1NC --- Generic

T:
Fiscal redistribution’ requires the plan to establish taxes or transfers with a
progressive effect on income inequality
---excludes non-FR policies that effect income inequality, like trade policy, minimum wage,
antitrust, or sectoral regulation

---measures the effect of the plan on income inequality an annual basis, via direct effects on
income distribution

---excludes affs with regressive fiscal redistribution, like carbon taxes

Lindert ’17 [Peter; July 1; Distinguished Professor Emiritus at UC Berkeley whose core focus is
the study of the causes and effects of modern fiscal redistribution, Ph.D., Cornell University and
research associate with the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); ECINEQ, “The Rise
and Future of Progressive Redistribution,” http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Lindert2017.pdf]

(B.) Definitions

This essay follows the difference between pre-fisc and post-fisc income inequality - that is,
between original income (or market income or gross income) on the one hand and final income (or net
income) on the other. While other studies have tried to give separate treatment to such
intermediate inequalities as that of post-tax pre-transfer income, or a disposable income
concept that ignores the distribution of aid in kind, this study sets those aside, and focuses on
the full set of fiscal effects.

The overall inequality measure that is used most here, as in most recent studies, is the gini
coefficient, a putative measure of the share of national income that would have to be
redistributed to achieve full income equality, in the absence of any behavior responses to such
a massive transfer. Fiscal redistribution is simply the difference in the pre-fisc and post-fisc gini's,
following a practice that has been handed down since that path-breaking study by Reynolds and
Smolensky (1977). Progressivity obtains if the post-fisc inequality (gini) is less than the pre-fisc
inequality, and regressivity obtains in the opposite case. Where possible, I shall take care to note cases involving
very different effects on upper and middle groups' fortunes versus the effects on middle versus poor.

Progressive or regressive relative to what? Let us define fiscal neutrality as the counterfactual
policy setting both taxes and transfers at the same shares of income up and down the income
spectrum. In such a case the gini coefficients of inequality would be the same both before and
after individual incomes are affected by the government budget, and the net redistribution
would be zero, neither progressive nor regressive. More specifically, let this counterfactual
policy be one of the same aggregate budget size.
Agreeing on these definitions will not dispel all the problems with the comparisons, and we must first review some obvious ways in
which the measures fall short of capturing the overall impacts on the distribution of income.

(C.) Caveats

The limitations of conventional incidence calculations like those cited here are so strict that the
fiscal incidence calculations are useful only as plausible suggestions about the direction of effect
and the general orders of magnitude. As public finance textbooks warn their readers repeatedly, one should never
imagine that all the possible effects of a particular set of budgetary flows have been worked out. Let us confront the traditionally
cited dangers here – and then proceed with the traditional calculations anyway, while taking care to flag cases in which our
knowledge of the underlying history warns that the measures mislead seriously.

Time horizons: For one thing, the conventional annual measures of fiscal incidence are too short-
run, failing to match either the duration of the effects of that year’s budgetary changes or the lifetimes of the affected individuals.
The effects of this year’s budgetary policies can continue for generations – think of the enduring effects of this year’s wealth tax, or
this year’s spending on public health or education, for example. We’ll return to this in Part III.

Ultimately we care about the inequality of resources that people have over their entire lifetimes. This year’s fiscal effects may
mislead, by missing effects on the length of life, or by missing correlations between effects on incomes in different years of the same
lifetime.10

[Footnote 10]I
re-emphasize that the “full set of fiscal effects” must include benefits in kind, and not
just cash benefits. Studies have found that in-kind benefits such as health and education greatly
reduce inequality even within the same year (see, for example, Paulus et al. (2010) and Aaberge et al. (2010)).
Fortunately, some of our main sources have taken care to include the distributive effects of in-
kind benefits. (1) The CEQ project (Lustig and Higgins 2016) has included in-kind benefits of health, education,
and other public programs. (2) The DINA project’s paper on the United States (PSZ 2016) has included
the in-kind benefits from two major health-care programs (Medicare and Medicaid). It covers
public education by assuming that past, not current, public education spending accounts for a fixed share of current labor
earnings. (3) The OECD’s calculations generally omit payments in kind from their estimates of how redistribution changes over time,
though they have discussed the relevance of in-kind transfers for their most up-to-date estimates (OECD 2011, p. 39; OECD
forthcoming). (4) The study of Sweden to which we turn shortly (Bengtssen, Holmlund, and Waldenström 2016) also omits transfers
in kind.[End Footnote 10]

Behavioral responses are assumed away by such measures. That is, they assume that the tax or benefit sticks, like flies to flypaper,
exactly where it is imposed or paid out.

