedented attacks on the press, the independent judiciary, and law enforcement, as well as political purges of civil servants.1 While U.S. democratic institutions
have shown resilience in the face of his challenges, it is already clear that some of the damage Trump does will outlast his presidency. The critical question today is
whether the United States after Trump will summon the resolve to lead, protect, and expand the world’s democracies or stand by and suffer the consequences as
autocracy and illiberalism crack the foundations of the American-led global system. Advancing a values-based foreign policy after Trump will inevitably invite a
vigorous debate over how—or even whether—values should factor into U.S. foreign policy. Critics will likely point to America’s prior foreign policy errors and
shortcomings, for example, the use of democracy promotion aims to justify misguided foreign policies such as the invasion of Iraq; the broader U.S. failure to
promote democracy in the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring; and Cold War-era support for dictators who sided against the Soviet Union. Critics may also
point to the urgency of domestic challenges relative to foreign policy ones or fear of U.S. overextension abroad to argue that a values-based foreign policy is unwise
or simply not possible. This report takes these critiques seriously. However, in reflecting on the stakes for U.S. leadership, present and future, it arrives at the
conclusion that an American foreign policy shorn of American values would ultimately deliver less security and prosperity at home, while making U.S. leadership in

the world less sustainable and impactful. This report asserts that an approach that embraces America’s core democratic
values will allow the United States to compete more effectively with authoritarian powers such as
China and Russia and will deliver better results for the country in the long haul. To address setbacks abroad, the United States will need to pursue a new

foreign policy that systematically puts liberal democratic values at the center of its engagement with the world. This will require more than just
lip service . It will entail a meaningful, sustained shift in how the United States conducts its foreign relations, launched with quick and decisive action and
sustained with persistence and strategic vision. A democratic values-based foreign policy strategy is rooted in faith in democratic self-government, not just as being
better than all the alternatives but also as a value in and of itself. Such a foreign policy will also advance U.S. national interests. America’s presence as a prosperous,
multi-ethnic, free democratic society poses a challenge to autocrats through the model it sets. Instead of taking this power for granted, it is time for America to
cultivate it. At the heart of such an effort should be a realignment of American foreign policy to meet the challenge posed by resurgent illiberalism. This can be done
by forging stronger cooperation among democratic states, including in the defense of democracies under assault and the expansion of the global democratic space.

In both the short- and long-term, the United States will need to take the following steps: Restore
democratic values and norms at home . Work with democratic allies to design and implement a counter-authoritarian playbook to push back
against the encroachment on and abuse of the open systems of democratic states. Build stronger international networks of democracies to create a global
democratic bulwark. Privilege U.S. relationships with democracies, and reflect this in U.S. policy decisions and spending. Strengthen international support
mechanisms for populations nonviolently mobilizing for democracy around the world, while more systematically pressuring countries to uphold human rights and
adhere to international law. Reorienting U.S. foreign policy toward a values-based approach will require policymakers to take the long view, recognize the intrinsic
strength of democratic governance, and acknowledge that the best way to advance democracy worldwide is through the
example set by successful democracie s. Critically, it will also require U.S. leaders to heed the lessons of history by recognizing that the most
effective way to promote and sustain democracy is supporting and encouraging democratic institutions and movements, rather than employing coercive measures.
The United States has numerous tools to vigorously defend its values and advance democracy without seeking to impose it using force. Some may fear that a values-
based foreign policy would come at the expense of traditional U.S. interests. But that critique misdiagnoses and underestimates the geopolitical challenge to U.S.
interests that a rising illiberal tide presents. American interests will be far more difficult to secure if liberal democracy is supplanted as the pre-eminent and most
sought-after political system. There will inevitably be times when U.S. interests will necessitate partnering with nondemocratic regimes. Still, a principled but
pragmatic approach can do both: cooperate selectively with such regimes on matters of vital national interest while also recognizing that the greatest strategic gains
to U.S. security and prosperity will rest on the success of other democracies and that America’s staying power and strategic resilience will depend on investing in
them. The challenge: A democracy crisis at home and abroad For most of the past 50 years, the world has witnessed the dramatic spread of democratic governance
throughout the globe. Between 1970 and 2010, the number of democratic states nearly tripled, with transitions to democracy stretching from the southern cone of
South America to West Africa, Southeast Asia, and the former Soviet bloc.2 By 2000, more than half the world’s population lived under a democratic government for
the first time in recorded history.3 This democratic wave brought a host of political and social rights to hundreds of millions of people and coincided with a historic
decline in the incidence of interstate wars.4 The ascendance of democracy globally and the emergence of an increasingly robust set of international rules and
institutions fostered a prevailing assumption that a more democratic world was here to stay: Democratic states would prosper and more autocratic states would
transition to democracy. But this optimism about democracy has waned due to a number of varying and reinforcing trends. First, democracies have experienced
setbacks. Many countries once held up as examples of democratic progress—such as Poland, Turkey, and Venezuela—have experienced a deterioration in rule of
law and electoral competitiveness.5 In other countries, such as Thailand and Egypt, democratically elected governments were overthrown by force. Meanwhile,
across the Middle East, the democratic promise of the Arab Spring faltered in the face of violent repression. During this same period, illiberal and insular populist
movements became resurgent in many established democracies, weakening international cooperation among democratic states and imperiling many of the
achievements of the postwar era. These movements occurred most notably in the European Union, where a Center for American Progress and American Enterprise
Institute study found that “in the past decade, such parties have moved from the margins of Europe’s political landscape to its core.”6 A key feature of this illiberal
resurgence has been elected leaders’ use of strongman tactics to undermine democratic institutions and norms. In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has
gained increasing control over the political, economic, and military aspects of the Turkish state.7 In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has used xenophobic
rhetoric and crony capitalism to erode political checks and balances and consolidate power.8 Poland’s current leaders and others have followed Orbán’s playbook,
attacking the independence of the country’s media and judiciary and campaigning on an exclusionary vison of Polish society.9 President Rodrigo Duterte of the
Philippines, meanwhile, has flaunted his disdain for the rule of law and human rights as he pursues a campaign of mass violence against drug users and dealers,
which has included state sponsorship of extrajudicial killings.10 In all of these cases, attacks on democratic institutions and norms have been carried out by
democratically elected leaders themselves.11 Even in the United States, President Donald Trump is showing signs of authoritarian envy, regularly criticizing the
media, the judiciary, and law enforcement, while openly admiring some of the world’s most brutal dictators. As Trump said of Kim Jong Un, who rules over a
totalitarian dictatorship where people are thrown into labor camps for criticizing the government: “He’s the head of the country, and I mean he’s the strong head. …
Don’t let anyone think anything different. He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.”12 These trends do not mean in any way
that democracy is a lost cause or that the global tilt toward illiberalism is irreversible. Demand for democratic change and greater civil and political rights remains a
potent force that transcends culture and geography, as recent events in countries as diverse as Burkina Faso, Armenia, and Malaysia illustrate.13 But these positive
developments do not negate the democratic backsliding that has occurred elsewhere. Across the world, democracy faces an uncertain future. Second,

confidence in democratic politics has waned, even in states with long traditions of representative government. In the past two decades,
democracies have struggled to deliver economic results for their people. Even democracies that have experienced rapid growth have too often seen it
disproportionally benefit small elites or specific regions, while causing significant disruption elsewhere in society.14 The Great Recession of 2008 and years of
painfully slow recovery helped fuel a sharp decline in trust in government institutions across the democratic world.15 Stagnation and deepening inequality, coupled
with demographic change and political dysfunction, have created fertile ground for distrust, division, and demagoguery that illiberal populist parties have exploited.
These groups draw on xenophobic and racist messaging but also resentment at economic stagnation and elite capture of supposedly democratic institutions. In
some cases, they have also made both subtle and overt appeals to authoritarian modes of governance.16 The United States has not been immune to this
democratic malaise. Americans today distrust their government in greater numbers than at any point in modern U.S. history, including the height of the Vietnam
War and during the Watergate scandal.17 Two of the most significant drivers of distrust have been the rise of unfettered special interest spending to distort U.S.
politics and the political paralysis that has arisen from the growth of counter-majoritarian practices such as gerrymandering and abuse of the legislative filibuster.18

These problems have fed a widespread perception that the U.S. political system no longer represents
the interests of ordinary Americans nor does it address grave challenges such as inequality, racial injustice, and opioid addiction. Such
failures, compounded by foreign policy failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, have contributed to a profound loss of faith in American institutions that Donald Trump
effectively channeled in his bid for the presidency. Third, illiberal
and authoritarian regimes have sought to encourage and
exploit the crisis of confidence in democratic states in order to weaken them from within, assert the superiority of their own models, and attack
the foundations of the post-Cold War geopolitical order. Of these revisionist states, Russia has been the most overt and aggressive in its challenge to liberal
democracy. Despite a stagnating economy and shrinking population, Moscow has launched ambitious measures to reestablish a
sphere of influence in nearby countries, fueled right- and left-wing populist movements across Europe and North America, and sowed confusion and
discord among the democratic citizenries of EU states and NATO members, including America.19 The tools it has deployed in this campaign include disinformation
operations using both traditional and social media; targeted use of corruption to cultivate political proxies; cyberespionage aimed at influencing electoral outcomes;
covert funding of insurgent political movements; and exploitation of neighbors’ energy insecurity.20 Together, Russian tactics constitute a new
authoritarian playbook to which the United States and other democratic powers have yet to develop an effective response.21 If Russia has been the
boldest challenger, the most serious long-term external threat to democratic governance comes from China. Beijing has been—and will almost certainly remain—an
essential partner of the United States in solving major global challenges, from climate change to nonproliferation. But as China amasses power, too often it has put
its newfound capabilities and immense resources behind a model of political and economic development and interstate cooperation that neither requires nor
encourages liberal democratic values.22 In fact, China’s full-throated assertion of narrow national interests in areas such as internet governance, free speech, trade,
and human rights often actively undermines democratic values.23 China has also sought to use economic coercion to undermine
U.S. security alliances and partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region and erode cohesion among EU member states.24 Meanwhile, Beijing has used its
economic and growing military might to immunize itself from the consequences of flouting long-standing international principles such as freedom of navigation.25
Tragically, these developments coincide with President Trump’s abandonment of America’s commitments to global leadership, including the Iran nuclear deal, the
Paris climate agreement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Fourth, the institutions, rules, and norms that underpin the liberal international order have not lived up
to expectations, providing space for illiberal and undemocratic states to seize the advantage. The global and regional organizations established since World War II
were built to protect and encourage liberal values, including universal human rights and rules-based international conduct. But these institutions largely reflect the
world of 1945 and have not been adequately updated to recognize the massive shifts in global economic and political power. Today, many of these institutions are
losing the capacity to perform their basic missions because of inherent structural flaws, outdated mechanisms, and deliberate efforts by world powers to undermine
or circumvent them. The U.N. Security Council is rarely able to meaningfully respond to gross abuses of human rights or even outright aggression.26 The United
States and other democracies face growing challenges in upholding international rules or solving big problems such as chemical weapons use in Syria, ethnic
cleansing in Myanmar, China’s violations of international law in the South China Sea, and Russia’s use of gray-zone tactics in Ukraine. The World Trade Organization
has likewise struggled to address abuses of its trade rules by states such as China.27 Without more effective and coordinated efforts to push back against these
abuses and transgressions, authoritarian governments will continue to probe the boundaries of international rules and norms in ways contrary to both U.S. values
and interests. Fifth, economic globalization has exposed autocratic systems to democratic values, but it has also exposed democratic systems to autocratic
influence. As the globalization of the world economy accelerated in the 1990s, experts assumed that integration would result in a more liberal future.28
Authoritarian states, once closed, would be opened up and exposed to the practices and values of liberal democratic states. Gradually, these autocratic states would
begin to take on more liberal characteristics, accelerating the trend toward greater democratization. But globalization has proved to be a two-way street. Liberal
states have also been exposed to the influence of authoritarian states. Foreign investment from autocratic regimes has served as a vehicle to influence their
recipients, most notably in the form of Russian cultivation of political actors across Eastern Europe.29 The corrupt and uncompetitive inducements of autocrats have
at times proved a more attractive path than more transparent business and investment practices favored by democracies.30 The immense wealth concentration in
autocratic states—and liberal ones as well—has spawned a complex transnational network of illicit finance that has distorted both developed and developing
economies.31 Lastly, the Trump administration is now undermining the democratic values and international rules the United States has traditionally sought to
uphold. Although the challenges facing global democracy have been building for many years, they have accelerated since 2016 in part because of the policies and
rhetoric of the current occupant of the Oval Office. In a remarkably short period of time, President Trump has taken dramatic steps to abandon America’s long-
standing moral leadership in the world. President Trump’s first secretary of state publicly declared that the United States would not prioritize human rights.32 The
Trump administration has vigorously attacked America’s democratic allies while showing an affinity for autocrats and dictators.33 On an almost daily basis, the
president makes clear his disregard for many long-standing norms of American government, such as separation of personal and public interests and respect for the
autonomy of the judiciary and law enforcement. While in the past American foreign policy has been prone to charges of hypocrisy—such as claiming to uphold
democracy while backing autocrats—the Trump administration has abandoned any pretense of concern for democratic values. This sharp shift in America’s
approach to the world under President Trump has been immensely destabilizing in ways that are only beginning to become clear.34 The answer: A democratic
values-based foreign policy Donald Trump is hardly the only skeptic of a democratic values-based foreign policy. A range of policymakers and scholars of foreign
policy, including some progressives, have argued that the United States should de-prioritize the promotion of democratic values in its foreign policy. Some make the
argument that the United States needs to take a more hardheaded and transactional approach to advance its security and economic interests. However, this report
argues that not only are these false choices but that the United States should see democratic values as a U.S. comparative advantage—and not a weakness—in
global competition. America’s
liberal democratic values have been key to building, enhancing, and sustaining
America’s geopolitical power. With the global backsliding of democracy and the rise of alternative authoritarian models, it is ever more urgent to
rediscover the power of core American values to secure U.S. interests in the long term. A democratic values-based foreign policy is worth pursuing for three key
reasons. First, it will advance long-term U.S. economic and security interests abroad and create a safer and more prosperous world. Compared
with
authoritarian regimes, democracies are less likely to go to war against each other, less likely to ally
against the United States, less likely to sponsor terrorism, less likely to experience famine or produce
refugees, and more likely to adopt market economies and form economic partnerships with other
democracies.35 Since liberal democracies tend to share values rooted in rule of law, fair competition, and transparency, they are natural
partners in promoting the stable, prosperous, open, and peaceful international environment that the
United States ought to cultivate through its foreign policy. It is true that the process of democratization can be long and uneven and
can sometimes produce destabilizing and aggressive state behavior. However, mature and established democracies are more stable,

peaceful, and prosperous, and more full-fledged democracies mean more economic and security
benefits for the United States.36 Furthermore, the global system of democratic alliances, institutions, and
norms the United States helped create and lead after World War II has improved material conditions
and brought peace and prosperity to hundreds of millions of people across the world. Bolstering that democratic
system and the democratic values that underpin it will ensure that future generations can also enjoy the fruits of democracy and a liberal world. Second, this kind of
foreign policy will help secure an American advantage in great power competition by advancing a compelling alternative and strengthening the global democratic
bulwark. Although the challenge posed by illiberal regimes today has evolved since the Cold War, there are still lessons to be drawn from that era. One of the most
significant factors in the collapse of the Soviet Union was the powerful example and contrast set by flourishing democratic societies in the United States and Europe.
Today, one of America’s greatest strategic assets is its global network of democratic allies and partners. The power of that democratic network, even underutilized
as it is today, stands in stark contrast to what today’s illiberal and authoritarian regimes can offer: namely, political order purchased at the cost of extreme
corruption, xenophobia, oligarchy, and arbitrary use of state power. To succeed, any approach to countering the authoritarian playbook must present a compelling
alternative. This means that the United States, alongside its democratic allies and partners, must demonstrate that liberal
democracy represents the best path to deliver inclusive prosperity, rule of law, and a just and equal
society to a country’s citizens.
 CP---1NC
The fifty states and all relevant United States territories should provide a basic
income.
 DA---1NC
Bipartisan farm bill solves heg and food security because of stable crop insurance
programs.
Kevin Cramer 9/1, North Dakota Senator, "A strong farm bill supports national security,"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/patriotism-unity/a-strong-farm-bill-supports-
national-security, NT-AS

At the end of September, Congress must reauthorize or extend the farm bill . This bipartisan bill is critical to promoting
prosperity in American agriculture and feeding the world. Our farmers and ranchers not only feed Americans, but they
also feed
people around the globe . Much of our international influence comes from this seemingly simple
but essential daily necessity: food.

The United States is a world leader in agricultural exports, and North Dakota is a net exporter, meaning we grow much
more than our state of roughly 775,000 people consumes. You need North Dakota durum wheat for your pasta in Manhattan, edible beans for
food aid in Sudan, and soybeans for hog meal in China. With so much of our products going to feed a hungry country and world, it is all the
more important we pass a strong farm bill to support our producers .
Agriculture is a capital-intensive and risky business. In North Dakota, 90% of the state’s land mass is tied to farms and ranches, and the average
cash expense per farm was $955,496 in 2022 . The farm bill exists to strengthen our agricultural influence by
providing stability despite external market fluctuations. This is especially important when producers are forced to spend
more money to get a crop in the ground or contend with increased costs of feeding and raising livestock. It should concern every consumer,
from low-income and middle-class Americans to coastal elites.

Crop insurance programs in the farm bill are a vital resource, not a bailout, for when the going gets
tough. Without it, producers would be unable to overcome the impact of a catastrophic summer storm or
flooded fields during harvest. Commodity support programs such as Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage help prevent
poor market conditions from causing widespread farm bankruptcies. Effective risk management programs are

cornerstones of the farm bill , providing more certainty, reducing the need for emergency disaster
relief, and ensuring our nation remains an agricultural powerhouse . This significant point of geopolitical influence
and domestic security is all done at a bargain to taxpayers. Crop insurance, commodity programs, and other agriculture support structures in
the farm bill represent a tiny fraction, just 0.23% , of projected overall spending over the next decade.

Despite the risks and additional challenges nature throws at them, there are no better stewards of the land than our producers. Why would
they not be good stewards? Agriculture is a generational, family-based business. Producers have an inherent interest in taking care of their land
and ensuring its productivity for generations to come. They know how to balance conservation and productive land use better than any
bureaucrat in Washington. Farmers and ranchers fundamentally recognize the importance of healthy land because it is the foundation for their
livelihoods.

Across North Dakota, we painstakingly nurture and grow the crops to feed millions. You might not believe those of us in this rectangular blank
spot in the middle of North America are deeply connected with the rest of the globe. But I would wager we know it better than most. From
soybeans to barley and everything in between, we know diplomacy is more than Washington bureaucrats in perfectly pressed suits and fancy
shoes; it’s also farmers in denim and muddy boots.

I have the privilege of being the first North Dakotan to serve on an Armed Services Committee in Congress. I know how important it is to
maintain our leadership abroad. When international trade is interrupted by major weather events or wars, such as the conflict in Ukraine,
American producers step up to the plate to fill the gaps. American food security is national security and critical to maintaining our position
abroad.

Now more than ever, we have to ensure our farmers have the resources they need to be leaders in feeding the world. I will always support
strong defense investment and spending, but a balanced foreign policy strategy includes more than tanks and weapons of war. It’s an incredible
bargain to taxpayers to spend a tiny fraction of what we spend on defense preventing wars in unstable places. We have a lot more influence
abroad when we recognize the strategic importance of our commodities such as energy and food.

Rather than retreating from places and leaving a gap in resources, we can use food to deliver positive American influence and cultivate
goodwill. Selling food abroad is one of the most effective tools we have to reduce the need for future
military intervention in unstable regions. Bad actors use hungry people as pawns in their geopolitical
conquests .
No matter where you are in the world, food does not magically appear on the table. Our agriculture industry is not simply about what shows up
at grocery stores, restaurants, and markets. Food is a daily necessity, and our producers depend on consistent support in a strong farm bill.
Smart, efficient federal programs allow farmers and ranchers to mitigate risk while maintaining strong food supply chains and promoting
American leadership abroad. When we support and assist producers, we enable them to better feed, fuel, and clothe the world.

Floor time is key, aff trades off.