People are supposedly taxed on their incomes without deciding to engage in less or more of the income-generating behavior. People
in need are assumed to go on working or not working the same amount regardless of any social assistance they receive. Beyond
peoples’ failures to change their income-generating behavior in the first round, the traditional calculations further assume no
subsequent effects on prices and factor rewards, which fits uneasily with the calculations’ implying that spending is affected. As an
extreme variant of this behavioral-response issue, other effects missed by the magnitudes of tax revenues and expenditures arise in
the cases where a fiscal exaction is prohibitively expensive. If a tax makes people avoid an activity altogether, this can have great
effects on the income distribution even though there are no tax collections to distribute between rich and middle and poor. In a later
section, I’ll use the Corn Law example to underline the point that in some cases a strong impact is hidden in prices and quantities of
overall behavior, with no visible reflection in taxes or expenditures.

In addition, most of this paper sets

aside the broader set of non-fiscal redistributive institutions, such as
labor laws, human bondage, laws governing business competition, and policies favoring or harming
certain output sectors.

Voting issue for limits---any alternative makes virtually all fiscal policy topical,
overstretching the neg research burden and undermining preparedness for all
debates.
And ground---they make the topic bidirectional, making generic neg prep
impossible and encouraging vague plans to reclarify direction in response to 2ac
offense
States CP:
 States CP---GND---1NC
Text: The fifty states and all relevant subnational actors should substantially
increase fiscal redistribution to incentivize renewable energy development
required by the Green New Deal through state net metering of power and state
renewable portfolio standards, and invest in new transmission infrastructure.

States net metering and RPS solves Green New Deal adoption
Steven Ferrey 20, Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School and was a Visiting
Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Since 1993, Professor Ferrey has served as a primary
legal advisor to the World Bank, the European Union, and the United Nations on their
renewable energy and climate change policies for developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin
America. He holds a B.A. in Economics from Pomona College, a Juris Doctor degree and a
Master's of Planning degree in Regional Energy Planning, both from the University of California
at Berkeley, and was a post-doctoral Fulbright Fellow at the University of London between his
graduate degrees. He is the author of 100 articles and 7 books on energy and environmental
law. LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FORA GREEN NEW WORLD: BREATHING LIFE INTO THE GOALS OF THE
GREEN NEW DEAL: VERMONT LAW REVIEW 19TH ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM OCTOBER 4, 2019: THE
"GREEN NEW DEAL": CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS; REROUTING GREEN TECHNOLOGY, 44 Vt.
L. Rev. 777 //pipk.

B. State Legal Incentives for Green New Deal Power Generation

1. Uneven "Green" Resource Distribution and Access

States have always been able to provide subsidies with state funds, as long as they do not
commandeer or affect the operation of wholesale-power [*802] markets. 168 This can include
state tax breaks 169 or direct subsidies, which some states have done for decades. 170
However, with 50 states, 5 territories, and the District of Columbia, all of the states have
different dispositions as to which power-generation technologies they want to promote. 171
States have the reserved power to tell their regulated utilities the type of power generation
technology that they are required to provide. 172

However, it is clear, given that some states produce significant amounts of coal, natural gas, oil,
or biomass resources, that not all states are of one mind regarding the types of power that they
want to incentivize or the costs that they want their ratepayers to bear. 173 There are potential
legal restrictions in mandating that we will all embark on a particular technology for generation
of power, whether that technology be renewable energy or coal or any other option, without
looking at the economic and equity issues. 174

[*803] Figure 2. Concentrating Solar Resource of the United States 175

As a physical factor, renewable-power options are not equally available in states across the
United States 176 Figure 2 displays available solar resources, with the northern United States
enjoying much fewer, even half, the solar resources as part of the southern United States. 177
These resource differences determine both the availability and cost of switching to a different
power resource. 178 And in Figure 2, not all of the southern half of the United States enjoys
more intense availability of solar power, by as great a factor as [*804] 2:1. 179 Rather, there is a
distinct advantage to the southwest United States to utilize solar power. 180

Figure 3. U.S. Annual Wind Power 181

Figure 3 shows the amount of potential usable wind power nationwide. 182 Again, the amount
of wind power across the United States varies by a substantial factor--with no substantial wind
resource in a substantial number of areas. 183 Figure 4 illustrates that solar and geothermal
resources, combined at approximately 0.5% of all electric power resources, were less than 20%
of the contribution of wind resources and less than 10% of the contribution of hydroelectric
resources. 184 Figure 4 also illustrates that solar is not the dominant renewable energy source.
Yet in most of the United [*805] States, biomass (which is a renewable resource) is often
burned and emits CO[2] . 185 Biomass is renewable and is the dominant non-hydroelectric
renewable energy source in 24 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 186 With the
disparity of available renewable-power resources among states, motivating a concerted green
response by all of the fifty states or even the tens-of-thousands of communities in real time
would be a significant challenge.

Figure 4. Predominant Non-Hydro Renewable Fuel for Utility-Scale Electricity Generation, 2011
187

The two primary state legal mechanisms to incentivize renewable energy development
required by the Green New Deal are state net metering of power and state renewable
portfolio standards. 188

[*806] 2. State Net Metering

With net metering, when the customer makes conventional purchases from the utility, the
meter runs forward. 189 When more electricity is produced by the customer's renewable-
energy facility than is used on-site, the excess flows to the electricity grid, running the meter in
the reverse direction and creating credits for the customer. 190 Because only a single rate
applies to a single utility meter's recorded sales, by turning the meter backwards, net metering
compensates the renewable-power generator at the full retail rate. 191 Approximately two-
thirds of the retail bill is attributable to transmission, distribution, and taxes for transferring just
the wholesale power. 192

In 2016, the number of net metering states had declined by 6 states to 38 states when Nevada,
Georgia, and Hawaii ended their net metering programs. 193 It is still the most prominent and
widespread state incentive for renewable energy. 194 In each of the 38 states that provide net
metering, both solar- and wind-power technologies are eligible to be net metered. 195

Net metering is more like an accounting convention applied to trading power than it is a legal
sale of the power, because it credits the value of on-site renewable-distributed power on the
customer's side of the retail utility meter. 196 The value received by the renewable energy
developer for its net-metered power is an amount at a price or value above the utility's avoided
cost 197 or the wholesale rate set by either FERC or independent system [*807] operators
(ISOs) who manage the utility grids for more than half of U.S. consumers. 198 The retail credit
received in some high retail-rate states can be in the vicinity of $ 0.20/kilowatt-hour (kWh),
which corresponds to roughly 500% of the wholesale $ 0.04/kWh value of this power in the
United States during the prior decade. 199

3. State Renewable Portfolio Standards

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) require electric utilities, and in some states other retail
electric providers that are allowed to sell retail power, to include in their annual retail sales
evidence of a specified percentage of electricity supply from state-specified renewable energy
sources, evidenced by acquisition not of renewable power itself, but tradable Renewable Energy
Credits (RECs). 200 Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have RPS programs. 201 The
required state percentage of energy delivered to consumers from eligible renewable sources
currently varies from 2% to 100% of annual retail sales in different state programs. 202

There are many variations on state RPS models in the 29 RPS states. 203 The 29 mandatory RPS
programs in the United States cover 46% of nationwide retail electricity sales. 204 RPS programs
were characterized as a form of "backdoor" renewable energy subsidy for renewable energy.
205 A solar REC (SREC) in those states that offer them, provides a subsidy of $ 0.20/kWh to $
0.60/kWh in a state such as Massachusetts. 206 Such a SREC [*808] subsidy operates as a 500%
to 1300% bonus payment above and beyond the average $ 0.04/kWh sale value of the power
itself when it is sold. 207 Five years ago, the cost of these subsidies was already at $ 3 billion per
year and climbing in each successive year, as there was more renewable energy. 208