Marshall Griffin 9/4, reporter for Missouri News "TIME IS RUNNING OUT ON PASSING THE FARM BILL
IN CONGRESS," https://www.missourinet.com/2023/09/04/time-is-running-out-on-passing-the-farm-
bill-in-congress/

Congress reconvenes next week, and they’re facing a tight deadline with the still-unfinished farm bill.

U.S. Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo. 4th District, said finding time to debate the farm bill on the House floor won’t be easy.
“A lot of things expire in September…and when we get back, we’re going to be concentrating on these appropriation bills,” Alford told
Missourinet affiliate KDRO. “So it’s (about) finding time on the House floor, basically, to debate and pass the
farm bill . We may be looking at a slight extension on that.”
Alford said the farm bill will likely contain about $864 billion in federal spending, stretched out over five years. It includes such things as the
Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP, historically known as food stamps. But he said the bill is also crucial for farmers and
ranchers in Missouri to be able to stay in business.

“Our farmers need the security to be able to buy the crop insurance to get the loans that they need for their
fertilizer, their seed, their fuel,” Alford said. “The cost of those had been rising at a horrible rate.”

Which Alford blames in part on the Biden Administration’s “demonization of the fossil fuel industry.” Congress has until September 30th to get
the farm bill to the president’s desk.

Republicans strongly oppose any UBI implementation – new 2024 budget proves.
Prem Thakker 2023, Associate writer for breaking news at The New Republic. His work has appeared
in The American Prospect, Washington Monthly, CNN podcasts, and his newsletter Better World, June
2023, "Republicans Are Bringing Back Their Plan to Gut Social Security and Medicare",
https://newrepublic.com/post/173661/republicans-bringing-back-plan-gut-social-security-medicare
Republicans have claimed over and over again that they are not trying to cut Social Security and Medicare. Heck, Joe Biden got them to agree
they would not make cuts to the programs, in a memorable verbal maneuver during his State of the Union speech earlier this year.

And yet the Republican Study Committee (of which some three-quarters of House Republicans are
members ) just released its desired 2024 budget ,in which the party seeks to, you guessed it, cut Social
Security and Medicare.
And note their seriousness. “The RSC Budget is more than just a financial statement. It is a statement of priorities,” the party assures in the
document, released Wednesday.
The proposed budget would effectively make cuts to Social Security by increasing the retirement age for future retirees. The document seeks to
assure people that there would only be “modest adjustments” but does not list what Republicans think the new retirement age should be.

On Medicare, Republicans propose requiring disabled Americans to wait longer before getting benefits and turning Medicare into a “ premium
support ” system, a long-floated Republican idea that essentially turns the government program into a voucher scheme. Such a scheme would
remove the guarantee for seniors to have affordable access to Medicare.

Republicans also call for “pro-growth tax reform” (read: cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations); “work requirements” (imposing more
requirements on poor people trying to attain social services); and “regulatory reforms that increase economic growth” (encouraging the sort of
deregulation that welcomes crashing financial institutions , corporate-poisoned rivers , and more than 1,000 train derailments a year).

As far as taxes go, the party wants to make permanent the individual provisions of Trump’s tax cut bill, which gave a roughly $49,000 annual
tax cut to the top 1 percent and only $500 to those in the bottom 60 percent. In doing so, they’d add nearly $2.5 trillion to the deficit over 10
years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The party also wants to eliminate the estate tax , which only impacts those who inherit
assets worth at least $13 million.

On work requirements, the budget calls for “all federal benefit programs [to] be reformed to include
work promotion requirements.” As in, food stamps, Medicare, you name it: They want it subject to work requirements. And sorry,
Andrew Yang: The budget explicitly says it opposes any efforts to implement proposals like universal

basic income.

Food insecurity goes nuclear.

Cribb ’22 [Julian; May 25; Fellow of the Royal Society for the Arts, the Australian Academy of
Technological Science (ATSE) and the Australian National University Emeritus Faculty; “How food can
end wars, repair climate and restore the Earth,” https://juliancribb.blog/2022/05/25/how-food-can-end-
wars-repair-climate-and-restore-the-earth]

Humans have fought over food and the means of producing it for 20,000 years , as rock art in Australia
shows. Food, water and land scarcity are primary drivers in two thirds of modern conflicts today. Indeed, many
people seem to have forgotten that the primary German war aim in World War II was to take farmland
from the Soviets and put German farmers on it. It is very likely that controlling the Ukraine’s bountiful and
reliable food bowl is among Putin’s main aims also. In the short run this is imposing hunger and even starvation on hundreds
of millions of people far beyond Europe.

Spreading hunger in turn snowballs into government failures , civil wars and refugee tsunamis
around the world – as it did in 2008 when a shortfall in Ukrainian grain exports led to revolutions in three Arab countries. Already, a third
of a billion people – equal to the entire population of Europe – leave their homes each year, either as refugees or economic migrants, to seek
better lives in countries which seem more stable and food secure. War will add to the flood.

Thus, in developing a new food system for the world of the 21st Century, we also have to find a way to curb the human appetite for war.

In Foodor War, I trace the links between food and conflict through human history, explore the role of food in recent conflicts and examine
nine regions of the world which are at high risk of food failure and conflict in the foreseeable future –
conflicts ranging from riots and government failure to nuclear war . My aim is to show that the link between
food and war is inexorable – but that it can be broken. And that having enough good food is the most under-
rated, under-recognised and precious ‘weapon of peace’ in the world today .
 CP---1NC
International CP:

Every country in the world except for the United States should willingly transition to a
socialist economy.
 K---1NC
Financialization K:

The 1AC’s investment in the financialized eschaton is built on the libidinal economy of
leverage---binding apocalyptic thinking as the epoch of cosmological temporality---
vote neg to embrace an ecstatic end to the global process of financialization.
Dr. Amin Samman & Dr. Stefano Sgambati ’22; both are Senior Lecturers in International Political
Economy @ University of London with PhDs; “Financial Eschatology and the Libidinal Economy of
Leverage;” Theory, Culture & Society; Volume 40, Issue 3; 3/12/22; NT-ML

Apocalyptic thinking has a long religious and political tradition, but what place does it occupy within the
temporal universe of contemporary capitalism ? In this essay, we use the figure of the eschaton to draw out the loaded
and ambiguous character of the future as it emerges through the condition of indebtedness . This entails a
departure from political economy accounts of capitalist futurity, which stress the structural logic of financial
speculation, in favour of an existential account that begins instead with the cosmology of money and debt .

We argue that finance capital’s fixation on the future has produced a very specific form of apocalyptic
imagination , characteristic of financial society and built on a libidinal economy of leverage . Rather
than offering an ecstatic end to the global process of financialization , financial eschatologies bind the
contemporary subject to debt and indebtedness to the very end: an endless apocalypse , premised on the
ends of finance itself .
 CP---1NC
The United States federal government should nationalize private industry in the
United States.

The plan nationalizes the private sector---that transitions the economy to socialism
Foster ’13 [John Bellamy Foster, “Marx, Kalecki, and Socialist Strategy,” April 1, 2013, Monthly Review]
The principal strategic aim of the new Labour government would need to be directed at “changing the power relations in society, by capturing
the key centres of the economic, social, and political power of the strongest capitalist groups.” Kalecki argued for “full central public
control of banking, and finance, investment and foreign trade, and possibly the allocation of basic raw materials and commodities.” This
required “ direct social control” of industrial sectors , either through “full nationalization ” or the
key

establishment of “some kind of public corporation.” The most important requirements here were “that those who
direct and manage the [public] corporation have no financial interest other than their salaries,” and that if there were
any private investors they be allowed “no control over policy or management.”38

All of this, Kalecki recognized, would be strongly resisted by capital, which would use all of its means, including sabotage, to block any changes
that threatened its class position. Nevertheless, he argued that if the Labour Party were to exert its full strength at the end of war it would be
able to generate a full-employment economy, turning this into a means of further ratcheting up working-class power. “This period, which may
be short, will be the one of maximum opportunity for Labour, when full employment has generated a self-confident feeling among workers.
Then will be the time to use Labour’s political power to the full; to strike boldly and strike hard. This will be the moment to the lay the basis for
that continuing social revolution without which democratic socialist planning will remain a sterile dream.”39

Kalecki’s political-economic strategy for social change was aimed at fatally undermining what Marx had called capital’s main “lever” for the
disciplining the working class: the existence of a relative surplus population or industrial reserve army. By
removing this lever from
capital, it would be possible to alter the rules of the game.40 The maximum response of capital in this class struggle,
meanwhile, would be to attempt to generate what Steindl later called “stagnation as policy,” opposing all state policies to check unemployment
and even stagnation, and increasing the reserve army of labor in order to preserve the social power of the capitalist class—even at the expense
of total profits.41

As it turned out in Britain in the 1940s and thereafter, Labour came to power but did not—even during its maximum influence—exert its full
power in a project of class transition in line with the course that Kalecki had proposed.42 With the rise of Thatcherism in Britain and Reaganism
in the United States in the 1970s and ‘80s, capital itself, as Steindl observed, sought to break with the political business cycle, putting in its place
the regressive “political trend,” now known as neoliberalism. This was an attempt to turn back the clock to a pre-Keynesian-style economic
regime aimed at increasing unemployment, in order to squeeze wages and impose greater class discipline on workers. At the same time a
financially driven casino economy was opened up for the benefit of capital.43 Full employment and wage inflation were depicted once again as
threats to prosperity, in what Steindl referred to as “the return of the Bourbons” in economic theory.44

The economic effects of this restoration of pre-Keynesian economics are evident in the trends in the United State over the last four decades or
so. The percentage of production and nonsupervisory workers in total private-sector employment has remained constant at about 83 percent
of all workers in both 1965 and 2011. Nevertheless the share of such workers in total private-sector payroll dropped from 76 percent in 1965 to
56 percent in 2011, while their share of GDP fell over the same period from over 30 percent to about 20 percent.45 Under these conditions
even a mainstream economist such as Paul Krugman was compelled to declare in 2012, that we are “back to talking about capital versus labor…
[an] almost Marxist sort of discussion.”46 Moreover, in trying to discern why full-employment policy is off limits at the top of U.S. society even
in the context of deep stagnation and growing inequality, Krugman in his 2012 book End This Depression Now! could find no other rational
explanation than the one offered by Kalecki—namely that capital saw full employment as a threat to its total social power.47

In Kalecki’s view, the capitalist class’ entrenched opposition to long-run full employment through government intervention meant that workers
had no recourse but to push forward on their own in the struggle for higher wages and full employment and to seek on that basis a full
transition to socialism. “Labour,” he warned in 1942,must have no illusions about the great fight that will have to be waged against these
[capitalist interest] groups. They will resist fiercely because what is at stake is not so much their profits as their
personal and social
power, which takes two forms: power in society as a whole, and power over workers’ industry. As long as the
first form of power remains, all the efforts of the workers in the factories and through the trade unions to
diminish the second form of power can only have limited success. The fight for workers’ rights in industry and for
more effective workers’ representation through such things as works’ councils and production committees is, of
course, of very great importance and…it has a vital part to play in the total struggle against the capitalists .

But it can never be a substitute for the necessary political fight to destroy the power wielded over
society as a whole by the great capitalist interest-groups ….

Their power is in fact a class power and, as long as this class power remains unbroken, the ability of the
leading capitalist groups to run things in their way—and, at worst, to sabotage— is enormous ….It can only be
broken by destroying not merely their political influence , but what is its real basis, their economic
power in the great productive forces over which they exercise practically unchallenged control ….
The important thing, however, is that Labour should not be afraid of the consequences of the social revolution within industry, but should make
itself master of the situation, not by trying to damp down the mood of the workers, as did the leaders of the Popular Front in France, but by
directing it against the opponents of democratic planning.48

Kalecki’s political-economic analysis here was based, as he explained, on an “isolated” capitalist

economy.49 As historical events unfolded, not only did the Labour Party fail to act decisively in the working-class interest, but also the
increased militarism and imperialism during the Cold War, as he was later to observe, altered the picture considerably. Increased armaments
spending produced a higher level of employment than in the pre-war years, while at the same time incorporating a considerable part of the
working class within a regressive nationalist-imperialist and chauvinistic project—thereby undermining labor’s capacity to unite to promote its
genuine interests in the class struggle.50 In the highly globalized monopoly-finance capitalism of today the contradictions facing the working-
class movement are even more complex. Capital in the form of multinational corporations is increasingly mobile globally and able to divide and
conquer labor internationally, holding down wages and unit labor costs worldwide as workers of different nationalities are pitted against each
other.51

Nevertheless, Kalecki’sarguments on not accepting the economic rationale of the system and insisting on
the need to wrest social power from the capitalist class remain crucial today. The danger of the profit-
squeeze theory of economic crisis under capitalism has always been that it suggested to workers that
the pursuit of their own democratic, egalitarian aspirations led directly to economic slowdown, worsening
their situation. As Kalecki put it, “There are certain ‘workers’ friends’ who try to persuade the working class to abandon the fight for wages
in its own interest, of course. The usual argument used for this purpose is that the increase of wages causes unemployment, and thus is
detrimental to the working class as a whole.”52 This position is visible in the United States today with the debate over whether to introduce a
paltry increase in the minimum-wage.53

The arguments that Marx and Kalecki leveled against the profit-squeeze theory of crisis have proven
correct not only in their day but ours as well. Decade after decade we have seen a declining share of
wages (and total compensation) in U.S. GDP—with the share of the bottom 80 percent of private-sector
workers plummeting. At the same time the share of GDP represented by management, supervisory, and other nonproduction
employees in the private sector has been rising dramatically.54 Meanwhile, capital’s overall share of income has grown by leaps and bounds.
Rather than a stable framework of accumulation, this has led to stagnation, financial instability, and deteriorating conditions for workers.

Kalecki’s political-economic conclusions were in line with those of Marx, who declared, in his opposition to the profit-squeeze argument, that
the struggle of workers at every point along the way was a rational one, reflecting the superiority of the political economy of the working class
over the political economy of capital. Nevertheless, the
ultimate goal of the working-class struggle was not to strive for
this or that gain within the system, but rather to replace the capitalist system with a socialist one
controlled by the direct producers. As Marx stated in the closing sentence of Value, Price and Profit: “Instead of the conservative
motto: ‘A fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work!’ they [the working class] ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword:
‘Abolition of the wages system!’”55
 DA---1NC
Heg DA:

A UBI would kill the military

Jeff Manza 22 [Professor of Sociology and the chair of the Department of Sociology at New York
University. He received his BA and PhD from the University of California – Berkeley. Before coming to
NYU in 2006, he taught at Penn State (1996-98) and Northwestern (1998-2006). (2022) “If universal
basic income is the answer, what is the question?” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11186-
022-09490-4]//:0
That the Anglo-American countries do less well on many of these welfare state measures than their European counterparts, with the United
States standing out as the extreme outlier, is well-known. But Kenworthy persuasively argues that there are no plausible reasons, of either
economic necessity or existing institutional design, that would prevent any country – including the United States – from eventually getting to
the same place as Scandinavian social democracies. What blocks such a development 13 628 Theory and Society (2023) 52:625–639 is politics,
not economic or fnancial necessity. But even here, Kenworthy is optimistic in a novel way. In the second half of the book, focused on the United
States, Kenworthy estimates that devoting an additional 10% of GDP to social programs would be required to bring the U.S. up to Scandinavian
levels. The vast increase in income security this would provide could be funded, as all European countries do, with a range of taxes
including a value-added tax on consumption and other under-taxed forms of income and wealth (and perhaps, he might have added, a
signifcant reduction in the exceptionally high levels of military and counterintelligence expenditures
unique to the U.S., which spends 2–3 times as much of its GDP on the military as any European country).
Middle class households would pay more in taxes than they do at present – Kenworthy correctly notes the unpleasant fact that although it is
very popular right now, new taxes on the rich will not generate nearly enough revenue – but they would also receive far more security and
roads to opportunity for themselves and their children then they presently do (as Democratic Party politicians continually struggle to convince
voters).

Hegemony solves nuclear war.

Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth 23. Brooks is a Professor of Government at Dartmouth College,
a Guest Professor at Stockholm University, and has a PhD from Yale University. Wohlforth is Daniel
Webster Professor at Dartmouth College, and has a PhD from Yale University. 4-18-2023. "The Myth of
Multipolarity"; Foreign Affairs; https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/china-multipolarity-myth;
Accessed 7-20-2023
ROUGH TIMES FOR REVISIONISM

All this might seem cold comfort, given that even the limited revisionist quests of China and Russia could still spark
a great-power war , with its frightening potential to go nuclear . But it is important to put the system’s
stability in historical perspective. During the Cold War, each superpower feared that if all of Germany fell
to the other, the global balance of power would shift decisively . (And with good reason: in 1970, West Germany’s
economy was about one-quarter the size of the United States’ and two-thirds the size of the Soviet Union’s.) Because each superpower was so
close to such an economically valuable object, and because
the prize was literally split between them, the result was an
intense security competition in which each based hundreds of thousands of troops in their half of
Germany. The prospect of brinkmanship crises over Germany’s fate loomed in the background and occasionally came to the foreground, as
in the 1961 crisis over the status of Berlin.

Or compare the present situation to the multipolar 1930s, when, in less than a decade, Germany went from being a disarmed, constrained
power to nearly conquering all of Eurasia. But Germany was able to do so thanks to two advantages that do not exist today. First, a great power
could build up substantial military projection power in only a few years back then, since the weapons systems of the day were relatively
uncomplicated. Second, Germany had a geographically and economically viable option to augment its power by conquering neighboring
countries. In 1939, the Nazis first added the economic resources of Czechoslovakia (around ten percent the size of Germany’s) and then Poland
(17 percent). They used these victories as a springboard for more conquests in 1940, including Belgium (11 percent), the Netherlands (ten
percent), and France (51 percent). China doesn’t have anything like the same opportunity. For one thing, Taiwan’s GDP is less than five percent
of China’s. For another, the island is separated from the mainland by a formidable expanse of water. As the MIT research scientist Owen Cote
has underscored, because China lacks command of the sea surface, it simply “cannot safeguard a properly sized, seaborne invasion force and
the follow-on shipping necessary to support it during multiple transits across the 100-plus mile-wide Taiwan Straits.” Consider that the English
Channel was a fifth of the width but still enough of a barrier to stop the Nazis from conquering the United Kingdom.

Japan and South Korea are the only other large economic prizes nearby, but Beijing is in no position to
take a run at them militarily, either. And because Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have economies that are
knowledge-based and highly integrated with the global economy, their wealth cannot be effectively
extracted through conquest . The Nazis could, for example, commandeer the Czech arms manufacturer Skoda Works to enhance
the German war machine, but China could not so easily exploit the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. Its operation depends on
employees with specialized knowledge who could flee in the event of an invasion and on a pipeline of inputs from around the globe that war
would cut off.

If America came home from Europe or Asia, a more dangerous , unstable world would emerge.

Today’s revisionists face another obstacle: while they are confined to regional balancing, the United States can hit
back globally . For instance, the United States is not meeting Russia directly on the battlefield but is instead
using its global position to punish the country through a set of devastating economic sanctions and a
massive flow of conventional weaponry, intelligence , and other forms of military assistance to Kyiv.
The United States could likewise “ go global ” if China tried to take Taiwan, imposing a comprehensive
naval blockade far from China’s shores to curtail its access to the global economy . Such a blockade would
ravage the country’s economy (which relies greatly on technological imports and largely plays an assembly role in global production chains)
while harming the U.S. economy far less.

Because the United States has so much influence in the global economy, it can use economic levers to
punish other countries without worrying much about what they might do in response. If China tried to conquer
Taiwan , and the United States imposed a distant blockade on China, Beijing would certainly try to
retaliate economically . But the strongest economic arrow in its quiver wouldn’t do much damage. China
could, as many have feared, sell some or all of its massive holdings of U.S. Treasury securities in an attempt to raise borrowing costs in the
United States. Yet the U.S. Federal Reserve could just purchase all the securities. As the economist Brad Setser has put it, “ The
U.S.
ultimately holds the high cards here: the Fed is the one actor in the world that can buy more than
China can ever sell.”