Federal tax credits, state net metering, and state RPS programs shift incentives from one group
of customers to another. 209 Most of the customers who install solar, wind, or other eligible
renewable-energy projects, tend to own their own buildings. 210 However, this shift would
appear to be counter to what the "New Deal" elements of the Green New Deal are seeking to
do. 211 Existing beneficiaries of these state net metering and RPS programs tend to be owners
rather than renters, and more affluent customers of the utility. 212 Captive retail power
consumers bear the cost incurred by utilities of net metering and acquiring the required RECs.
213 Those who absorb the costs of each of the state programs in higher utility rates tend to be
those who do not have solar or wind power on their buildings; they are left to pay the higher
cost of conventional utility service, which provides these renewable-energy subsidies to the still
relatively small number of customers who have eligible renewable energy technologies. 214

FERC held in MidAmerican 215 that federal law did not preempt state net metering practices,
and that no sale occurs when net metering accounts for less power exported from the
renewable-power generator than the amount of power sold back by the utility to the distributed
generator in a given billing period (usually one month). 216 In the 2009 Sun Edison case, 217
FERC [*809] determined that the Commission lacked jurisdiction over the on-site renewable-
power generator if there was no net sale of power to the utility over the billing period. 218
There was no net sale unless the customer delivered back to the utility more electricity than the
back-up power he or she purchased from the utility. 219 The MidAmerican and Sun Edison
decisions limited the legal findings to the facts presented where there was no net flow of power
back to the power grid. 220
IRS DA:
 1NC---Climate
IRS resources are sufficient now to solve key IRS priorities, but future under-
resourcing is possible
Adeyemo 23, Deputy Secretary of Treasury (Wally, “Taxpayers Will See Improved Service This
Filing Season Thanks to Inflation Reduction Act,” US Department of Treasury,
https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/taxpayers-will-see-improved-service-this-
filing-season-thanks-to-inflation-reduction-act)//BB