Today’s international norms also hinder revisionists. That is no accident, since many of these standards of
behavior were created by the United States and its allies after World War II . For example, Washington
promulgated the proscription against the use of force to alter international boundaries not only to
prevent major conflicts but also to lock in place the postwar status quo from which it benefited. Russia
has experienced such strong pushback for invading Ukraine in part because it has so blatantly violated

this norm. In norms as in other areas, the global landscape is favorable terrain for the United States and rough
for revisionists .
Case
 1NC---Case
No solvency---UBI gets coopted.
Joel Dodge 16 (civil rights attorney and public policy researcher in New York City), “The progressive
case against a universal basic income,” 09/23/2016, Quartz, https://qz.com/789889/a-universal-basic-
income-could-wind-up-hurting-the-poor-and-helping-the-rich

(UBI) has
Today, it’s rare for progressives and conservatives in the US to agree on much of anything. But the idea of a universal basic income
historically resonated across the political spectrum. On the right, UBI has been endorsed by the likes of
economist Milton Friedman, former president Richard Nixon, and libertarian pundit Charles Murray . On
the left, Martin Luther King, Jr., former Democratic politician George McGovern, and the Green Party have all championed the idea of the
government giving each citizen a certain amount of money on a regular basis—no strings attached.

Yet while UBI boasts cross-ideological appeal, conservatives

and progressives tend to have very different ideas about
how a basic income would work. That’s why some of today’s leading liberal economists and public policy
analysts are turning against the idea of UBI—and their concerns are well justified .

Conservatives tend to see UBI as a strategy to replace most of the existing welfare state wholesale .
Nixon, for instance, proposed a basic income for needy families as part of a plan to overhaul the New Deal-
era welfare state.
Advocates on the left, however, typically promote a UBI as a supplement to the existing suite of welfare state programs, not a substitute. The
left’s UBI would provide an income security grant in addition to existing safety-net programs that provide healthcare, disability insurance, early
education, unemployment compensation, and other benefits.

The problem, of course, is that a

UBI would be incredibly expensive. Robert Greenstein, founder and president of the Washington,
D.C., thinktank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates that a
$10,000 annual basic income would cost more than
$3 trillion per year, consuming nearly all of the tax revenue that the government currently raises. A UBI
of this scale would either crowd out most other social programs —the conservative wish—or would require
ratcheting up the federal government’s tax collection.

Given the sheer political unlikelihood of massively increased taxation , many liberals fear that a basic
income would inevitably come at the expense of the safety net programs they have spent generations
defending. Greenstein argues that a basic income would leave low-income families worse off because federal
dollars that are currently targeted toward the poor would be transferred to a universal program shared
by the middle class and wealthy, too.
Jason Furman, President Obama’s chief economic adviser, recently seconded Greenstein’s argument, pointing out that many of our current
social programs are associated with important long-term benefits for children. So did former
Treasury secretary Larry Summers,
who observed“[i]t would be hard to finance [a basic income] in a way that wouldn’t burden the

programs that help the poor.”

A recent discussion at the American Enterprise Institute distilled the emerging liberal discomfort with basic income. The talk featured Charles
Murray, a prominent conservative social scientist, and Jared Bernstein, a liberal economist and former adviser to US vice
president Joe Biden. Murray endorsed a basic income in a 2006 book, which proposed to scrap all existing
safety-net programs in favor of a $10,000 yearly grant to each American adult. Bernstein objected, anticipating that the poor would be
made worse off, and defending the safety net’s gains in fighting poverty.
Murray’s basic income looks a lot like a $10,000 Trojan horse. He explicitly rejects any additional
government support for families with children, and would refuse any further public aid to those who fall
in need after exhausting their income grant. Those with such misfortune, Murray says, must depend on charity.

Liberals like Bernstein are right to resist this sort of basic income. Murray’s plan would voucherize the
entire welfare state —a buyout in exchange for unwinding the federal government’s social-insurance
obligations.

It may be tempting to think that a complex safety net that’s “full of holes must be replaced by a floor free of
holes” in the form of a basic income, as UBI advocate Scott Santens argues. But it’s not so simple in practice. Some
households have particular needs involving child assistance, disabilities, and chronic illness, and aren’t
made whole by a share in an equal universal income.

In fact, getting
government out of the business of providing beneficial services and instead cutting a flat
check would mimic the corporate cost-control tactic of moving workers from defined benefit packages
to defined contributions. This would complete the decades-long conservative push to reform our social
insurance institutions by shifting risk on to individuals in order to promote personal responsibility, as
Murray aspires to do with a UBI.

Still, there are some safety net programs that would benefit from basic income-type features. Take our refundable tax credits, which began as
watered-down versions of a UBI in the first place. We could simply convert the Earned Income Tax Credit into a periodic work subsidy, sending
a regular bonus check to low-wage workers to reward each month’s work. So too could we transition the Child Tax Credit into a child allowance,
sending families periodic payments to help with costs year-round and to compensate the work of raising kids.

These reforms would be piecemeal steps toward a basic income, helping millions of Americans while letting upcoming UBI experiments play
out. The gulf between the left and right on basic income is greater than it appears. So let’s start small before going big.

Growth is sustainable.
Dr. Noah Smith ’21; economics PhD from the University of Michigan, finance professor at Stony Brook
University; 9/6/2021; “People are realizing that degrowth is bad;”
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/people-are-realizing-that-degrowth

2. Past trends are no guarantee of future trends . Until the 70s, for instance, U.S. economic growth was closely
correlated with both energy use and carbon emissions ; after the 70s, this correlation broke down
completely and the lines started moving in opposite directions . Degrowthers present historical curves
as if these are laws of nature , but we know that they are not . The trend is your friend only til the bend at
the end . And the fact that rich countries have hit an inflection point where economic growth no longer depends
on growing resource use is a strong indicator that industrializing countries like China will also hit this point as
well. (And no, falling use in rich countries is mostly not due to outsourcing , as the emissions graph above
illustrates .)

No climate impact.
Benjamin Hilton ’22; policy adviser across the UK government in the Cabinet Office, Treasury and
Department for International Trade, master’s degrees in economics and theoretical physics; “Climate
change: Is Climate Change the Greatest Threat Facing Humanity Today?”; May 2022;
https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/climate-change/; NT-ML

Even if climate change is very unlikely to cause humanity to go extinct ( directly or indirectly ), could it still
cause a global catastrophe on such a scale as to cause the deaths of a significant proportion of the
population (say, more than 10% )?

We haven’t thought about this possibility as much, but the same reasons we think climate change won’t lead to
extinction suggest it won’t lead to a catastrophic event of this size. In short: even in the worst-case warming
scenarios , a lot of humans will still be able to live on the land and grow food .

Even in the top 1% of worst scenarios, our guess is that it is extremely unlikely for premature deaths due to climate change
to exceed a billion people, and this loss would likely be gradual (e.g. over a century ) and due to things like declining economic
productivity, rather than an all-at-once catastrophic collapse . This is still an immense amount of death and suffering, and we
hope global leaders will ensure this does not come to pass.

However, gradual problems in general seem easier to adapt to , meaning the risk that humanity doesn’t ever
recover from the effects of catastrophic (but not immediate-extinction-level) climate change seem very low — lower

than , for example, an all-out nuclear war .

Again, the indirect

threat from climate change seems greater here. For example, perhaps international tensions
worsened by climate-related stressors will lead to such a war.

All in all, we think the risk of a sub-extinction-level global catastrophe that kills a billion or more people from climate change is still very
low.

Growth is peace-generating.
Coyne, et al, 22—Professor, Department of Economics, George Mason University (Christopher, with
Abigail Hall, Department of Economics, University of Tampa, and Nathaniel Smith, Department of
Economics, Sweet Briar College, “International Trade as a Peace Project,”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4196139, dml)

The logic underpinning the peace-generating aspects of international trade is grounded in the economic
benefits generated by the division of labor , specialization , and voluntary exchange . The division of labor
refers to the separation of production tasks into sub-tasks. It entails individuals specializing in specific production roles which, when combined with the efforts of

other specializing individuals through voluntary exchange, yields an output that is greater than what would exist if each worker
worked in isolation. Further, there is variation in the distribution of resources across geographic locations. The division of labor allows people to take
advantage of variations in skills and resources and, in the process, yields increasing returns whereby a given increase in inputs produces a more than proportional
increase in output.

Adam Smith (1776a, p. 31-36) noted that the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market meaning that the more people who are part
of the market, the greater the opportunity to take advantage of the division of labor to engage in complex
production processes. Expansions in the extent of the market can take place within given borders, but also internationally. The benefits generated by

expansions in the extent of the market across borders raise the relative cost of war, relative to relying on peaceful
means to resolve conflict. For instance, expansions in the extent of the market lowers the cost of obtaining resources,
intellectual talent, and financial capital through voluntary exchange as compared to conquest and
military rule . Further, exchange is positive-sum , meaning parties residing in different geographic and political boundaries benefit. This
stands in contrast to the negative-sum nature of war where resources are destroyed and one party gains at the expense of another.

No energy wars.
Meierding 20, assistant professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in
Monterey, California. (Emily, 8-2-2020, " The Exaggerated Threat of Oil Wars ", Lawfare,
https://www.lawfareblog.com/exaggerated-threat-oil-wars)

Happily, the historical record indicates that China and its neighbors are unlikely to escalate their energy
sparring . Contrary to overheated rhetoric , countries do not actually “take the oil,” to use President Trump’s

controversial and inaccurate phrase. Instead, my recent research demonstrates that countries avoid fighting for oil
resources . No Blood for Oil Between 1912 and 2010, countries fought 180 times over territories that
contained—or were believed to contain—oil or natural gas resources. These conflicts ranged from brief, nonfatal
border violations, like Turkish jets entering Greek airspace, to the two world wars. Many of these clashes—including World War II, Iraq’s
invasion of Kuwait (1990), the U.S. invasion of Iraq (2003), the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the Falklands War (1982), and the Chaco War
between Bolivia and Paraguay (1932-1935)—have been described as classic oil wars: that is, severe international conflicts in which countries
fight to obtain petroleum resources. However, a closer look at these conflicts reveals that none merits the classic
“oil war” label . Although countries did fight over oil-endowed territories, they usually fought for other
reasons , including aspirations to regional hegemony , domestic politics , national pride , or contested
territories’ other strategic , economic , or symbolic assets . Oil was an uncommon trigger for
international confrontations and never caused major conflicts . On approximately 20 occasions, over almost a
century, countries engaged in minor conflicts to obtain oil resources. However, these “ oil spats” were brief , mild , mostly
nonfatal , and generally involved countries whose hostility predated their resource competition . Greece
and Turkey have prosecuted oil spats. So have China and Vietnam, Guyana and Venezuela, and a dozen other pairs of countries. These

confrontations inspired aggressive rhetoric while they were underway, but none of them ever escalated into
a larger armed conflict .

Growth key to solve climate change.

Hill ‘20 [Victor; 11/3/20; Financial Economist with the International Finance Corporation at the World
Bank, lead writer for Master Investor, holds degrees from the University of Oxford, Institut Européen
d'Administration des Affaires, and Canterbury Christ Church University; "Only capitalism will save the
planet," https://masterinvestor.co.uk/economics/only-capitalism-will-save-the-planet/]

While the global coronavirus pandemic has diverted attention away from the fraught issue of climate change and what
to do about it, the environmental activism of groups such as Extinction Rebellion (XR) has continued to simmer. In fact, this
year XR has blended with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement such that explicitly anti-capitalist environmental protest and anti-patriarchal,
anti-colonial wokery have become intimately entwined. The underlying message is: If you want to save the planet you have to
change the system. In practice, all protest movements have many threads – just look at the two-year campaign of the gilets jaunes in
France – but the unifying thread is always resentment.
The irony is that both aspects of this counterculture are out-of-date. Rapid advances in technology ,
facilitated by the free market , have transformed the climate conversation. Whatever Mr Trump’s rhetoric on the
issue (and he may well be in the departure lounge by the time you read this), the big energy companies , backed by a raft of
environmentally conscious investors , are already transitioning towards renewable and zero-fossil
fuel energy precisely because it is now economically viable to do so. And in that process, they are making money. Win-
win.

Outright climate change denial was always a marginal school of thought. Thinking people – of which the business and
investment community – understand well that manmade carbon emissions increase the concentration of CO2 in
the atmosphere and thus precipitate a greenhouse effect by which the Earth’s atmosphere and seas warm up. That said, there is a
respectable scientific debate about how quickly that process is taking place and how quickly it will
cause irreversible results such as desertification. And it is perfectly legitimate to question the climate models
which climate scientists construct to estimate these outcomes, since many have questionable inputs and
methodologies . Claims that we have ten years left to save the planet can and should be challenged ,
though that should not be an argument for further delay in taking action.

The global policy framework has been constructed by the ongoing work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an agency of
the United Nations (UN). This body laid down two years ago that our target should be to limit the rise in ambient temperature to no more than
1.5 Celsius above pre-industrial levels. That said, there are many climate rebels who believe that this level will itself be disastrous to
human and animal life; and still others who claim that even this target is entirely unrealistic given the direction of travel.

Ms Thunberg and her disciples would have us shut down the carbon-based economy forthwith. That would cause
unparalleled economic disruption , mass unemployment , poverty , adverse health outcomes and – let
us be honest – starvation . No mainstream politician is going to get behind that.
Zion Lights is a writer who has been an environmental campaigner all her adult life. She doesn’t drive, fly or eat meat. In April 2018 she joined
XR because she thought it was evidence-based. She soon found that many of its claims were indefensible. She wrote recently:

That is the single biggest problem with most environmental

groups: they don’t offer realistic solutions to the very real
climate change threat. What they offer, if you follow their arguments to their logical conclusion, is eco-austerity: that we should
all use less energy, stop going on holiday, live in colder homes, and so on[i].

In the latest papal encyclical published on 04 October (the feast day of St. Francis of Assisi), Fratelli Tutti (Brothers All), Papa Francisco wrote
that the Covid-19 pandemic had proven that the “magical theories” of market capitalism have failed and that the world needs a new type of
politics that promotes dialogue and solidarity. (Perhaps the unjustified restrictionism pursued by First Minister Drakeford in Wales?)

In fact, much as I respect Catholic social teaching (having been brought up with it), the best chance we have to solve the
immense challenge of climate change and other environmental problems (such as plastic waste in the oceans) is

to harness market forces . In this way, the profit motives of finance and technology will re-engineer the
global economy completely .

Big money already decided that the fossil fuel economy is doomed and that renewable energy is the future
long before Dame Emma Thompson swept in from LA (business class, of course) to gesticulate on Oxford Street, in those languorous pre-Covid
days. The billionaire Davos Boys have been preaching climate orthodoxy for years. And the Great Transition is already well
underway .
Renewable profitability
The good news is (don’t tell XR) that the United Kingdom has managed to reduce its carbon emissions by over 40 percent since 1990 by all but
phasing out coal and investing massively in renewable power generation. As I write this on a blustery day in late October, according to the GB
National Grid Status website, coal powered generation is contributing precisely zero to UK power generation. The UK has the world’s largest
offshore wind power market with capacity still increasing rapidly. Earlier this year the UK government effectively dropped the ban on onshore
wind turbine arrays in the drive to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

As the shift from carbon-heavy sources to carbon-free electricity generation has accelerated so
economies of scale have kicked in and new technologies have come online. Recent data from Bloomberg New
Energy Finance shows that the latest generation of solar and wind power plants can produce electricity
cheaper than the most modern coal plants even without subsidy for two thirds of the global population .
The price of solar panels has dropped by almost 90 percent over the past decade. By mid-decade, solar and wind
power will outcompete all existing coal plants on price – at which point a swath of coal plants will be deemed uneconomic
and closed.

The economics of energy storage – battery technology – are also improving . On 22 September Tesla
(NASDAQ:TSLA) unveiled its new battery known as the 4680[ii]. This fuel cell reportedly offers six times the power of Tesla’s

previous cells, and five times the energy capacity . The company confirmed that the new cell measures 46 millimetres by 80
millimetres – hence the name. The iconic automaker says that these new fuel cells will be able to increase the range of a vehicle by 16 percent –
that could be up to about 500 miles for its latest models. That kind of range makes medium-distance travel without recharging (say, London to
Edinburgh in a UK context) quite feasible.

Red China goes green

China currently has new coal plants under construction which will have a capacity of another 94 Gigawatts of electricity per annum. China
already emits more CO2 than all of Europe and America combined. But China now has a target of going carbon neutral by 2060, and by so
aspiring has upped the moral ante with Mr Trump’s America. Now, some analysts predict that China may abandon its programme of building
coal-fired power stations as much on economic grounds as on environmental ones.

China might yet gain a strategic advantage from global warming. Last month the UK First Sea Lord, Admiral Tony Radakin (the military head of
the Royal Navy), warned that the melting of ice in the Arctic would create new maritime trade routes across the top of the world – the Arctic
Ocean – which would halve the transit time between East Asia and Western Europe. China already has, according to the Pentagon, the world’s
largest navy with 350 warships and submarines. That opens the prospect of Chinese naval vessels being able to penetrate the North Atlantic
rapidly, and possibly threatening the European and American undersea cable network.

Hydrogen in three colours

The downside with the current generation of electric vehicles is that they require batteries which use expensive rare
earth minerals of which lithium, and which are costly and messy to recycle at the end of their economic life. The extraction of these
rare earth minerals in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is itself a cause of environmental degradation

and carbon emissions. That is why there is renewed focus of attention on hydrogen .

Hydrogen comes in three colours. Gray hydrogen is made using fossil fuels like oil and coal, which emit CO2 into the air as they
combust. The blue variety is made in the same way, but carbon capture prevents CO2 being released, enabling the

captured carbon to be safely stored deep underground or utilised in industry. BP (LON:BP.) is working on that. As its
name suggests, green hydrogen is the cleanest variety, producing zero carbon emissions . It is produced by
electrolysis powered by renewable energy i.e. offshore wind.

The holy grail in energy now is to extract hydrogen cheaply and cleanly from water by electrolysis (i.e.
separating the hydrogen and carbon atoms). Hitherto the energy required to perform the electrolysis has been unequal to the energy value of
the hydrogen thus produced. That could be about to change.

Bill Brown, founder of NET Power has claimed that his firm’s techniques can produce clean hydrogen at 0.57 cents a kilo. This is a
developmental technology based on the Allam Cycle which has been around in theory for some time.
Hydrogen can power vehicles, trains, ships and even aeroplanes. When hydrogen is ignited the only by-product is water.
Hydrogen could also be used to facilitate the manufacture of steel, cement, glass, chemicals and
fertilisers. Goldman Sachs reckons that, if the efficiency of hydrogen electrolysis could be sufficiently improved, then about 45 percent
of all global carbon emissions could be eliminated .
Electric cars

Some estimates suggest that electric battery-powered cars could compete on price with conventional cars powered by internal combustion
engines (ICEs) as soon as 2024. That is one reason why Tesla shares have rocketed this year. But even if you are not a true believer in Tesla,
consider that established automotive giants such as Volkswagen and Daimler-Benz are fully committed to the phase-out of ICEs. In Germany,
sales of electric and hybrid cars overtook diesel cars for the first time last month.

I’ll have a lot more to say about the outlook for electric cars soon.

From coal to wind

Dalmellington in Ayrshire, Scotland, was once known as a coal-mining town. But in future it is likely to be known as the location of a 50-turbine
wind farm. The new 240 Megawatt facility will be built and run by Vattenfall (owned by the Kingdom of Sweden). But the array will be owned by
the infrastructure fund, Greencoat UK Wind PLC(LON:UKW), which has acquired the project for £320 million.

Greencoat has emerged as a growing renewables fund which is now included in the FTSE-250 index and which has a
market capitalisation of around £2.5 billion – that’s more than the better-known UK energy company Centrica PLC (LON:CAN), the owner of
British Gas. The fund has acquired 36 wind power sites which collectively produce enough electricity to power about one million homes – that’s
about five percent of all wind power generated in the UK. Some of those arrays were acquired from Scottish & Southern Energy (LON:SSE).
Wind power now accounts for about 20 percent of Britain’s total electricity consumption.

Greencoat’s strategy
is to encourage energy giants to green up their portfolios by taking all the
development risk. It then buys the asset from the generator and pockets the cash flow arising. Greencoat UK Wind is run
by Greencoat Capital, a specialist investor in renewable energy which has £5 billion of assets under management across both wind and solar
energy. Greencoat raised £375 million from investors in May 2019.

A report last year by the research firm, Hardman & Co. found that returns
for listed renewable energy funds over five
years approached 10 percent. Such funds often carry a share price premium over their net asset value . At
a moment when the share prices of the oil majors are under pressure and when BP and Shell have slashed their dividends, Greencoat’s 4.8
percent dividend yield is pleasing.