Today marks the beginning of tax filing season—the annual period during which Americans file
their tax returns. The tax dollars collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) each year
enable the federal government to serve the American people by providing essential services and
benefits. From the Social Security payments that support our seniors to paying and protecting
our troops to the climate investments that will help us transition to a net-zero economy, the
IRS’s ability to collect revenue undergirds the provision of the services on which all Americans
depend. The IRS has faced significant challenges in recent years, driven by chronic
underinvestment in its people and technology and exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a
result, the IRS has been unable to answer the high volume of taxpayer phone calls they receive,
and families and businesses have seen their refunds delayed due to slow processing. Despite
these challenges, IRS employees have continued to rise to the occasion, delivering economic
lifelines to hundreds of millions of families and small businesses that kept people afloat during
the depths of the pandemic. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has provided long-term resources
to tackle these challenges head-on. Thanks to President Biden, the IRA provides additional
funding to modernize the IRS—to hire the staff needed to give Americans the level of service
they deserve and to build the technology and systems needed to deliver a swift and seamless
tax experience. Of course, these changes will not take place overnight. Due to chronic
underfunding, the IRS’s workforce remains the same size as it was in the 1970s, and the agency
has fewer auditors than at any time since World War II. At the same time, the U.S. population
has increased by more than 100 million since 1970, and the economy and tax code have only
grown in complexity. What’s more, the IRS’s technology relies on a programming language that
was created in the 1960s. Fully rebuilding the IRS will take time. Some of these changes,
however, are already underway and will result in noticeable improvements for Americans during
this year’s filing season. Together, these reforms will result in faster processing of returns and
quicker distributions of the credits and benefits that are vital to so many Americans. To start,
we’ve hired 5,000 new customer service staff to answer the IRS’s phones and help ensure
taxpayers get the help they need. The IRS answered too small a share of the total number of
calls they received last year. These 5,000 new hires will ensure that changes and help address
the continued elevation of call volumes we’ve experienced over the past two years. Ultimately,
when it comes to customer service, our goal is to ensure that taxpayers can get their questions
answered by the IRS as quickly as possible. Last fall, Secretary Yellen set out a goal of an 85
percent level of service. In the past, the IRS has assessed its level of service using a metric that
only captures calls answered by customer service representatives. But today, when you seek
customer support from a company or business, you typically have the option to speak to a
customer representative or use automated support if it will better meet your needs. The IRS has
made significant improvements to its automated services in recent years and now gives
taxpayers the same option—offering automated phone and chat support, as well as live phone
assistance. We look forward to serving millions of taxpayers with these automated options, and
one way we will measure our ability to meet taxpayers’ needs is by looking at the overall level of
service provided by our customer service representatives and automated support systems
together. The IRS will continue to report data on the number of phone calls answered by
customer service representatives, as well as data on automated assistance. We’ve also taken
steps to fully staff the Taxpayer Assistance Centers that provide in-person support to Americans
nationwide. These 361 centers located across the country offer free tax help—to address
complex tax questions that may be challenging for individuals or small businesses to handle on
their own, to help tax filers without a Social Security Number apply for an Individual Tax
Identification Number, or to assist those who may face a language barrier in filing their taxes. As
of December, the IRS had hired or selected nearly 650 additional people to provide support to
the American people at Taxpayer Assistance Centers this filing season. In addition, more than
100 Taxpayer Assistance Centers nationwide will host monthly Taxpayer Experience Days to
provide face-to-face help on Saturdays—when most taxpayers’ schedules allow them to visit
these centers. Overall, we are on track to meet Secretary Yellen’s goal to triple the number of
Americans served at these centers. These in-person sessions are a vital service for many
taxpayers—especially low-income households—helping them receive benefits they count on
and for which they are eligible, like the Earned Income Tax Credit and many others. We have
also made meaningful progress in streamlining the ways that taxpayers are able to respond to
notices from the IRS. In the past, when taxpayers received an IRS notice for things like
documentation verification, they had to respond via mail—there was no electronic option.
Today, that is no longer the case. Last year, the IRS set an ambitious goal to create an online
response option for seven of the most common notices that taxpayers receive. They will exceed
that goal at the end of this month, with online response capability available for ten of these
notices and more to come as technology improvements are implemented. The ability to respond
to notices online is not the only place where we’ve taken steps to move the IRS into the 21st
century. The IRS will soon roll out a new digital option for small business owners filing 1099
forms. Millions of small business owners prepare their own taxes, rather than hiring professional
tax preparers. We have consistently heard from this group that online filing for 1099s will make
a meaningful difference for them, saving time and money. In addition, the IRS is moving forward
with plans to automate the scanning of individual paper returns, turning them into native digital
copies at the outset of the filing process. Since Secretary Yellen’s promise to automate this
process last fall, the IRS has successfully initiated the work to scan nearly 100,000 returns and is
working to expand this program to address a large number of the paper returns sent to the IRS
every year. Finally, we’re proud that in the U.S., we have a system where the vast majority of
people pay their taxes. However, the IRS has historically lacked the resources to effectively audit
wealthy and high-income individuals, whose audits are more complex and take more time.
These individuals are responsible for a disproportionate share of unpaid taxes, depriving the
American public of funds needed to pay vital services and benefits. In total, the gap between
taxes owed and taxes paid stands at roughly $600 billion every year; the top 1 percent alone
account for $160 billion of this gap, nearly 30 percent. The IRA will help to change that,
providing the IRS funding for the tools and personnel needed to go after wealthy tax cheats and
ensure they pay their fair share. At the same time, Secretary Yellen has directed that these
resources will not be used to raise audit rates for households making less than $400,000,
relative to historical levels. Of course, our work is far from over. The resources provided by the
IRA will support a top-to-bottom modernization and transformation of the IRS that will continue
long after this filing season. But even in the five months since the IRA’s passage, we have made
meaningful progress toward our goals that will result in tangible improvements for taxpayers
this filing season.