Nuclear

The latest thinking is that carbon-free energy capacity could be ramped up quickly by means of a cluster of British
designed and manufactured small modular reactors ( SMRs ) which have a footprint smaller than two football pitches. A
consortium of Rolls Royce (LON:RR), WS Atkins (LON:ATK), Laing O’Rourke (LON:JLG) and the National Nuclear Laboratory is in the vanguard of
this technology. Rolls-Royce has experience and expertise in building nuclear reactors to power Britain’s fleet of nuclear submarines, so this is
not new technology. Reportedly, the UK government is considering the injection of up to £2 billion of state funds to invigorate the
concept – assuming it is permitted to do so by the EU (if there is an agreement).

The idea is that by 2050 more than 12 of these SMRs will be operational in the UK, each with a capacity of about 440 Megawatts – so about one
seventh of the conventional nuclear plant currently under construction at Hinkley Point, Somerset. Hinkley Point C is a project led by France’s
EDF (EPA:EDF), the costs of which have spiralled up to an estimated £22.5 billion. Cost considerations have caused Toshiba (TYO:6502) and
Hitachi (TYO:6501) to pull out of projects to build nuclear plants in Wales and Cumbria. In contrast, SMRs might have a price tag of around £2
billion each.

SMRs are easier to switch on and off than conventional large-scale reactors; thus, they can be held on standby
for when wind and solar power wanes. Thereafter, the remaining gas turbine plants that are currently used for that
purpose can be phased out . But it does not follow that the new roll-out of SMRs would entail the closure of Britain’s conventional large-
scale nuclear reactors which, as I write, are supplying 17.2 percent of total power to the national grid.
A US consortium, NuScale, is also looking at SMRs with a capacity of 60 Megawatts.

The fate of the oil majors

I wrote in the February 2020 edition of the MI magazine that the

oil majors are here to stay. I meant by that that there would
still be continued demand for oil, if much attenuated, after the transition to a net-zero carbon economy, not
least because of the need for oil in petroleum derivatives (of which plastic ). I did not foresee even then that the
economic case for renewables would advance quite as rapidly as it has done this year; nor was it then apparent how the coronavirus pandemic
would reduce the global demand for oil, at least in the short-term.

Another reason why the oil majors may not go extinct quite yet is that they have embraced carbon capture and storage

( CCS ). Indeed, they have become advocates of high carbon pricing , calculating that it will mobilise
technology to accelerate CCS . Under US legislation enacted under the auspices of the US Department for Energy, operators can
claim $50 for each tonne of CO2 sequestered underground and $35 per tonne if pumped back into declining wells.

A number of large players, including Saudi Aramco (TADAWUL:2222), ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM), BP (LON:BP.), Shell
(LON:RDSA), Total (LON:TTA) and others, have jointly formed the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative(OGCI) to drive
CCS projects. The OGCI is a consortium that aims to accelerate the industry response to climate change.
OGCI member companies explicitly support the Paris Agreement and its goals .

Just as with wind power and solar, the costs of CCS are in free fall . ExxonMobil has teamed up with FuelCell Energy to extract CO2
using carbonate fuel cells. Total, Shell and Equinor (NYSE:EQNR) are part of the Longship project in Norway which is planning to take CO2
captured in Europe’s industrial heartlands and pipe it to storage caverns beneath the North Sea. It hopes to lock in eight million tonnes of CO2
per year by the middle of this decade, for which they will charge around €60 per tonne. Memoranda have already been signed with
ArcelorMittal and Heidelberg Cement.

Cement is responsible for an estimated eight percent of global carbon emissions. Under the auspices of the OGCI, a venture with LafargeHolcim,
the materials giant, uses CO2 rather than water to cure concrete at much lower temperatures than in conventional manufacture, thereby
breaking down the CO2 molecules and turning carbon into a form of glue. This enables a 70 percent reduction in CO2 emissions and an 80
percent reduction in water use.

In terms of their market capitalisations, ExxonMobil , BP and Shell combined are now worth less than
Tesla alone . Exxon was once the world’s largest company by market cap. As I write it is worth just $136 billion against Tesla’s $390 billion.
The oil price is down from around $53 a barrel 12 months ago to around $37 today. That is partly a function of reduced global demand arising
from the lockdowns across the world; but one should not assume that it will rebound even if the pandemic is behind us one year from now.
That means that a
lot of new exploration and drilling activity will be regarded as uneconomic – and a lot of
known reserves will remain beneath the Earth for evermore. But if the oil majors can really crack the challenge of
CCS and prospectively begin to reduce the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere, they will succeed in reinventing
themselves .

Growth is key to space colonization---extinction.

Kovic ’19 [Marko; March 2019; co-founder president of the Zurich Institute of Public Affairs Research;
"The future of energy," https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/aswz9/download]

Ideally, the mitigation of climate risks will coincide with and contribute to the development of improved
or even entirely novel sources of energy that will increase the long-term chances of humankind’s
survival by means of space colonization . This is not an unrealistic expectation , given that the
mitigation of climate risks consists, to a large degree, of replacing fossil fuels with other, less harmful sources
of energy. However, some climate change mitigation strategies might actually harm the long-term
prospects of humankind .

First, it is possible that dominant climate change mitigation strategies will actively exclude any form of
nuclear energy from the repertoire of climate-friendly energy sources. Existing and experimental (molten
salt) fission reactors could play a significant role in replacing carbon-heavy energy sources , but pro-
environmental attitudes often overlap with anti-nuclear sentiments [65]. As a result, and in combination with other problems such as large-
scale market failures of existing fission reactors (one of the reasons being that generating electricity from fossil fuels is cheaper) [66], nuclear
fission does not currently have significant standing as a “cleantech” contribution to climate change mitigation. From a long-term perspective, an
unfavorable view of nuclear energy in the context of climate change might mean that technological progress in the areas of nuclear fission and
fusion might come to a halt (for example, due to explicit bans or implicit disincentives). If such a scenario came to be, our
attempts at colonizing space would almost certainly fail : There are currently no alternatives to fission
and fusion , and it is highly improbable that Solar power alone could suffice for sustaining
extraterrestrial habitats .

Second, there is some probability that climate change mitigation strategies will change the social order
towards a degrowth philosophy. Degrowth is a vague socio-economic concept and social movement
that, in general, calls for a contraction of the global and national economies by means of lower production
and consumption rates , and, to some degree, to more profound changes to the “capitalist” system of
economic production [67]. Degrowth or degrowth-like approaches are being actively considered as climate risk mitigation strategies

[68, 69], and degrowth would almost certainly be a highly effective measure for mitigating climate change .
After all, if we were to drastically reduce or even completely eliminate the (industrial) sources of greenhouse gases, the amount of

greenhouse gases that are being emitted would accordingly drastically sink. From the long-term
perspective of humankind’s survival , degrowth is problematic in at least two ways. First, there is a risk that
the general contraction of economic activity would also slow or eliminate progress in the domain of
energy , which would, in turn, reduce the probability of successful space colonization due to an absence
of suitable energy sources . Second, and more fundamental: If degrowth were to become a dominant
societal paradigm , it is uncertain whether the long-term survival of humankind by means of space
colonization would be regarded a desirable goal . In a literal sense, establishing extraterrestrial
colonies would mean growth ; the size of the total human population would grow, and the area of space-time
that humans occupy would grow.

In a more philosophical sense, degrowth might even be antithetical to space colonization . Even though
both degrowth and space colonization have a similar moral goal – increasing wellbeing – , the ends to that
goal are very different. Within degrowth philosophy, the goal is, metaphorically speaking, not to “live beyond our
means”: We should strive for “ecological balance”, and such a state should increase the average
wellbeing . But the frame of reference is the status quo; Earth and humankind as we know it today .

Space colonization, on the other hand, operates with a much larger frame of reference: All the future
generations of humans (and other sentient beings) who could enjoy wellbeing if we succeed in colonizing space
– and who will categorically be denied that wellbeing if we fail to colonize space [70]. The goal of space
colonization as a moral project is not to live beyond our means, but to actively redefine and expand
what our means are through scientific and technological progress .

Biodiversity loss is not existential.

Dr. John Halstead 19, PhD, University of Oxford, researcher at Founders Pledge; citing Dr. Peter
Kareiva, PhD in ecology and evolutionary biology, Cornell University, director of UCLA’s Institute of the
Environment & Sustainability; also citing Valerie Carranza, PhD student in Kareiva’s lab, 5/1/2019,
“Centre for the Study of Existential Risk Six Month Report: November 2018 - April 2019,”
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/zbZxisJRJBCdtYvh9/centre-for-the-study-of-existential-risk-six-
month-report, pacc

Can you explain what the mechanism is whereby biodiversity loss creates existential risk? And if biodiversity loss is an
existential risk, how big a risk is it? Should 80k be getting people to go into conservation science or not?

There are independent reasons to think that the risk is negligible. Firstly, according to wikipedia, during
the Eocene period ~65m years ago, there
were thousands fewer genera than today. We have made ~1% of species extinct, and we would have to
continue at current rates of species extinctions for at least 200 years to return to Eocene levels of
biodiversity . And yet, even though significantly warmer than today, the Eocene marked the dawn of thousands of new
species. So, why would we expect the world 200 years hence to be inhospitable to humans if it wasn't
inhospitable for all of the species emerging in the Eocene , who are/were significantly less numerous than
humans and significantly less capable of a rational response to problems?

Secondly, as far as I am aware, evidence for pressure-induced non-linear ecosystem shifts is very limited . This is true for a range of
ecosystems. Linear ecosystem damage seems to be the norm. If so, this leaves more scope for learning about the costs of our
damage to ecosystems and correcting any damage we have done .

Thirdly, ecosystem services are overwhelmingly a function of the relations within local ecosystems, rather than of
global trends in biodiversity. Upon discovering Hawaii, the Polynesians eliminated so many species that global decadal extinction rates would have been
exceptional. This has next to no bearing on ecosystem services outside Hawaii. Humanity is an intelligent species and will be able to see if other

regions are suffering from biodiversity loss and make adjustments accordingly . Why would all regions be so stupid as to
ignore lessons from elsewhere? Also, is biodiversity actually decreasing in the rich world? I know forest cover is increasing in many places. Population is set to
decline in many rich countries in the near future, and environmental impact per person is declining on many metrics.

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]

Innovation accelerates existential risk creation---each spikes the odds of mitigation

failure
Marko Kovic 21, co-founder president of the nonprofit think tank ZIPAR (Zurich Institute of Public
Affairs Research) and the co-founder and CEO of the consulting firm ars cognitionis, “Risks of Space
Colonization,” Futures, vol. 126, 02/01/2021, p. 102638
3.4 Speeding up the rate of catastrophic risk creation

Similarly to the risk of speeding up the rate of existential risk creation described in subsection 3.2, an increased pace of
tech nological development might result in an increased pace of catastrophic risk creation . This is
unsurprising insofar as existential risks can correlate with existential ones. For example, the a rtificial i ntelligence family of
tech nologies has created the existential risk of uncontrollable superintelligence , but it has also created
catastrophic risks such as unprecedented cyber security risks [26] or the prospect of a utonomous w eapon s
systems [27]. An increased pace of catastrophic risk creation is a concern for the same reason as an increased
pace in existential risk creation is: The more such risks exist, the more difficult it might be for humankind to
adequately mitigate them in time .
2NC
UCF CP
 2NC---O/V
1. SCOPE. Bottom-up regulatory innovation solves every existential risk.
Weiss 22 [Charles, the first Science and Technology Adviser to the World Bank, serving in that position
from 1971-86, became Distinguished Professor of Science, Technology and International Affairs (STIA) at
the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in 1997, was the director of the STIA program from
1997-2006, now Distinguished Professor Emeritus, and a Visiting Scholar at the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, “13 Playing with Fire,” Survival Nexus: Science, Technology, and World
Affairs, Oxford University Press, 2022, p. 251-266]

We are needlessly allowing tech nology to take the world to the brink of disasters from accidental climate
disruption, nuclear war , and pandemics — at the same time that we are allowing the means for
controlling these technologies to erode . In effect, we are edging closer and closer to cliffs from which we
have removed the guardrails . Fortunately, people are beginning to develop— or at least to think about —
protections against some of these dangers. A technology-based model of authoritarian government is being promoted and
exported as a technological, economic, and political challenge to Western liberal democracies. The Internet and social media, conceived as
vehicles for free exchange of information and platforms for untrammeled innovation, in some countries have become instruments of
repression. At the same time, a systematic, worldwide campaign of misinformation and disinformation, spread via social and mass media, has
deliberately sown distrust in the democratic process, in government, in international institutions, in science, in expertise of all kinds, and in the
very idea that there is such a thing as truth. In the United States, the scientific consensus concerning climate change has been overwhelmed by
misinformation and disinformation spread by political and business interests that it threatens, while public messaging regarding the CO VID-19
pandemic has been at best mixed. All this has made it difficult for people to understand the complex and dangerous new threats to the
environment, to their health, to their security, and to democratic government. Stimulating and Guiding Technological Change Science and
tech nology have much to contribute to the resolution of all these issues. We need better scientific
understanding of the climate, of the ways in which diseases spread, and of the likely impact of gene drivers and geoengineering. We
need technological innovations to prevent or cure non- communicable diseases, alleviate malnutrition, conserve resources, defend
against cyberattack, and restructure our economies along more sustainable and equitable lines. But we can not depend on science
and tech nology to address these issues on their own . We also need policies and institutions that not only support
research and encourage technological innovation but also guide scientific research and technological change in
responsible directions . This will require both “top-down” measures by national governments and “bottom-
up” pressures from public opinion, from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and from state and local governments
that are often more directly responsive to public pressure . It will need ideas and inspiration from businesses,

universities, research institutes, individual inventors, and ordinary citizens, and support from public opinion and from the actions
and advocacy of individuals and communities . In some cases, it will require sustained effort to resist commercial, political,
and military pressures to ignore broader social and environmental problems when investing in research and innovation and to deploy
technologies before at least some of their consequences are understood and anticipated. The response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the
denial of the reality of climate change in a number of countries show how even the best scientific advice can be undercut by the words and
actions of shortsighted, self-interested political leaders. We need to devise limits on technological innovations like

autonomous weapons and hypersonic missiles that can lead to unintended nuclear war . We need to restructure our
economy and redesign our cities to end, or at least to limit the use of fossil fuels and to increase the efficiency of our use of energy and
materials. We need control s on technologies like a rtificial i ntelligence, gene drivers , and geoengineering , all of
which both promise major benefits and involve great risks . We need to defend ourselves against tech nology -based
attacks on the values of freedom of thought, communication, innovation, and access to information that were embodied in the original
design of the Internet and social media but are now under attack. At the same time, we need new science and tech nology to
develop novel approaches to environmental sustainability : improved sources of renewable energy and innovative approaches
to efficient energy use. We need both to expand and to restructure our electric energy grids to electrify our economy and to improve their
efficiency, reliability, and security. We need to restructure our agricultural economy, our urban infrastructure and our transportation systems.
We need explicit measures to ensure that everyone can participate in the benefits of technological change. We need research and development
on orphan technologies, and vaccines and cures for the diseases that mainly affect people in low- income countries. Not a small menu. Some of
these issues, like climate change , nuclear weapons , and global health , are governed by long-standing
regimes, norms , and institutions that now need strengthening and refurbishing to meet new political, economic,
and techno logical challenges. Nonproliferation and anti-missile agreements need to be restored and extended to limit or ban development and
deployment of hyper sonic missiles, destabilizing weapons that are now under rapid development in many countries. Voluntary national limits
on greenhouse gas emissions need to be urgently increased. Time is running out, and costs will be much greater the longer we take for effective
action to mitigate and adapt to climate disruption. In the global health sphere, the system for emergency preparedness and pandemic control
needs increased and sustained political and financial support to replace the long-standing pattern of crisis-to-crisis, feast-or-famine funding.
Most low- income countries still need basic health infrastructure, both to provide health services to their population and to identify and control
epidemic disease that could spread beyond their borders. Cyberweapons, too, can quickly get out of control and wreak enormous damage on
critical infrastructure, including the systems of command-and- control on which we would depend to prevent accidental escalation of a
localized conflict to full-scale war. Like hypersonic missiles, the response to these weapons depends on artificial intelligence. Unlike hypersonic
missiles, cyberweapons do not lend themselves to the type of verifiable arms control regime that has so far been successful for nuclear
weapons. What is more, many governments op pose any limits on the use of cyberweapons, despite the risk they pose of acci dental escalation.
Continued research and international discussion on how these weapons can be controlled are urgent priorities. Geoengineering and gene
drivers also take the world into uncharted terri tory. Their governance is complicated by the fact that they are accessible not only to
governments, but also to private businesses , NGOs , and individuals . It is far from clear how decisions should
be made as to whether and under what circumstances these technologies should be developed, and what criteria should govern any such
decisions. Advocates for these technologies have developed roadmaps for deploying them in a way that minimizes risks. Still, there are
fundamental disagreements over whether geoengineering and gene drivers should be developed and implemented at all, and there is
substantial support for the idea that one or both should be banned outright. Critics have called for moratoriums until the broader questions can
be explored by a broad range of worldwide stakeholders, disciplines, and cultures. However, the disagreements we have outlined will probably
never be totally resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, and deployment decisions will eventually have to be made one way or the other. The
governance of the Internet and social media involves measures to pre serve the global Internet and to address those issues of cybersecurity
that are of common concern to countries with very different political systems and very different ideas concerning civil liberties and human
rights. The competition be tween authoritarian and democratic governments over freedom of information and innovation is likely to go on for a
long time, but both sides have a strong in terest in maintaining a functioning global Internet and in avoiding catastrophic damage to information
and telecommunication systems. Several academies of science, research institutes, NGOs, and religious organ izations have proposed codes of
conduct and declarations of principle to deal with the difficult philosophical, ethical, and practical issues involved in all these issues. These
represent a useful beginning, and one may hope that they will reach the level of consensus that would allow them to be codified into national
legisla tion or international agreements. Dealing with these issues will require respect for expertise in the fields to which we have often
referred: science, technology, politics, economics, business, law, and culture. We will need to incorporate scientific advice into decision making
processes, and to acknowledge and manage the risks and uncertainties in our understanding of the science and the technology we are trying to
manage, as well as in their ramifications for the larger society. There is also a need to edu cate governments and the public, both on the
underlying science and technology and on their links to the broader context. Finally, I would urge that there is a need for an international
obligation to identify areas for scientific research and technological innovation that can help to resolve these issues and to support this research
with adequate financial, human and institutional resources. This last re quirement should become a general principle that should become part
of the ac cepted framework for thinking about global issues and incorporated into formal agreements on these matters as a matter of usual
practice. Dealing with complex global, technology-intensive issues like these is a tall order , especially when they
require democratic countries to find common in terest with countries with whose governments they are otherwise deeply at odds.

Nevertheless, the world has faced such issues successfully before under the arguably more difficult
conditions of the Cold War , which pitted two ideologically opposed superpowers against each other
that nevertheless managed to agree on elaborate and technically demanding measures to avoid nuclear holocaust .
There have been major innovations since the days of the Cold War that will help with these new challenges . Civil
society is a source for new ideas and new institutional arrangements. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and epistemic
communities provide scientific advice and education on climate to international negotiators and to the public. Multi-stakeholder meetings
develop “bottom-up” codes of conduct, norms , and standards that sometimes make their way into more
formal government and international declarations and eventually into national legislation and
international agreements . State and city governments combine forces across borders to deal with issues
when their national governments shrink from action. Flexible, informal, or voluntary arrangements facilitate
international coop eration in situations where binding obligations and formal agreements would be
cumbersome or slow moving. Pragmatic, informal institutional arrangements arise to manage
international resources when more formal institutions or agreements would be cumbersome or
impractical . Private foundations support research in areas neglected by governments and intergovernmental organizations. “Innovative
developing countries” like India and China develop and market profitable products for low- income people. Multinational corporations and
NGOs support innovations to meet the needs of people without market power. And a billion-dollar network of agricultural laboratories
develops improved technology for small-scale farmers in low-income countries.
 2NC---AT: Do Both
2. BARGAINING. States must triumph in a policy conflict---the perm vaporizes
opposition both by preempting the condition AND aligning the states with the fed.
Leonard ’10 [Elizabeth; Fall 2010; Professor of Law at the University of Kansas and Visiting Professor
of Law at the University of Georgia, J.D. from the University of Georgia; Hofstra Law Review, “Rhetorical
Federalism: The Value of State-Based Dissent to Federal Health Reform,” vol. 39]
A. Uncooperative Federalism

Uncoop erative federalism, a theory articulated by Jessica Bulman-Pozen and Heather Gerken, suggests that even when
states actively refuse to cooperate with the fed eral government, their resistance may be beneficial. To
understand uncooperative federalism, it is helpful to place the theory in the context of other federalism theories. Bulman-
Pozen and Gerken offer the following matrix , which I slightly modify, in their footnote 18.

The vertical axis represents the normative position of what states should do: either they should serve as
rivals or challengers to the federal government, or they should serve as friends or allies with the
federal government. The horizontal axis identifies two strategies to facilitate healthy federal-state relations: either the power of states
as sovereigns, or the power of states as servants. The authors note that most existing scholarship falls in Box 1, the state autonomy or dual
sovereignty view of federal-state relations, or Box 4, the cooperative federalism view. Their theory fills Box 2, the affirmative
case for states as rivals and challengers from the posture of servants .
For Box 3, Bulman-Pozen and Gerken suggest Roderick Hills's "functional theory." Hills favors state autonomy not so that states can operate as dual or separate sovereigns, but so that they can
bargain effectively for their role within a cooperative, integrated federal regime. States, under their reserved powers, hold a property right to refuse to lend state administrative processes to
implement federal policies, which right they can sell in a freely negotiated trade, like any other private contractor. Cooperation is a good thing, but only when the federal government
"purchases" state services through voluntary agreements.

Dual sovereignty or state autonomy, like uncooperative federalism, urges states to rival and challenge the federal government but from the posture of sovereign powers. Values associated
with the dual sovereignty view include providing alternative, more accessible forums for citizen participation in the political process. In addition, different territories may have different tastes
and needs, especially on social policy matters. The diversity of approaches creates a "political market," allowing citizenry a choice of "laws, customs, and attitudes," and ultimately, exit rights.
States also serve as laboratories of democracy, experimenting and crafting solutions to problems, which approaches can be borrowed by other states and the federal government.

The dual sovereignty scholarship recognizes the value of dissent , especially state-level dissent, within the federal system.
Dissent "contributes to the marketplace of ideas, engages electoral minorities[,] … and facilitates self-expression." The Framers

envisioned friction , clashes, and jarring as part of the constitutional design. States may act as lobbyists and litigants,
challenging federal policies and laws. Objections may be voiced by states qua states, or by states as spokespersons for individuals.

Cooperative federalism, by contrast , envisions the federal government and states working together
as partners to address common problems or implement legislation. States serve as supportive allies, freely and voluntarily, albeit often with
strong encouragement, implementing federal policies. Conditional spending programs, such as Medicaid, are prime examples of cooperative federalism. Under its spending power, Congress
entices states to enact laws or implement programs by conditioning federal funding on states' compliance with broad federal requirements, even though the federal government cannot
directly regulate states or "commandeer" state regulatory authorities to implement, administer, or enforce federal programs. ACA employs several cooperative federalism strategies, including
conditional spending, conditional preemption, grants, and contracts, to engage state cooperation in implementing the massive package of health care reforms.

Uncooperative federalism focuses on the power that states wield precisely because of their subservient
posture vis-a-vis the federal government. The theory emphasizes the "power of the servant" and "the ways in which integration can serve as a distinct source
of strength." Lacking adequate financial resources or regulatory reach to implement comprehensive programs, the federal government often depends on states to implement and administer
federal policies. Because Congress cannot simply mandate states to administer federal programs, it must offer carrots, such as conditional funding or block grants, or sticks, such as conditional
preemption or threats to usurp state implementation. In so doing, the federal government cedes considerable power and discretion to states. For example, under Medicaid, states must
comply with broad federal requirements but otherwise are free to tailor their state plans to meet their citizens' particular needs, still receiving federal matching dollars for every state dollar
spent. Even though the federal government ultimately holds the threat of revoking federal funds or taking over state programs, financial, political, and practical realities may render that threat
an empty one.
States' power as servants also derives from their integration into federal program implementation. State
regulators and policymakers have regular interaction with federal authorities in administering complex,
cooperative programs. State actors may develop subject-matter specialization within certain areas, such as environmental or health policy, which transcends federal and
state lines of authority. A related source of power derives from the fact that states serve two masters: the federal government and their state constituents. Voters' dissenting views give states
the political will and capital to challenge federal policies.

Bulman-Pozen and Gerken conclude that uncooperative

federalism can be useful within a well-functioning federal
system. Friction between the federal government and states fosters a rich dialogue , clarifies
accountability , and encourages political participation . Doctrinal implications of the uncooperative federalism theory
suggest that commandeering, which is considered unacceptably intrusive on state autonomy to Box 1 adherents, perhaps should be allowed or
encouraged under Box 2 because it engenders dissent.Uncooperative federalism, like state autonomy or dual sovereignty, prefers
narrow preemption but not because state power should be interpreted as broadly as possible but, rather, as a way to create larger

overlapping spheres of federal and state regulatory authority thereby ensuring ongoing conflict and jarring .
The authors are equivocal on the value of conditional spending programs like Medicaid in advancing the uncooperative federalism thesis. The
amount of power that states wield as servants under conditional spending schemes depends on how badly states need the federal money. If
states have no real choice but to accept the federal funds, conditional spending essentially becomes commandeering, sparking various

forms of beneficial state resistance and dissent. But if states can freely decline the federal government's offer or

bargain for additional terms, little meaningful dialogue remains . States that freely opt-out of cooperative federalism programs
have little reason to object, while states that bargain effectively may have their objections appeased .
 2NC---AT: Do the Counterplan
1. TOPICALLY. The “United States federal government” is the three branches.
U.S. Legal ’16 [U.S. Legal; 2016; Organization offering legal assistance and attorney access; U.S. Legal, “United States Federal
Government Law and Legal Definition,” https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government/; RP]

The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution . The Federal Government shares
sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government
has three branches : i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US
and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth
functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the

powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States
or to the people .

Competition should solely involve mandates---permuting effects kills ground because

any action could cause the plan.
Wood ’13 [Jamie; June 10; Writer; Avatel EVP, “The Butterfly Effect – What a Fascinating Theory!”
https://avatel.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/the-butterfly-effect-what-a-fascinating-theory/]

Every action or decision has some kind of effect on something or someone, if only in an indirect way. How we
approach these decisions or actions we take can have a huge impact, not just on those directly involved, but on others we could hardly fathom
would be affected. You never know what little action may be the tipping point for another action and or reaction.

When you hear the words “The Butterfly Effect”, most of you will probably think of the movie. That was about the chaos theory, meaning one
series of events leads to another and the effect of changing the course of those events.

Actually the term “The Butterfly Effect”, was a phenomenon proposed in a doctoral thesis written in 1963 by Edward Lorenz. It states that a

butterfly, by flapping its wings in one place and time is able to create a major weather event in another place and
time , eventually having a far-reaching ripple effect on subsequent events.

The butterfly effect suggests that cause and effect are applicable in the universe even if the pattern is
indecipherable and the precise cause of our predicaments, rooted far away in time and space, are ultimately
unfathomable. More than just an esoteric science, the chaos theory works off the concept that the relation between any two things is
rarely linear in nature, that any reaction is usually the result of an accumulation of causative factors small and large, intentional and accidental.
 2NC---AT: Say No
1. LEVERAGE. It suspends all cooperation. That takes immigration, drugs,
infrastructure, and environmental policy off the table, forcing the fed’s hand.
Resevz ’17 [Joshua and Heather; Spring 2017; Civil Attorney at the United States Department of
Justice, J.D. from Yale University; Professor of Law at Yale University, J.D. from the University of
Michigan, A.B. from Princeton University; Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, “Progressive Federalism: A
User’s Guide,” no. 44]

But if progressives can simply look outside the Beltway, they will find that they still have access to one of the most powerful
weapon s in politics: federalism . Using the power they wield in states and cities across the country, progressives can do a
good deal more than mourn and obstruct. They can resist Washington overreach, shape national policies , and force the
Republicans to compromise. Cities and states have long been at the center of the fight over national values. And it’s time
progressives recognized that federalism isn’t just for conservatives.

Unfortunately, the moment one mentions federalism many progressives stop listening. The language of “states’ rights” has an ugly history,
invoked to shield slavery and Jim Crow. Federalism’s checkered past led political scientist William H. Riker to remark in 1964 that “if one
disapproves of racism, one should disapprove of federalism.” Even today, many progressives think of federalism as a parochial anachronism,
better suited for stymieing change than for effecting it. But they are making a mistake. This is not your father’s federalism. These days, state
and local governments are often led by dissenters and racial minorities, the two groups progressives think have the most to fear from
federalism. And this has allowed them to not only take advantage of the enormous power that federalism confers
within their own cities and states, but to affect national debates, influence national policy, and force national
actors to the bargain ing table. Their success shows that federalism is a neutral and powerful tool for change,
not an intrinsically conservative quirk of U.S. government.

The call for progressive federalism is not a new one. In 2004, Duke law professor Ernie Young invited liberals to come to the “Dark Side” and
embrace the power of the states. (And one of the authors of this essay has spent more than a decade arguing—including in the pages of this
journal— that federalism doesn’t have a political valence.) But having a Democrat in the White House was just too tempting for most
progressives. They turned their attention to Washington while neglecting what was going on in California, Massachusetts, or New York City. We
suspect that most progressives aren’t even aware that the Democrats have lost 27 state legislative chambers since 2008. But perhaps the 2016
election will help progressives shake loose the notion that D.C. is the center of the political universe.

Needless to say, though, the devil is in the details. So below we offer a “user’s guide” that identifies four ways that progressive leaders—from
Jerry Brown and Bill de Blasio to small-city mayors—can push back against federal policy and force compromise. And, in doing so, we hope to
persuade even the most fervent nationalist to become a fan of federalism. While we fashion this as a progressive user’s guide, it could, in
theory, work just as well for conservatives should they lose the presidency in 2020. That’s precisely the point.

Types of Resistance

We often forget that the fed eral government ’s admin istrative capacity is modest , relatively speaking. Excluding the military,
it employs just short of three million personnel. Its 2015 budget (excluding defense, Social Security, and mandatory
spending obligations) was less than $600 billion. Together, state and local government s dwarf these figures, with
more than 14 million workers and a combined budget of more than $2.5 trillion .

Because of this, Washington can’t go it alone. When

Congress makes a law, it often lacks the resources to enforce it.
Instead, it relies on states and localities to carry out its policies. Without those local actor s , the feds
can no t enforce immigration law, implement environment al policy, build infrastructure , or prosecute
drug offense s . Changing policies in these areas—and many more—is possible only if cities and states lend a
hand. This arrangement creates opportunities for federal-state cooperation. But it also allows for “ uncoop erative
f edera lism ”: State and local official s can use their leverage over the feds to shape national policy .

This means that states can shape policy simply by refusing to partner with the fed eral government. This form of
resistance involves more than mere obstruction. It allows progressive states to help set the federal agenda by forcing debates
that conservatives would rather avoid and by creating incentives for compromise. When states opt out of a federal
program, it costs the federal government resources and p olitical c apital. That’s why President Trump has a lot
more incentive to compromise with Democrats in Sacramento than with those on the Hill.

2. REVENUE. States won’t report taxes OR provide staff---that grinds Congress to a

halt.
Smith ’21 [Fred; 2021; Associate Professor at Emory University Law School; Wisconsin Law Review,
“Federalism in the States: What States Can Teach About Commandeering,” p. 1257-1279]
1. Federalism and Collective Action

With autonomy comes resistance , or “ uncooperative ” postures by state and local government s .133 And

with this autonomy to resist comes a potential complication: inhibit ing a central government’s ability to deal with
collective action problems. This tension is as old as the republic.134 “Collective action” problems refer to situations in which (1) the
normatively optimal result requires multiple entities or persons to act in a certain manner; but (2) each individual entity has incentive to act in
an alternative, counterproductive manner (or not to act at all).135 These moments are ripe for negative “externalities,” in which many of the
negative costs of an entity’s non-optimal behavior are internalized by others.136 It can also result in positive “spillovers,” in which entities
acting in non-optimal ways benefit from the expenditures of other actors; this also reduces the incentive for each to act optimally given that
they can enjoy benefits without paying for them.137

Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, under the Articles of Confederation, states’ considerable autonomy and sovereignty

facilitated collective action problems .138 The fed eral government could not raise revenue without state
approval, for example.139 One result of this arrangement was that the central government had substantial difficulty
solving collective action problems.140 If some states made contributions to the federal government, all states enjoyed the resultant
spillover effects, reducing the incentive for any individual state to contribute. Professors Robert Cooter and Neil Siegel have argued that even if
the Founders did not have the language of “collective action” as they confronted these problems, those were among the chief issues they
aimed to solve in adopting the Constitution.141 In those two scholars’ view, this overarching purpose of the Constitution should inform one’s
understanding of the intended scope of congressional powers in Article I of the Constitution.142 As they thoughtfully put it:

The Framers lacked the tools and language of modern social science, but they knew a collective action problem when they saw it.
When activities spilled over from one state to another, the Framers recognized that the actions of individually rational states
produced irrational results for the nation as a whole—the definition of a collective action problem.143

2. Commandeering and Collective Action

The collective-action strand of federalism literature informs debates about the efficacy and proper scope of
anticommandeering doctrine. Indeed, the facts of New York v. United States itself presented a classic collective problem.144 Congress
commanded that states take title to their low-level radioactive waste in part because some states were amenable to allowing safe disposal
states and others were not.145 And by not properly disposing of such waste, the state necessarily exported the negative externalities (by way
costs and risks) to neighboring states.146 Justice Stevens’s partial dissent observed this feature of the problem Congress was aiming to solve,
criticizing a doctrine that disabled Congress’s ability to deal with this pressing collective action problem.147

Scholarly critics of the doctrine have similarly described ways that anticommandeering can make it difficult for the central
gov ernmen t to mitigate collective action problems. Professor Siegel has observed that the federal law at issue in New
York v. United States “was obviously directed at solving serious, multistate collective action problems.”148 Moreover, now-Judge David Barron
has argued that because anticommandeering doctrine can harm a central government’s ability to solve such problems, the doctrine can actually
undermine, rather than protect, local autonomy. He explains,

[If Congress] wishes to empower localities to overcome the irresponsible actions of holdouts, then it must enact a rule system that permits collective solutions, even though they
are not approved unanimously. That is the kind of choice central law faces when it seeks to protect local autonomy. In making that choice, the central government will not
unambiguously vindicate local autonomy no matter how it acts; it will infringe it by attempting to promote it or by choosing one idea of local autonomy at the expense of others.
But that is inevitably the case when the limits on local power come from some source other than the visible intervention of the central government itself.149

3. State Commandeering and Collective Action

It is difficult to seriously dispute that commandeering can help resolve collective action problems. To understand how commandeering can resolve collective action problems, one need do
nothing more than read the facts of New York v. United States. 150 Still, there are at least two relevant questions that could be more comprehensively answered by consulting intrastate
arrangements.

First, what are the circumstances in which commandeering has been used to resolve collective action problems? One prominent problem is
exclusionary zoning, wherein local governments (formally or functionally) ban low-income housing within their jurisdiction.151 The results of
such laws often are not limited to the single town that enacts it. Instead, the “adverse consequences extend to neighboring communities.”152
Localities need teachers , police officers , sanitation workers , and grocery store stocker s to function.
When one town in a region excludes moderate and low-income residents, another town picks up the slack. The net result is that some wealthy,
exclusive jurisdictions have large tax bases with fewer expenditures.153 Meanwhile, other inclusive jurisdictions in the region have smaller tax
bases while subsidizing a need that aids the entire region.154 This is a classic collective action problem. If exclusionary zoning is adopted, the
negative results can create negative externalities for other communities in the same region.155 And while all in the region would benefit if each
political subdivision contributed to, or created, affordable housing, individual political subdivisions can gain an unfair benefit by passing the
costs to other jurisdictions.156

Some of the tools that states have adopted to deal with this problem can fairly be called commandeering. The Massachusetts Low-and Moderate-Income Housing Act, which is often called an
“anti-snob zoning law,” permits a state agency to override local decisions that block affordable housing.157 The New Jersey Fair Housing Act of 1985, created in response to a seminal state
supreme court opinion,158 created a state council that assesses the need for low to moderately priced affordable housing for each of the state’s regions.159 The initial act required every
municipality to create a plan demonstrating how it would provide its fair, relative share of affordable housing in its region.160 Moreover, California, Florida, and Oregon have required local
governments to adopt plans for affordable housing.161 States, then, provide opportunities to study the role of commandeering in resolving collective action problems by examining the
problems commandeering has been used to resolve; patterns in the political economies that facilitate these interventions; and how often commandeering is used for these purposes as
opposed to others.

Second, the recent pandemic has provided reason to ask the opposite question: how and when is commandeering used in ways that worsen collective action problems? The infectious disease
COVID-19 has created or exposed collective action problems on multiple levels, including the individual level and polity level. On an individual level, the choices one makes impact others.
Physical isolation reduces the risk of spreading the virus.162 And yet isolation can prove costly if it interferes with one’s ability to earn a living. Given the costs of isolation, there are sometimes
economic incentives to make decisions that are not for the good of the whole. Likewise, on the governmental level, the choices one jurisdiction makes have externalities for other
jurisdictions.163 And still, making choices that reduce the spread of the virus—such as closing non-essential businesses and gatherings—could prove costly by interfering with a community’s
economy.164 If all make these choices, the virus might spread less quickly, creating the possibility that it could be controlled, and all economies could more safely open.165 But given the costs,
there are economic incentives to make policy decisions that are good for the polity in the short term but not for the good of the whole.

While states have used their commandeering power over the course of the pandemic to mitigate collective action problems, they have also used those powers in ways that do not self-
evidently make that choice. Recently, the governor of Florida prohibited local school districts from requiring the use of facemasks to reduce the risk of spreading the virus.166 The governor of
Georgia also banned local governments from requiring facemasks, suing the City of Atlanta when it asked locals to wear masks when in public and indoors.167 These choices remind that
amidst critical collective action problems, commandeering by a central government will not necessarily resolve those problems. It may actually worsen them in two ways: (1) by consolidating
political choices in ways that allow that central government to pass on costs to other jurisdictions dealing with the same problem; and (2) by incentivizing individuals to make choices that harm
the collective group.168 This cost of commandeering—monopolizing political choices in ways that worsen collective action problems rather than mitigate them—is an important part of any
comprehensive conversation about anticommandeering doctrine.

III. Implications from the States

This Essay has advocated for what I call “intrasystemic comparative analysis” to examine the lessons that can be learned from comparing
multiple institutional legal arrangements in a single federal system. In the United States, horizonal and vertical federalism are
oft-discussed features of the relationships between the fed eral government and states and between the states
themselves. But within states, there are federalist systems, too, which set up some of the same questions about democratic accountability and
collective action that guide dialogue about the federal-state relationship. By way of example, this Essay has shown how commandeering plays a
role in intrastate federalism that is fundamentally distinct from the role that it plays in interstate federalism. Moreover, the role of
commandeering differs amongst the states themselves. Accordingly, this Essay has shown how intrastate commandeering can
inform discussions about how anticommandeering doctrine interacts with both democratic accountability and collective action
problems.

These observations have practical or doctrinal import . When it comes to federal anticommandeering, the principle of
democratic accountability is a core and foundational aspect of extant doctrine.169 Indeed, the record is mixed as to whether the doctrine is
sustainable on other grounds.170 It is difficult to justify it as a matter of text, and some scholars have argued that it is not justifiable as a matter
of history.171 Further, even those who have defended anticommandeering as a matter of history have argued that extant doctrine nonetheless
outpaces that history.172 Thus, theorems about the probable behavior of voters and government officials are not a sideshow when it comes to
anticommandeering doctrine. Democratic accountability is the plot, the stage, and the set in the main event. If the premise is wrong, another
justification is needed for the doctrine. If the premise is overstated, perhaps a softer version of the doctrine is warranted. If the premise is right,
but there are other equally or more important constitutional premises that anticommandeering doctrine also affects, this also suggests that
revisions to the doctrine might be justified.

Over the decades, scholars like Professors Vicki Jackson and Neil Siegel have offered visions about what such a reformed doctrine might look
like. Professor Jackson has broadly advocated for

focusing on the adequacy of congressional process to justify assertions of federal power over private citizens, and attending to the
actual risks of politically nonaccountable behavior in particular programs of commandeering state facilities would help move the
doctrine toward a “sufficiently principled” basis for achieving the goal of maintaining states as constitutionally important locations of
power in a strong and effective national union based on the rule of law.173

Relatedly, Siegel has proposed a presumption against anticommandeering under some specified circumstances absent a compelling
government interest.174

The goal here is not to identify the precise metes and bounds of what a reformed anticommandeering doctrine should look like. Rather, when

working to achieve the optimal balance , we can learn lessons by looking to state lab oratorie s .
Consulting the results of their experiments reduces the risks of American federalism’s atom-splitting .
Deficit Spending CP
States
 2NC---AT: 50 State Fiat
1. CORE TOPIC CONTROVERSY. It’s important to learn about federal vs state action
Sarah K. Bruch et al 23, associate professor at the Joseph R. Biden, Jr., School of Public Policy and
Administration and the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Delaware.
Joseph van der Naald is a doctoral candidate in the sociology program at the Graduate Center of the City
University of New York. Janet Gornick is a professor of political science and sociology at the Graduate
Center of the City University of New York. She also serves as director of the James M. and Cathleen D.
Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality, which includes the US office of LIS (the cross-national data
archive in Luxembourg). Social Service Review. “ Poverty Reduction through Federal and State Policy
Mechanisms: Variation over Time and across the United States” May 2.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/724556#d21216324e4057 //pipk

The efficacy of the US anti poverty policy is shaped both by its reliance on categorical sorting and by its
decentralized structure . To examine the implications of these features, this study introduces a novel
disaggregation of poverty reduction instruments into four mechanisms : federal taxes and federal
transfers ( centralized ) and state taxes and state transfers (decentralized ). Using the Current
Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement data and a sequence-independent
decomposition, this analysis assesses the relative effectiveness of the mechanisms at the national level
between 1996 and 2016 and across the states in 2016. The study finds that absolute and relative
poverty reduction is greater and has increased over time for working-age households with children
compared with those without children. We also find cross-state variation in market- and disposable-
income poverty and in the poverty reduction attributable to each of the redistributive mechanisms ,
highlighting the importance of examining poverty and antipoverty policy subnationally .
Case
 2NC---UBI Coopted
Backlash to UBIs ensure hospitality never spills over.
Harrington 6/5/23 [Mary Harrington is a contributing editor at UnHerd., 6-5-2023, "Universal basic
income will kill democracy," UnHerd, https://unherd.com/thepost/universal-basic-income-will-kill-
democracy/]//gbs-aarz
Are we on our way to universal basic income? A pilot scheme has been announced in two English locations, in which 30 people will be paid a lump sum of £1600 a
month without conditions for two years, and observed for the effect this has on their lives. This follows a slow but steady groundswell of calls for such a measure —
calls that have accelerated since “furlough” effectively trialled something similar during lockdown.

But while UBI may serve as a pragmatic response to increasing inequality, we should be alert to what such a measure implies: that the majority of
citizens are now passive , consumption-only participants in the economic order. And once this is acknowledged openly, expect it to
have knock-on effects in the political sphere as well.

One side-effect of industrialisation across the West was the widening of political participation. In England, a key group pushing for change was the 19th-century
Chartists, who called for the working-class franchise along with other reforms to rebalance the political order. The threat of unrest, combined with the sheer
practical necessity of having a relatively cooperative industrial workforce, ensured that many Chartist demands were eventually attained. In other words: the
working class got their voices heard, and formally acknowledged via the vote, because they were needed.

Today we are looking at the end of that era. The share of British GDP that comes from industry has shrunk from 30% in 1970 to around 10% today, largely replaced

by services. There is no longer enough industry to keep an industrial proletariat employed. And even if manufacturing
did get “re-shored”, much of it would likely be automated.

So, too, will many of the service roles that replaced industrial work, thanks to rapid developments in AI. As the futurist Yuval Noah Harari argues, new

technologies will replace most jobs , producing a new “useless class” of people whose work is simply no longer
needed. Others warn that the looming age of automation will accelerate inequality: in effect, a mass of the indigent and unemployable, offset by a small class of
fabulously wealthy tech plutocrats.

It is not a recipe for political stability. One solution, Harari suggests, might simply be to keep this “useless class” fed with handouts and occupied with drugs and
computer games. In more polite progressive terms, this means UBI: a solution to the inequalities now increasingly apparent in post-industrial society, opening the
scope for people to pursue individual fulfilment as they see fit. Perhaps echoing the pragmatic willingness of 19th-century British elites to reform institutions in line

with the changing political calculus, it’s often the tech super-rich who are UBI’s keenest advocates .

Harari notes that this presents a deep challenge to our belief in the dignity of all human life. This is true. It also presents a deep challenge to the
political order we have come to think of as settled. Had the industrial working class simply been passive recipients of handouts and consumers of
entertainment, it’s difficult to see what leverage the Chartists might have had for demanding the vote — or what reason elites might have had for granting it.

By the same token, should the base of net contributors to the Exchequer shrink to a handful of plutocrats, it’s reasonable to
expect that in practice, even if not in theory, the political views of those net contributors will weigh considerably more heavily than your average PlayStation-
addicted UBI recipient. If your tax base comprises, say, 100 oligarchs, then the departure of even one makes a big dent in the coffers — a threat that can be used to
shape policy a long way upstream of official politics.

On current inequality trends, then, it’s more than possible that universal basic income will become a reality. If it does, I predict that current electoral
rituals will be maintained — but will steadily lose leverage . (This has, in fact, arguably been under way for some decades.) No doubt, over time,
other means will be found for the masses to register their views. Or perhaps, like the 59% of American youth who would rather give up the franchise than their
access to TikTok, people simply won’t care.

Either way, in a UBI state we can expect the industrial-era democratic settlement to persist largely as a
toothless ritual, while real political power withdraws into the hands of the new lords and princes .

UBI is a neoliberal transfer of power to tech oligarchs

Kotkin ’22 [Joel; October 11; presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and executive
director of the Urban Reform Institute; “There is nothing progressive about a universal basic income,”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/10/11/there-is-nothing-progressive-about-a-universal-basic-
income]

The problem with a universal basic income

It is not just climate activists who support UBI – so do many super-rich tech oligarchs , such as Mark
Zuckerberg, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, former president of Y Combinator. The likes of Zuckerberg have all
signed up for the notion of a UBI as the way to deal with growing inequality, which they fear could stir unrest among the great unwashed.
Behind this lurks a dismal view of the usefulness of most humans. Greg Ferenstein, who interviewed 147 digital
company founders, says most believe that ‘an increasingly greater share of economic wealth will be generated by a smaller slice of very
talented or original people’. Everyone
else will be left to ‘subsist on some combination of part-time
entrepreneurial “gig work” and government aid’. In the technocracy envisioned by the oligarchs, there
will be little need for the labour of the lower classes or for the messiness of democracy. The New Yorker aptly
called UBI ‘a futurist reply to the darker side of technological efficiency’. An economy built around welfare dependency also has dubious
prospects. In reality, we still need people doing things that robots and AI can’t. There is a clear need for workers in building houses and other
infrastructure, providing medical care and constructing new industries, such as in space and biomedicine. Humans are necessary, as the current
labour shortages demonstrate. We already face a huge dearth of workers who can actually produce things. Even as automation removes some
routine tasks, as many as 600,000 of the new manufacturing jobs expected to be generated in the US this decade are unlikely to be filled. The
current shortage of welders, now 240,000, could grow to 340,000 by 2024. When the US economy grew slightly in May, there were an
estimated 500,000 manufacturing jobs unfilled. The costs to the economy of this post-work society are rarely discussed. A
broad-based
UBI, for example, would necessitate higher taxes on the already beleaguered middle class. Democratic
presidential candidate Andrew Yang’s 2020 campaign was built around UBI. His plan was estimated to cost some $2.8 trillion annually. This
would be paid for by a national value-added tax, and by higher capital-gains and social-security taxes. We can already see the outlines of how
this would play out in California. Currently, California spends roughly $100 billion annually on welfare. During the pandemic, California handed
out cheques that exceeded anything ever seen on the state level. It’s all a bit of a shell game, however. California has far higher energy costs
than almost all other states due to its ultra-green policies, and governor Gavin Newsom has started handing out $1,000 anti-inflation cheques.
In California today, traditional
notions of economic development and upward mobility have been replaced by
programmes of subsidised housing, a state bailout for renters and enhanced unemployment payments .
The blue-collar economy , traditionally a key source of upward mobility , is the biggest loser . Eager to
reduce carbon emissions generated within the state’s boundaries, despite the global nature of climate change, California now sources much of
its oil from countries like Saudi Arabia, while it sets about annihilating its once large local fossil-fuel industry. ‘The culture for much of California,
driven by state politics, is one of benefits (and now guaranteed income), not a jobs strategy or expectation’, says Michael Bernick, a former
director of California’s Employment Development Department. The synergy between Silicon Valley wealth and the expansive welfare state is
clear: the excess wealth of the oligarchs can fund ever more dysfunctional schools at a high level, pay enormous pensions and generally expand
the role of a state government, all with the blessings of the state’s economic royalty. Will a UBI leave life better for the working and the
proletarianised middle class? As author Aaron Renn suggests, parts of American society where income transfers have become a way of life
suffer shocking levels of drug abuse, alcoholism and idleness. Damon Linker, a progressive writing for the Week, describes UBI
as the road
to ‘spiritual ruin’, particularly for those most dependent on it. Some on the left even see it as a neoliberal ‘scam’ to
hasten the end of productive work and upward mobility , while undermining the working class’s
political and economic power .

Basic income fractures collectivization and eases the conscience of the wealthy.
Anke Hassel 5-4-2017, Professor of Public Policy at the Hertie School of Governance and Academic
Director of the Hans Böckler Foundation’s Institute of Economic and Social Research. "Basic Income Is a
Dead End." Boston Review. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/anke-hassel-basic-income-dead-
end/. DL

Basic income promises that each person would have the freedom to decide if he or she wants to be
employed, do volunteer work—or do nothing at all. It promises politicians the luxury of no longer having to worry about
unemployment. And it would give companies an elegant way to justify job cuts . Jobs that fell victim to
tech nological change or globalization would no longer be a problem, as those affected would be
financially secure and could look after their children at home or pursue hobbies.

Nevertheless basic income is a dead end . The most common reason cited for this conclusion is, of course, financing: though its costs
have not been quantified, it is certain that they would be high. Just how income and wealth should be taxed to pay for it remains an open
question. Radically transforming the social system to create a basic income would be the greatest financial gamble in recent history.

But the financial aspect is not even the most important argument against a basic income. Basic income is a seductive poison . It
would benefit the margins of society at the expense of the middle class . For the poor and long-term
unemployed, basic income would remove the pressure to find work and the unpleasant task of actively
look for employment. It most likely would not cost the rich any more than before, and would help ease their
conscience. Growing inequality would no longer be a social scandal , since everyone would have an
income, albeit close to the poverty line . It is precisely for this reason that there are three main arguments against an
unconditional basic income.

In reality basic income is the opposite of social solidarity with the weaker members of society.

First, basic income would further divide society and prevent social mobility . Those who, due to family background,
have good prospects for interesting employment and high income would maintain their existing work ethic and engage in school and study,
with the option of a sabbatical or two in between. However, life
would become more difficult for young people from
working-class and migrant families who are already at a disadvantage in terms of education. The sweet
poison of basic income would accompany them at every step of their school life and vocational training .
When asked what they want to do for a living, children from parts of Berlin with a high percentage of working-class and migrant families, such
as Neukölln, today already often say they plan to go on the dole. In the future, they might answer: “I’ll collect my basic income.” Any
resolve to invest in themselves and to improve their lives through work would be put to the test every
day, and at an age when young people already struggle with themselves and the demands of their environment. And society would be much
less concerned about this dilemma than it is today, as everyone would be provided for.

Second, an unconditional basic income lacks social legitimacy. At present, it is impossible to imagine a model that benefits all parts of society
equally. It is therefore likely that basic income would redistribute resources from those who are employed to those who are not, or who are
only partially employed. Comprehensive social services that go beyond pure poverty control, however, are legitimized by existing concepts of
social justice. How else? Norms of social justice include the idea of equal opportunity, giving everyone a shot at making it on the labor market
and in the marketplace. This justifies, for instance, public spending on education. An unconditional basic income is, in principle, based on a
citizen’s right to income, but in reality a basic income scheme is the opposite of social solidarity with the weaker
members of society. The middle class, who would finance the basic income but who would not benefit from it materially, are unlikely to find
social justice or solidarity in this “unconditional” redistribution. This is one reason why large redistribution programs are unpopular among
voters, even among those who are likely to benefit from it.

Basic income runs counter to the needs of a society with rapidly growing immigration.

Third, an
unconditional basic income runs counter to the needs of a society with rapidly growing
immigration . Migrant workers and other immigrants need more mechanisms to help with social integration, not fewer. It is the everyday
experiences that matter: people meet each other at work, they get to know and appreciate each other, and
they learn the language. Considering this, it would be fatal to give people a reason to stop working, to
stop improving their qualifications, and to simply stay at home.
1NR
DA---Hegemony
DA---Farm Bill
DA---IRS
 UQ
The IRS will successfully implement the IRA climate provisions now, but it will require
precise focus and innovation on a short timeline
Bravender 22, general assignment reporter for Greenwire (Robin, “Podesta, IRS get to work on
climate law’s tax incentives,” E and E News, https://www.eenews.net/articles/podesta-irs-get-to-work-
on-climate-laws-tax-incentives/)//BB

The bulk of the climate and energy spending included in that law — $270 billion of the nearly $370
billion total — will be delivered through tax incentives. That means the Treasury Department and the IRS
— agencies that aren’t always associated with climate policy — will be at the center of the law’s
implementation. “While our agency has experience with existing tax credits for many clean energy
activities, the I nflation R eduction A ct requires a vast amount of innovative work in a short period of
time ,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo told reporters Wednesday. The department is
preparing to roll out guidance and rules in the coming months “to implement the tax revisions that will
enable the transformation that is needed to make these investments real,” he added, noting that it will
be a sprint for the agency to comply. “This is an important responsibility, and Treasury stands ready to
meet it ,” Adeyemo said.

Modernization will succeed now, but it’s not a certainty. Keeping the priority focus on
modernization is vital to every element of the IRS mission.
Werfel 5-3-2023, Commissioner of the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS Chief Talks Goals, Work with
Congress, and More,” Talking Tax Podcast, Transcribed by Brett Bricker and AI)//BB
Yeah, I mean, that's, I mean, first of all, my learning was a combination of reflecting on my time in government, studying reading, but also being engaged across
industries. And then I was able, from, from more of an observation standpoint, and advisory standpoint, see the different problems that were coming across public
sector leaders desk and, and just kind of understanding that there's a variety of different paths you can take, how do you communicate with the workforce? How do
you weigh different options? How do you think about stakeholders both inside and outside of your organization? These are things I knew how to do, and were on
my radar screen 10 years ago, but like with anything with age and experience, I just I've gotten sharper, I believe it understanding and I still have a long way to go.
Look, I you know, I'm always moving up the learning curve. And, you know, one of my reflections early here at the IRS is, is the leadership team here is
super patient. They're excited to have a new commissioner. I think one of the things they like about me early on is that I am in listening mode. I'm not coming in
with all the ideas on coming in wanting to collaborate with them on what the right things to do are to serve the mission. What do you hope to accomplish in your
first six months on the job? And how do you view success in that position? Like how do you plan to measure whether or not you know you're doing a good job or
whether the IRS is doing a good job and achieving, you know, various benchmarks? Yeah, it's, it's a great question. And, you know, in some ways that answer was
was handed to me on my first day, which is we have a huge opportunity and responsibility to, to launch our responsibilities under the
I nflation R eduction A ct, and what Congress expected and the president expected when they pass a law and he signed the law. So the first six
months for me are all about a successful continuation of the ramp. And those fall into three buckets, services. And for me, it's we have an opportunity

to enhance , modernize and move more towards world class customer service. And there's a variety of different
projects that we have spelled out in our in our strategic operating plan that was released April 6, and the priority there is for those that are in
the short term, to launch them successfully . The second is enforcement or compliance. And there, the remit is to increase
our capacity and performance and how we assess the wealthiest filers in America, that's individuals,
corporations, and complex partnerships. And then the third part of our remit is, is what I call the backbone, the technology backbone.
Think about the IRS is sitting on infrastructure or foundation . And that foundation is uneven today in
terms of how modern it is, and its stability. And that's due to years of of underfunding and under-
resourcing that foundation. And so that's the third part of of the priority picture. So what do I want to get accomplished in six months? I want us to
be humming in each of those areas with great clarity in terms of what are the top projects that we need to do in each? What are the key steps? And your us a great
question, how do we measure ourselves? What does success look like? I like to look backwards, I like to say, what's the press release, we want to write six months
from now or what's the, you know, the statement of success. And let's reverse engineer into that. The last point I'll make about all of this is like, we're also trying to

get ready for filing season next year. And we really think that's a huge moment of truth for us, right? Because we had a very strong filing season,
it will be easily forgotten if we don't come out and think a strong next year when filing season begins. So we want to continue that
momentum . And we want each year under the inflation Reduction Act and under this new Euro taxpayers to see and feel a different set of
improvements and a smoother and smoother filing season each year, they should come back to our website and say, oh, there's new tools and solutions
here. They should find new options when they dial into our call center for for either doing things in an automated way or or enhanced callback options or just a
quicker speed to get to the person on the line they need to speak to you mentioned the strategic operating plan on the inflation Reduction Act funding that came
out last month. What do you see as the biggest challenges to implementing that plan? Yeah, well, the part of the challenge is, and I refer to it as my public to do list,
there's 190 projects in the plan, and we have other activities going on within the IRS. So that's a lot of plates to be spinning simultaneously. And they're all
important work, you know, managing
the IRS and the responsibility to administer the United States tax system is
complicated. And so part of the challenge is , you know, making sure that you have really, really strong, precise
organizational structures in place governance, accountable people at the IRS, and then communication is key, right. With change, you have to make
sure that all the various stakeholders are aware of the change can comment on it. So another key challenge is making sure that all of these activities that are
happening in concert are not only getting done, and we're following a like clockwork playbook here. And that's what I'm pushing for, but also that all our diverse
stakeholders have an understanding of what we're trying to achieve and when we're trying to achieve it. So another big challenge is in a dense plan, like what we
have with nearly 200 projects, how do we communicate that clearly to all the various stakeholders, so they know what's coming. One of the big components of
implementing this plan is going to be hiring new personnel, especially hiring people who have the experience and skill set to audit, high income taxpayers, complex
corporations and partnerships. How are you planning to step out up recruiting in those areas and where are you looking to hire people? From and sort of what's the
IRS has elevator pitch, as you're, you know, trying to sell people maybe on coming from the private sector into the IRS? I love that question. I do have to work on my
elevator pitch. I think so I'll practice here for a moment. But like there's two parts to your question, let me start with a pitch. And the pitch is we have a once in a
generation opportunity to to transform and modernize one of the most important organizations in America. You don't have to love the IRS. But and you and you
know, and you can complain about the IRS that is your your right, your free speech, right, right. But we are essential to the operations of the United States
government and by extension essential to civilized society. So if you have the desire to be part of, of public service, or giving back to your country, or working in a
way that that makes you feel patriotic, the IRS is a place where you can do that. And if you want to come to an organization, which is in transition, and transition to
build something much better than what we've had in the past, if you want to be a challenging assignment, but one where you leave it, when you leave this
organization will be significantly different and better at its job than when you got here. I mean, that's a pretty exciting opportunity. And we need a lot of different
type of skill sets, as you said, you know, and I've talked publicly, in my recent hearings, about about the chasm that we have right now, where we have 2600 current
staff that review or exam or audit our wealthiest taxpayers, if you go to our wealthiest levels, like above 250 million in assets for corporations or above 10 million
assets for partnerships, or north of $5 million a year annual salary for an individual. So these are the really, really wealthy, there are 390,000 of those types of
taxpayers that I just described. And there's only 2600 to assess. And so that that is a wide gap. And when you think about these 390,000, taxpayers, these are also
our most voluminous and our most complex returns, and that complexity increases every year, it's not getting simpler for us to unpack those filings. So we need not
just auditors, but specialized accountants, data scientists, engineers, lawyers, and we're looking for a mix, we're looking for people that are just starting their career,
that want to learn on the job and develop a skill set, which is going to be very valuable for us and for them across their career. But also people that are, you know,
kind of coming out of retirement out of the private sector or law firms or accounting firms who have been involved and understand how these structures are done
so so they can help us in this situation, even the playing field when it comes to assessing these very, very complicated structures. And we have a very simple goal,
which is to administer the tax code fairly. And right now, today, we have the ability, the skill set to assess middle and lower income filings, because those are
relatively often straightforward, doesn't make it easy. I'm just saying that we have the capacity today, we do not have the capacity to effectively assess our highest
income filers in a way that we should. So the goal is really to just even that out and make sure that we're an IRS that's not skewed towards being able to assess one
part of our taxpayers, but not another. And I think people want an IRS that is that is nonpartisan, that is fair, that has has balanced of strength across different

taxpayer segments. Right

now we're out of balance, the inflation Reduction Act [ IRA ] will help us put in balance
and we need people to help us on that journey. Where do you find those people? Well, there's a lot of different places. You know, first of
all, you know, I think we Iris has offices all over the country. So we're not constrained to any one regional area. So we have a diverse geography, that we can spread
our recruiting efforts. We can look, as I said to people that are, you know, kind of nearing the end of their private sector careers at law firms and accounting firms.
We can look to universities who are looking to place students coming out with accounting or actuarial degrees or engineering degrees. I could go on and on because
you know, and there are you know, what's really interesting Niomi there are companies right now out there so that you know, you hear it, they're doing significant
layoffs. Right. And there's an opportunity potentially for us to sync up with, with companies that are doing layoffs, because we are we are hiring. And so look, there's
a lot of matchmaking that we can do in that regard. I think we're off to a good start. In our hiring I've mentioned we've hired somewhere between five and 6000
people, and mostly focused on staffing our call center so that we're answering all the calls. The other thing that's really important to understand, because I think a
lot of people think oh god, this is all Iris hiring, and, and plussing up and growing and growing, the reality is we're losing a lot of people. So not only do we have to
build capacity that we don't have, we have to make up for for anticipated attrition. You mentioned that one of the challenges with implementation is going to be
keeping every you know, all the stakeholders informed. One of those big stakeholders is Congress. Can you sort of talk about your strategy about how you plan to
keep Congress updated on your progress, and maybe any areas where the IRS is running into any sort of difficulties? I look, I really think that there's a hugely
important role that Congress plays. You know, I can focus on our authorizing committees, House Ways and Means and Senate Finance, you know, in some ways, and
in many ways they oversee us, they hold us accountable. They ask questions that have us rethinking our approach, they they call on tiga, or GAO, that creates a set
of recommendations that help guide priorities for us. It's an incredibly important institution. And in many ways, there are partners as well, like, I know, there's a lot
of politics, and that sometimes kind of crowds the screen. But also I think there's a lot of goodwill and trying to help create a better tax experience for for their
constituents. And obviously, we want to do that for all their constituents. And then I think there's a lot of interest in making sure that the tax system runs effectively,
so that the nation's finances are healthy. And if we are not doing our job, then the nation's finances suffer deficits grow, the debt goes up. So there is a virtuous
circle here of of the IRS operating the tax system effectively. And I think a lot of the members and their staffs believe in that. And therefore, if they're going to
partner with us on it, we have to be in regular communication. So that means I making myself available for hearings, whether that's at the committee or the
subcommittee level. So they can ask the question, the hearings are a really good opportunity for, for us to get on the same page in terms of what the priorities are,
and what the go forward is, and for them to communicate in a very public forum, their concerns and have me answer them. But we can also do, you know,
nonpublic briefings to staff and to members. You know, for example, it's hard to get into too much detail when a senator has five minutes. So often, they'll be asking
me questions, and then they'll say, you know, Commissioner, can you come and brief me in my team on this so that we can have an hour or more to really dig into
what your IT plans are to dig into? What are the root causes of the largest parts of the tax gap? My answer to that is always going to be without hesitation? Yes. The
inflation Reduction Act directs the IRS to submit a report to Congress by mid May on the feasibility of an IRS run electronic filing system, is this report still on track to
come out in mid May? And I know you've said before, that you don't want to get ahead of what the report is going to say. But once the report comes out, how much
time will it take for the IRS to sort of digest the report and study it before determining how you want to proceed following the reports release? Yeah, so the report

comes out in mid May, we're on track. It's certainly not complete yet .
 U---AT: Debt Ceiling
Debt ceiling cuts are small, modernization is still on track
Hussein 6-1-2023, analyst at AP News (Fatima, “Debt limit bill gives Republicans IRS cuts, but
Democrats say they expect little near-term impact,” AP News, https://apnews.com/article/irs-debt-
ceiling-budget-x-date-yellen-fe538fd8371cdf647400a27e6d56a9fb)//BB

Dem ocrat s expended a lot of p olitical c apital to get the IRS more money last year. They faced an
onslaught of campaign ads, many of them misleading, about the expected hiring of 87,000 “new agents”
to target low- and middle-class Americans. Now, Biden administration officials are offering assurances
that the spending cuts secured by Republican negotiators will have minimal impact on the agency’s
operations over the next few years. The agency is on course to still get nearly three-quarters of the $80
billion boost that Congress approved for it last year. And the agency has the flexibility to spend some of
that money sooner than planned , officials stressed. “ The IRS has the resources it needs in the near
term to improve customer service and go after wealthy and corporate tax evaders,” Deputy Treasury
Secretary Wally Adeyemo tweeted.

The IRS cut was meaningless, it’s just a GOP talking-point

Devine 5-28-2023, columnist at NYP (Miranda, “McCarthy’s debt-ceiling deal with Biden comes up
short on his vow to rein in IRS,” New York Post, https://nypost.com/2023/05/28/mccarthys-debt-ceiling-
deal-with-biden-comes-up-short-on-vow-to-reign-in-irs/)//BB

Kevin McCarthy trumpeted a debt-ceiling deal Sunday, but increasing debt another $4 trillion with
minimal concessions is nothing to boast about . To be fair, the House speaker has a razor slim majority
and Republicans don’t control the Senate, where Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his sidekick
Lindsey Graham have announced that the only thing they care about is Ukraine. But McCarthy’s one
dealbreaker should have been his promise to defund President Biden’s massive $80 billion to
turbocharge an already weaponized IRS . This was the totemic centerpiece of his pitch to become
speaker. It was the most memorable promise of the Republicans’ midterm campaign to win back the
House. It struck a chord with voters, wary of funding a new “army” of armed IRS agents to harass
middle-class families and small business owners and abuse their powers to target political dissidents,
Soviet-style. “Our very first bill will repeal the funding for 87,000 new IRS agents,” McCarthy vowed.
“You see, we believe government should be to help you, not go after you.” Sure enough, the House
voted 221-210 to repeal the extra IRS funding. “Promises made,” the newly minted speaker said Jan. 9,
banging the gavel on the first bill of the Republican-controlled House. What about promises kept? In the
debt-ceiling deal outlined Sunday and due to be inked later this week, McCarthy has allowed the lion’s
share of that extra IRS funding to remain unmolested: preserving $78.1 billion of the $80 billion. As rebel
GOP Rep Dan Bishop put it: “So there will be 85,260 more IRS agents rather than 87,000 to eat you
alive. Big win.”

Debt ceiling cuts don’t YET hurt the IRS, but do demonstrate the target on IRS’s back
Holtzblatt 6-1-2023, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (Janet, “What The Debt
Ceiling Agreement Means For The IRS,” Tax Policy Center,
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/what-debt-ceiling-agreement-means-irs)//BB
What policymakers give, policymakers can take away. Nine months after Congress enacted President
Biden’s proposal to boost the Internal Revenue Service’s 10-year budget by $80 billion, the president
and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) have agreed to cut the IRS’s budget by up to $21.4 billion
over the next three years as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling. The bipartisan agreement’s
cut back s just nine months after the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) point to the
fragility of the IRS budget. A reduction of this magnitude may not only have direct impacts on IRS
operations, but it could also have negative indirect effects on how the agency spends the remaining IRA
funds. What does the agreement say? Some of the agreement is clear as to the negotiators’ intent
toward the IRS, but other parts are ambiguous. Start with the bill language. Nearly $1.4 billion would be
taken back immediately from unobligated funds provided by IRA. But monies for taxpayer services and
modernization would not be cut. That’s not too surprising. Ensuring the phones are answered and
refunds are paid quickly are priorities for voters and the people who represent them. Moreover,
Congress already zeroed out funding for business systems modernization in the fiscal year (FY) 2023
appropriations, arguing that the agency could rely on leftover funds from COVID relief legislation, as well
as the IRA funds. Additional cutbacks would slow progress in technological improvements at the agency.
However, the bill leaves it to the discretion of the Biden administration as to where the $1.4 billion of
cuts would occur, with the choices being the other IRS accounts (tax enforcement, operations support,
and the 2024 pilot for direct e-filing), several Treasury offices, or the US Tax Court. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the $1.4 billion reduction will result in a reduction in federal
revenues, leading to a net increase in the deficit of $900 million over the next ten years. For FY2024 and
FY2025, the fate of the IRS effectively hinges on a handshake between Biden and McCarthy. Nothing is
specified in the actual bill. According to a White House briefing and press reports, the agreement would
“repurpose” $10 billion in the FY2024 appropriations process and reallocate another $10 billion in
FY2025 to other non-defense priorities. Why the distinction between 2024 and 2025? Here’s one
(hopeful?) theory. In its recent strategic operating plan, the IRS warns that IRA’s $3.2 billion allocation
for taxpayer services would be exhausted in four years if the regular annual appropriations were frozen.
Does “repurposing” the 2024 funding open the door to shifting some of the $46 billion in IRA for
enforcement to taxpayer services? Whatever the reasons, there is one strong advantage to the vague
language in the agreement for the negotiators. It complicates the ability of CBO to precisely estimate the
offsetting revenue loss due to the hefty reduction in the IRS’s funding in 2024 and 2025. However, at the
request of Senate Budget Committee Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), CBO projected that clawing
back $21.4 billion in IRS funding would lead to a revenue loss of $40.4 billion, for a net deficit increase of
$19 billion. What are the worst-case scenarios? Since IRA’s funding covered an entire decade, one
possibility is that the IRS would accelerate spending —either hoping Congress would restore funding
after 2025 or fearing Congress would cut more after 2025. But unless the IRS rushes out to buy lots of
laptops and pens, there is a limit to how much faster the agency can spend. Accelerating spending could
also undermine the goals of IRS strategic operating plan. It takes time to recruit and hire the
accountants and lawyers with the skills and experience to tackle the complicated tax returns of the
wealthy and big businesses. And even if masses of mid-career tax professionals were rushing to apply for
jobs at the IRS, there are limits to how fast the agency could absorb thousands of new hires. Moreover,
the strategic operating plan lays out a careful, incremental strategy for investing in technology. Former
Commissioner Charles Rossotti warns the IRS should not race to hire lots of enforcement agents until it
figures out how to use data and technology to improve audit selection. On the flip side, some may view
the cuts as a signal that neither Congress nor the Administration is fully committed to the IRA funding. If
those at IRS charged with implementing IRA lose confidence in the willingness of lawmakers to sustain
funding increases, they may be reluctant to commit to years-long investments in staff and technology.
What is the best-case scenario? At least for the time being , the IRS still retains most of the IRA funding
boost. Rather than accelerating spending or slowing investments, the IRS could stay the course and
cautiously test out approaches that could improve the efficiency and fairness of tax administration and
then provide Congress with the evidence to evaluate the agency’s spending needs. If Congress were to
act on that evidence, the Biden-McCarthy deal could yield a good outcome for the IRS and the vast
majority of taxpayers.

Further cuts are what trigger the link

Weiss 6-5-2023, analyst @ Roll Call (Laura, “IRS budget battle not over after debt ceiling agreement,”
Roll Call, https://rollcall.com/2023/06/05/irs-budget-battle-not-over-after-debt-ceiling-agreement/)//BB

It’s not clear exactly how the funding losses could impact IRS plans, although the result may depend on
whether annual appropriations cuts further squeeze the agency. Democrats have so far projected
confidence that the IRS can still carry out plans to build up customer service, hire more auditors to
enforce the tax code and update technology in the near term. IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel has said
that even with the $80 billion cash infusion in place, the yearly government funding process could
determine the agency’s course in the years to come. If its regular annual budget falls below the fiscal
2022 level plus inflation, the IRS will have to siphon funds from its $80 billion stash to maintain its typical
operations, he wrote in an April memo included in the IRS’ strategic operating plan. Doggett said he
believes Democrats can stave off deeper budget cuts that impact the IRS’ immediate plans to expand tax
enforcement but the partisan divide on the issue will continue to linger over funding debates. “I’m
satisfied that we can win the short-term battle, maybe not in the House but ultimately in conference
committee, and IRS can do this [work] initially,” he said. “Over the long term, there’ll be a struggle
about it.”
 U---Debt Ceiling---AT: Burns
Cuts don’t yet hurt the IRS but do signal that the IRS is extremely vulnerable and
unprotected---their evidence
2AC Burns 5-31-2023 (Tobias, “Debt ceiling deal throws a wrench into IRS overhaul,” The Hill,
https://thehill.com/business/4026683-debt-ceiling-deal-throws-a-wrench-into-irs-overhaul/)

The debt ceiling deal’s funding reduction for the IRS in the short term is not a s serious a concern for
the agency ’s advocates as the political target that the deal places upon the IRA funding in the future.
“It’s certainly a signal that the funding was fragile to begin with. There were no guardrails here – there
was always going to be the opportunity for Congress to short the IRS on annual appropriations,”
Holtzblatt said.
 U---AT: Tax Complexity
Modernization solves
GAO 23 (“IRS Needs to Complete Modernization Plans and Fully Address Cloud Computing
Requirements,” http://www.gao.gov/assets/820/814634.pdf)//BB

The mission of IRS, a component agency within the Department of the Treasury, is to (1) provide America’s taxpayers top
quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities, and (2) enforce the law
with integrity and fairness to all. While it relies extensively on IT to carry out this mission , IRS has reported that
modernization is needed to improve its core tax administration systems, operations, and cybersecurity.
modernization is critical to improving customer experience and providing the kind
IRS has also reported that

of service taxpayers have come to expect. For example, IRS has previously reported that modernization will help
address business and technical challenges due to constraints with the Individual Master File (IMF) program it has been using
since 1970.10 These challenges include the inability to get a real-time view of the taxpayer account, quickly
respond to tax code changes, provide enhanced analytical capabilities, and provide additional taxpayer
account information to more effectively combat fraud and identity theft.
 Link---Progressive Taxation
The plan’s progressive tax causes IRS overstretch
Davies and Eisenger 22, *Fresh Air Podcast host, **guest journalist specializing in taxes (Dave and
Jesse, “How the ultrawealthy devise ways to not pay their share of taxes,” National Public Radio,
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/25/1119412217/how-the-ultrawealthy-devise-ways-to-not-pay-their-
share-of-taxes)//BB

DAVIES: You said the IRS is afraid of the ultrawealthy I mean, I guess that's a euphemism for saying their experience is
when the ultrawealthy get all of their tax lawyers and accountants in the game, the IRS loses? EISINGER:
The IRS is utterly overmatched and under-resourced when it comes to going after the superrich for their
tax avoidance strategies. The superrich have huge battalions of lawyers and accountants to envelop their affairs
in ways that look legitimate and complicated and hard to parse and get to the bottom of. One of the things
that the ultrawealthy do is they have corporations that own partnerships that own partnerships that own
partnerships that finally trickle down to provide income for the individual. And to get through those
Russian-doll structures and open it up and open it up to figure out who actually owns it and who's
making the money and who's losing the money and whether that's legitimate would take years and
many, many people. And the IRS just doesn't have the resources . And when they try to do it, they
confront these battalions of lawyers and accountants and get overwhelmed . And so it become s very
difficult. And what the result is, is that they don't do that as often. They're scared.

New progressive tax schemes overstretch the IRS

Kiel and Eisenger 18, *covers business and consumer finance for ProPublica, **senior editor at
ProPublica (Paul and Jesse, “How the IRS Was Gutted,” ProPublica,
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-irs-was-gutted)//BB

Auditing taxpayers with accounts in tax havens is hard . Revenue agents have to investigate the scope of
any cheating and figure out whether it was intentional. Tracking down the necessary documents from
foreign countries can add frustrating delays. The average time to complete an offshore audit, Reicks
remembered, was close to three years. Part of her task was to make sure that managers and revenue agents, who feel pressure to show
productivity, did not cut these audits short. Some of the cases involved huge amounts of money. But IRS employees aren’t supposed to think
about that. Since the IRS-reform bill in 1998, the agency is prohibited from evaluating agents based on how much money they bring in. Instead,
they are evaluated on how efficiently they open and close audits. “You have to account for your time,” Reicks said, “and if you’re not churning
out the exams, you have to explain why you’re not.” The budget cuts meant agents had to trudge through these jungles
without a map. Not only were there fewer agents every year to do these audits, but many of the ones who remained were less
experienced. Training and travel budgets had been slashed along with everything else. The agents conducting these audits were scattered
across the country, as was Reicks’ team of 11 experts, who were supposed to guide them. In-person training became a rare luxury. Instead,
most instruction was done online: PowerPoint slides appeared on a screen while someone talked. “But this stuff is so complicated that without
somebody sitting in front of you, you don’t know if they’re getting what you’re saying,” Reicks said. The entire IRS has seen a similar shift. As a
result, training has become less effective, IRS employees told ProPublica, and the thoroughness of audits has diminished. It’s also made the IRS
a worse place to work. “The last time I was aware of hiring,” said Marie Allen, who retired in 2016 after a 32-year career at the IRS that included
time auditing wealthy taxpayers, “I saw the young, angel, baby-faced agents coming in. They were told to sit down in a cubicle, given a
computer and told, ‘This is your training.’” A couple of trainees decided to quit rather than suffer through weeks more of this, she said. “So we
lost young talent by basically boring them to death.” Evenestablished employees can feel themselves fall ing behind,
making it harder to match up against sophisticated opponents. “We’re staying stagnant in what we know,” said an IRS
employee who works on audits of corporations. Add to that the pressure to close audits as quickly as possible, and auditors often feel
like they are rushing past signs of suspicious activity. “ All I have time for is low-hanging fruit , basically,” the
employee said. “It’s not only not fair to American taxpayers, it’s not very satisfying for me, either.”

New taxes on the wealthy triggers political backlash directed at the IRS
Levitz 21, analyst at the Intelligencer (Eric, “How the GOP’s Long War on the IRS Threatens the
Infrastructure Deal,” New York Mag, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/republican-war-irs-
threatens-infrastructure-deal.html)//BB
Late last month, five (relatively) moderate Senate Republicans reached a bargain on infrastructure spending with five of their Democratic counterparts. A proposed
increase in the IRS budget cemented this agreement. Throughout negotiations over the bipartisan package, “pay fors” had been the primary stumbling block.

With the GOP religiously opposed to raising taxes on the wealthy , and Democrats disinclined to raise
taxes on anyone else, mutually agreeable sources of revenue were few and far between . Then negotiators found a
way to increase tax revenue without raising taxes: Every dollar invested in the agency’s emaciated enforcement capacity would lift many more from the pockets of
tax cheats. Thus, the bipartisan group’s proposed $40 billion expansion of the IRS budget could plausibly yield $140 billion in revenue — a net return large enough
to offset nearly one-fifth of their deal’s $579 billion in new infrastructure spending. But funding the tax police is a bitter pill for the right.
Conservatives are not only hostile to the IRS’s core mission, they also consider the agency a serial persecutor of their movement. In recent days, various right-

wing nonprofits — including the Koch-backed FreedomWorks — have begun lobbying Mitch McConnell to
whip votes against any bipartisan agreement that includes additional funding for the IRS . In order to pass the Senate, the bipartisan deal
will need to gain at least five more Republican supporters than it currently boasts. To appreciate how heavy a lift that will be, it helps to understand

the right’s official and unofficial grievances with the IRS, and the real and imaginary bases for those complaints. Here’s how the
Republican base came to see America’s tax agency as a proto-totalitarian instrument of social control. The
right’s semi-legitimate concerns about the IRS Tax enforcement has been a tool of (bipartisan) harassment in the past Few Republicans will publicly endorse anemic
tax enforcement as an end in itself. Rather, conservatives typically couch their opposition to IRS funding in concerns about the agency’s corruption. Specifically, they
argue that the IRS routinely commits politically motivated abuses of power. This week, Iowa senator Chuck Grassley alluded to such concerns when he suggested
that additional funding for the IRS might “come at the expense of taxpayer rights.” The Coalition to Protect American Workers, a conservative group financed by
capitalists opposed to Biden’s agenda, portrays the IRS as an army of black-tied, bespectacled clones descending on America’s God-fearing small businesses, in an
attack ad as Orwellian as the organization’s own name. Photo: CPAW The American right has plenty of persecutory fantasies that have no basis in fact. But its
paranoia about the IRS draws strength from one genuine historical truth: At various points in U.S. history, federal tax-enforcement agencies have been used as
political weapons. In the 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt ordered the Treasury’s tax-enforcement branch to engineer charges against Andrew Mellon, the former
Republican Treasury secretary and millionaire industrialist. In the 1960s, the IRS helped end the political career of Senator Edward V. Long, who had earned the
agency’s ire by holding hearings on its alleged misuse of wiretaps in criminal investigations. According to the investigative reporter William Lambert, an IRS agent
leaked him word of a suspicious payment Long had received from an associate of Jimmy Hoffa. After Lambert published a story off that tip — and Long subsequently
lost renomination — Lambert says he received a call from then-IRS commissioner Sheldon S. Cohen, offering him the agency’s “congratulations.” In the 1970s, of
course, Richard Nixon directed the IRS to hound political organizations he deemed “subversive.” Nonsensical IRS rules for nonprofits invite suspicion and abuse
Recent decades have seen fewer instances of documented, top-down corruption. But the
tax code’s confounding rules regarding the activities of
nonprofits has long invited both politically motivated enforcement actions, and suspicions of the same. Under congressional statute, civic
organizations that are “operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare” — technically known as 501(c)(4) groups — are exempt from federal taxation.
Initially, this was understood to prohibit such groups from engaging in political activity, if they wished to maintain their tax-exempt status. But subsequent Treasury
Department regulations effectively rewrote the law; under its guidance, a 501(c)(4) can engage in political activity so long as it is “operated primarily for the purpose
of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements.” The foundational distinction in this law — between political advocacy and the promotion of social
welfare — is logically unsustainable. The impact of government policy on social outcomes dwarves that of independent civic organizations; no charity could have
possibly supplied the needy with as much aid as the CARES Act did last year. Ultimately, there is no apolitical definition of “social welfare,” and promoting most
conceptions of the general good will necessarily involve political activity. Meanwhile, discerning whether an entity is primarily a “civic betterment” group, which
supplements its apolitical work with lobbying and campaign activities — or primarily a political group with a secondary interest in civic betterment — is an
inherently tricky task. When a left- or right-leaning group is given or denied tax-exempt status, suspicions of political persecution are liable to arise. In 1989 — eight
years into Republican domination of the executive branch — it was often liberals who questioned the IRS’s political neutrality. In an exposé for The New York Times
Magazine that year, reporter David Burnham wrote that the agency was “run by a small cadre of senior civil servants” who “have adopted the IRS’s generally
conservative view of the world.” In the piece, Burnham recounts a seemingly right-wing IRS agent’s indignant response to the Minnesota Association for the
Improvement of Science Education’s application for tax-exempt status. The liberal group had disclosed that part of its mission was to promote the teaching of
evolution in schools; in response an agent sent a letter demanding to know, “What gives you the standing or the prerogative to deem certain version[s] of the origin
of life on Earth as pseudo-scientific? Why are you opposed to permitting the granting of equal time in school curricula to the teaching of the theory of creationism?”
Burnham goes on to suggest that, under Reagan’s watch, the IRS turned a blind eye to the pro-life political activities of the Catholic Church, and thereby “provided
the church with a substantial illegal subsidy for its political campaigns.” All of which is to say: Just because conservatives are paranoid, doesn’t mean that the IRS has
never been out to get them (or progressives, for that matter). The right’s illegitimate concerns about the IRS The agency enforces tax laws that conservatives
philosophically oppose The conservative movement does not actually have a principled opposition to funding law-enforcement agencies that have ever suppressed
dissent. The IRS’s record is not devoid of corruption. But it’s considerably cleaner than the FBI’s, or those of most of America’s major police departments. The right’s
fixation on IRS malfeasance reflects its opposition to the agency’s core mission. For the bulk of its existence, the conservative movement’s leadership has disdained
income taxation in general, and progressive taxation in particular. This antipathy is implicit in the modern GOP’s unwavering commitment to lowering federal taxes
on the wealthy, irrespective of the nation’s contemporary tax rates, budget deficit, or national spending. And it is explicit in the advocacy of influential right-wing
activists, such as Americans for Tax Reform founder Grover Norquist and Hillsdale College president Larry Arnn, who have called for repealing the 16th Amendment
and making federal income taxes unconstitutional. If one regards progressive taxation as a form of theft, then the IRS is an inherently corrupt institution. And
Republicans have treated it as such. Upon taking the House in 2011, Republicans set about slashing the IRS’s budget, which fell from $14 billion that year to $11.5
billion in 2020. As a result, the agency’s number of staffers declined by 22 percent, while its enforcement division cut its payroll by 30 percent — even as the
number of individual tax returns in the U.S. grew by more than 7 percent. All of which redounded to the benefit of the one percent. Between 2010 and 2018, the
audit rate on returns with more than $1 million in income dropped by 63 percent. In the former year, nearly all corporations worth over $20 billion were subject to
audits; in the latter year, only half were. White-collar crime went rampant. The tax gap — the difference between what Americans owe to the federal government
and what they pay — swelled to an estimated $441 billion in 2013, and $584 billion in 2019. The current IRS commissioner, Chuck Rettig, believes that these were
underestimates, and that the current tax gap is closer to $1 trillion. It’s worth noting that no great scandal initiated the GOP’s defunding of the tax police. Rather,
House Republicans pursued downsizing the IRS as an end in itself. They saw that their budget cuts were increasing the deficit by reducing tax collections, and then
pushed for yet more budget cuts anyway. The IRS has been plagued by (phony) scandals Today, Republicans portray their hostility toward the IRS as a product of the
agency’s scandals. But in recent history, the agency’s scandals have largely been products of the GOP’s hostility toward the IRS. This was true of the IRS controversy
orchestrated by Republican senator William Roth in 1998. What came to be known as the “Roth Hearings” purported to expose endemic abuses of power at the IRS
— and endeavored to do so with cinematic flair. As the liberal commentator Kevin Drum recounts: The hearings were deliberately dramatic: Roth held them in a
committee room designed to block electronic eavesdropping and had guards search everyone before they entered the chamber. IRS employees called as witnesses
were blocked by black curtains and had their voices electronically altered, like mobsters afraid of being murdered in their sleep. The testimony was equally
dramatic: IRS agents, they said, routinely made false accusations against people, busted into people’s homes and waved guns in their faces, and once even forced a
girl caught in a raid to change her clothes while agents watched. The hearings ultimately failed to substantiate any of these specific claims, and a subsequent
investigation produced no evidence of systematic abuses. But that was scarcely the point. As David K. Johnston contemporaneously reported for the New York
Times: [T]he hearings were just another step in a much larger strategy by Republicans in Congress who have vowed to replace the income-tax system with a new tax
code. The Republicans want nothing less than ”to pull the current income-tax code out by its roots and throw it away so it can never grow back,” Representative Bill
Archer of Texas regularly tells audiences. Mr. Archer is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, where tax bills originate. In March, Senator Tim
Hutchinson, Republican of Arkansas, introduced a bill, which quickly found many co-sponsors, that would repeal the Internal Revenue Code beginning in 2002. In
the end, William Roth’s theatrical production succeeded in building momentum for legislation that cut the IRS’s budget and restricted its capacity to target high
earners. Conservatives produced the defining IRS pseudo-scandal of our era — the Obama administration’s IRS targeting controversy — through both direct and
indirect means. They did so indirectly (and unwittingly) by simultaneously gutting U.S. campaign-finance law and the IRS’s budget. The conservative Supreme Court
majority’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission sanctioned nearly unlimited political spending by nonprofit groups. As a result, interest in forming
tax-exempt social-welfare organizations — that could blanket the airwaves in tacit election propaganda (so long as they didn’t use tax-deductible donations to
finance their political campaigns, and “primarily” focused on civic betterment) — skyrocketed. Between 2010 and 2012, the number of annual applications the IRS
received from aspiring 501(c)(4) groups more than doubled. Over the same period, as we’ve seen, the IRS’s budget was cut. Tasked with assessing the legitimacy of
all these groups’ operations, on a shoestring budget, the IRS resorted to a kind of profiling: The agency established a “Be On the Look Out” (or “BOLO”) list of names
that would earn a prospective organization closer scrutiny. Among these were words heavily associated with conservative political groups (which had already
earned a reputation for flouting federal law) such as “9/12,” “Tea Party,” and “Patriots.” But the BOLO list also included words associated with left-wing political
groups, including “progressive,” “occupy,” “medical marijuana,” and “occupied territory advocacy.” Groups with these words in their names were often subjected to
an exhaustingly thorough and/or maddeningly slow review process. While awaiting IRS approval, such groups were free to engage in election activity. But they had
to do so under the shadow of legal ambiguity. When conservative organizations found themselves subjected to thorough scrutiny — or else, forced to wait weeks
for the agency to process their applications — they often concluded that Barack Obama had personally ordered the IRS to violate their First Amendment rights. The
congressional GOP ordered the Treasury Department’s inspector general to audit the IRS’s screening of conservative political nonprofits. This yielded an IG report
that criticized the IRS for applying closer scrutiny to political groups on the basis of “their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political
campaign intervention.” As noted above, the IRS’s reliance on the inappropriate criteria of “names” was partially a product of its limited resources and multiplying
oversight responsibilities. Given this reality, one logical interpretation of the IG’s findings would have been that the IRS needed a larger budget. But Republicans
drew a less logical conclusion — namely, that the IRS had singled out conservatives for special scrutiny. The IG report could not substantiate this claim, since it did
not look into the agency’s treatment of other ideological factions. But the Obama administration and mainstream press affirmed the right’s allegation, anyway. The
president himself condemned the ostensible, disproportionate scrutiny of conservative groups, top IRS officials resigned amid a blitz of bad headlines. These
gestures of guilt lodged the IRS targeting scandal so firmly in the right’s canonical account of Obama-era tyranny, it has remained there — even as its foundational
premises have been eviscerated. In 2017, a second Treasury Department IG report found that the IRS had routinely used keyword targeting against both liberal and
conservative organizations between 2004 and 2013. This finding established that (1) conservative groups had not been singled out in the years immediately
following Citizens United, and (2) IRS keyword targeting was not an Obama-era innovation, let alone one cooked up by a Democratic administration hellbent on
persecuting its adversaries. It is true that the IRS subjected a larger number of right-wing groups to scrutiny than it did liberal or centrist ones. But that only
constitutes evidence of bias if the rate of illegal activity among nonprofits of all ideological factions were uniform. And there’s no reason to believe that this was the
case. All of the 501(c)(4) applications that were set aside for scrutiny indicated — or openly declared — plans for engaging in illegal political activity. And, according
to the analysis of David K. Johnston, conservative nonprofits happened to declare such intentions more often than liberal ones. Nevertheless, this week, a Wall
Street Journal op-ed cited the IRS targeting scandal as a reason for Republicans to defund “Joe Biden’s IRS,” describing the nonevent as a “sobering lesson in how
one of Washington’s most powerful agencies can be weaponized against political opponents.” The infrastructure deal’s odds of surviving the GOP-IRS conflict
Whatever one makes of the IRS’s real and imagined scandals, they don’t add up to much of a case for serially underfunding tax enforcement in the United States.
But the
specter of crypto-communist taxmen coming for every faithful Christian (and/or Mammonite) in the
country still haunts the GOP base. And that makes voting to increase the IRS’s budget by $40 billion a dicey
proposition for Republican senators.

That backlash poses an existential threat to the IRS

Facundo 23, writing fellow at The American Prospect (Jarod, “Reanimating the Taxman,” American
Prospect, https://prospect.org/economy/2023-01-26-reanimating-taxman-internal-revenue-service/)//
BB
THE MOST VISIBLE WAY CONGRESS can sabotage the IRS over the next decade is by simply passing bills
that rescind the $80 billion allocated by the IRA. The actual success of those measures is questionable, given that
Democrats control the Senate and the White House and just passed this funding last August. A stand-alone repeal of funding from a Republican
House would serve as little more than signaling to the public that under a Republican trifecta, that is their priority. However,
there are
more arcane measures at Congress’s disposal, most prominently the appropriations process. Congress
carving away at the IRS’s base funding through appropriations is the slower, less bombastic measure. But ultimately, it
is the agency’s most existential threat . In fact, even under a Democratic trifecta, last year’s omnibus spending package cut
nearly $300 million from the agency’s budget. So immediately, money from the $80 billion meant to supplement the
agency’s existing budget is, in effect, supplanting lost base-level funding . The hypothetical argument
from Republican lawmakers to the IRS might be “You got $80 billion. Spend it. You don’t need as much
in your appropriations,” said Holtzblatt. “But the $80 billion was premised on the assumption that [the IRS] would continue to get
annual appropriations.” The result, Holtzblatt said, is “if you carve out appropriations, you lose the ability to add on to taxpayer services and
enforcement.” The stealth attack on base-level funding and a frontal assault on the new funding could
happen simultaneously. Republicans could hold government funding, or legislation to increase the nation’s debt limit, hostage to
conditions that include peeling back some of the $80 billion. At the same time, the IRS budget could be ground down in

appropriations. Republicans could burn the candle at both ends .

 IL---IRS
3. IRS modernization restores IRS credibility. That’s key to democracy.
Portman 18, Ohio senator, and Kerrey, Nebraska senator (Rob and Bob, “The time is now for IRS
reform” https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/27/the-time-is-now-for-irs-reform.html)//BB

Central to Americans’ confidence in our government is their confidence in our tax-collection system .
Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] has not always earned that trust, undermining this
system of voluntary compliance and taxpayer engagement. Fortunately, this has been a bipartisan issue
in the past, and we believe a bipartisan proposal exists to once again solve the problem and make the
agency more responsive and accountable to taxpayers. Based on recent testimony before a
congressional committee, IRS technology is outdated and the Taxpayer Advocate estimates that only 29
percent of the telephone calls to the IRS are answered. About 20 years ago the IRS had similar
difficulties. Calls went unanswered by the thousands, and calls that were answered often were incorrect
or unhelpful. Due to a lack of leadership and strategic direction, the billions of dollars that Congress
poured into the IRS computer systems were largely wasted. The American public had lost faith in the
IRS, and sweeping changes were needed to get it back on track. As a result, Congress created the
National Commission on Restructuring the IRS. More from Straight Talk: We co-chaired that IRS
commission, and we convened some of the best and brightest minds across industries and political
parties to work with us on restructuring the IRS to better serve taxpayers. We published our findings and
recommendations in a comprehensive report, which served as the basis for the IRS Restructuring and
Reform Act of 1998, the first major overhaul the agency had undergone in 40 years. The law created
dozens of new taxpayer rights, including the right to an independent appeal of an IRS decision. It
restructured how the IRS was governed, by establishing an independent IRS Oversight Board to add
needed experience, expertise and continuity to review and approve the agency’s budget requests and
strategic direction. It also refocused the IRS’s long-term customer service and IT modernization
strategies to better serve the basic needs of taxpayers. For a number of years following those reforms,
there were substantial improvements at the IRS. The percentage of taxpayer calls that it answered was
up from 52 percent in 1997 to 83 percent in 2007, according to the IRS. That same year, the IRS hit
another goal by reaching a rate of 80 percent of taxpayers filing electronically. Customer opinion surveys
showed that the IRS had moved from the bottom to the middle ranks of government agencies. The
general consensus was that the 1998 IRS reform law was a success. Unfortunately, that period of
sustained improvement at the IRS has unraveled in recent years. For example, according to the Taxpayer
Advocate, the percentage of calls that the IRS answered bottomed out at a staggeringly low 15 percent
in 2015. In addition, nearly 40 percent of taxpayers that called the IRS in 2017 felt they were not able to
resolve their issues with just one call. Moreover, despite the efforts 20 years ago to include an
independent appeal of a decision, appeals have declined because the IRS has chosen to settle more
cases in tax court — at a higher cost to taxpayers. Finally, while the 1998 law intended the IRS Oversight
Board to help set long-term strategic goals for the IRS, the goals stopped being met, and by the end of
2015, the board had failed to maintain enough members and has been shut down. The IRS is failing to
effectively serve the American people, and it is time to overhaul the agency again. We applaud the
efforts of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Ranking Member Ron Wyden,
D-Ore., as well as the House for the solutions they have offered over the past couple of years to advance
IRS reform. Much as we did 20 years ago, we believe more substantial reforms are needed , and we
believe any solution should empower taxpayers of all types and income levels. We support legislation
called the Protecting Taxpayers Act that will do this by focusing on strengthening protections for
taxpayers, ensuring an effective taxpayer appeals process, revitalizing the Oversight Board and IRS
strategic direction on customer service and IT, improving IRS taxpayer service training and helping low-
income taxpayers interact with the IRS. This is a bipartisan proposal that will enact commonsense
reforms to help the IRS better serve American taxpayers and achieve its critical mission. As Congress
moves forward with new rounds of IRS reforms, it is important to reflect on what we learned 20 years
ago and apply those lessons to help the IRS once again become a more responsive, effective agency
that truly serves the people’s interests. It’s time to go through another IRS reform process to help
restore taxpayers’ faith in America’s tax collector .

4. Public trust in government is vital to democracy

OECD 23, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“Trust in Government,”
https://www.oecd.org/governance/trust-in-government/)

Public trust leads to greater compliance with a wide range of public policies, such as public health
responses, regulations and the tax system. It also nurtures political participation , strengthens social
cohesion , and builds institutional legitimacy . In the longer term, trust is needed to help governments
tackle long-term societal challenges such as climate change, ageing populations, and changing labour
markets.
 !---AT: Cap
No root cause---anti-democracy is the key motivator for war---that’s Karieva---cap
can’t explain diversionary wars as a result of authoritarianism.
2NR
UCF CP
 2NR---AT: CP Then Plan
Should means the aff is immediate
Summers 94 (Justice – Oklahoma Supreme Court, “Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant”,
1994 OK 123, 11-8, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?
CiteID=20287#marker3fn13)
4 The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word "should" 13 in the May 18 order connotes
futurity or maybe deemed a ruling in praesenti.14 The answer to this query is not to be divined from rules of grammar;15 it must
be governed by the age-old practice culture of legal professionals and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the
critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase, "and the same hereby is", (1) makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e., an expression of what the judge will
or would do at a later stage - or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a disputed law issue, the trial judge's intent must be garnered
from the four corners of the entire record.16 [CONTINUES – TO FOOTNOTE] 13 "Should" not only is used as a "present indicative"
synonymous with ought but also is the past tense of "shall" with various shades of meaning not always easy to analyze. See 57 C.J. Shall § 9,
Judgments § 121 (1932). O. JESPERSEN, GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1984); St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Brown, 45 Okl.
143, 144 P. 1075, 1080-81 (1914). For a more detailed explanation, see the Partridge quotation infra note 15. Certain
contexts
mandate a construction of the term "should" as more than merely indicating preference or desirability.
Brown, supra at 1080-81 (jury instructions stating that jurors "should" reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of
contributory negligence of the plaintiff was held to imply an obligation and to be more than advisory); Carrigan v. California Horse Racing Board,
60 Wash. App. 79, 802 P.2d 813 (1990) (one of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring that a party "should devote a section of the brief to
the request for the fee or expenses" was interpreted to mean that a party is under an obligation to include the requested segment); State v.
Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958) ("should" would mean the same as "shall" or "must" when used in an instruction to the
jury which tells the triers they "should disregard false testimony"). 14 In
praesenti means literally "at the present
time." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance the phrase denotes that which in law
is presently or immediately effective , as opposed to something that will or would become effective in the
future [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882).