That undermines IRS implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The
impact is global warming.
Bravender 22, general assignment reporter for Greenwire (Robin, “The surprising new climate
agency,” Greenwire at E and E News, https://www.eenews.net/articles/the-surprising-new-
climate-agency/)//BB

The IRS is a climate agency now. The massive climate and energy law enacted by Democrats in
August puts the IRS at the forefront of the effort to incentivize renewable energy across the
economy. Of the nearly $370 billion of climate spending in the new law, about $270 billion will
be delivered through tax incentives for electric vehicles, energy-efficient buildings, solar power
and other “clean” energy technologies. That means the success of the law — and the Biden
administration’s ability to achieve its climate goals — will hinge in part on the work of a
beleaguered agency that’s sprinting to staff up as it implements the new law. But Republicans
are already campaigning against an emboldened IRS, and they’ve pledged that slashing its
funding will be a top priority if they take control on Capitol Hill next year. “The IRS is at the
center of it because the way that you get this cash that the federal government has basically
earmarked for all these things is through tax credits and benefits that you get when you file your
tax return,” said Lauren Collins, a partner at Vinson & Elkins LLP who specializes in renewable
energy. This isn’t totally uncharted territory for the IRS, which has long been central to the
government’s efforts to subsidize favored industries and energy types through the tax code,
Collins said. What’s different this time is the massive scale of federal investments under the law
Democrats have dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act. “It has taken what we’ve always done and
just hyped it up, turned the dial up to 11,” Collins said. “Now we have tax benefits for a gazillion
different renewable technologies, climate-benefiting programs, green manufacturing, domestic
manufacturing, electric vehicles, the list goes on.” The IRS and its parent agency — the Treasury
Department — are hustling to put policies in place so businesses and consumers can
understand and take advantage of them. “I am proud that the Treasury Department will be at
the forefront of implementing our economic and climate plan,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen
said in a September speech at a North Carolina solar company. “We’re committed to ensuring
that as many eligible taxpayers as possible get credits provided by law, while carefully protecting
against fraud and abuse,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo told reporters earlier this
month. It’s a big new workload at an agency reeling from budget and staffing cuts in recent
years. The IRS’s budget in 2021 was 19 percent below what it was in 2010, when adjusted for
inflation, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The agency’s
staff was reduced by about 22 percent during that time. The IRS has struggled to answer phone
calls and efficiently process tax returns, according to a June report released by an independent
watchdog within the agency. During the 2022 filing season, the IRS received about 73 million
telephone calls, the report said. Only one in 10 of those calls reached an IRS employee.
Democrats are attempting to revitalize the IRS with an infusion of new cash under the Inflation
Reduction Act. The new legislation gives the IRS about $80 billion over the next decade for
expenses like enforcement and taxpayer assistance. The cash influx was welcome news for the
agency. IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig said in August that the new law marks a
“transformational moment” for the agency, which “has struggled for many years with
insufficient resources to fulfill our important mission.” Rettig, a Trump appointee, is nearing the
end of his five-year term heading the IRS, and Biden could soon name a replacement, causing a
leadership change at the agency that employs about 80,000 staffers. Meanwhile, Republicans
have seized on the specter of a beefed-up IRS to campaign against Democrats in this fall’s
midterm elections. If they’re successful in winning control of the House or the Senate, they
would gain more power to investigate the IRS and its role in implementing the climate law. They
would also have more leverage to try to slash the agency’s funding during budget negotiations.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) warned that the new law “hires an army of
87,000 IRS agents to harass working Americans.” McCarthy also said that if Republicans win the
House, their first piece of legislation would be a bill to repeal the $80 billion in new IRS funding.
The administration and its allies accuse the GOP of spreading misinformation about its plans to
staff up the IRS. Some of the GOP claims are “outlandish and even irresponsible and dangerous,”
said Seth Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who served in the Obama
White House National Economic Council. Yellen has promised to use new funding to improve
customer service at the IRS. Adeyemo said earlier this month that much of the new money will
help to restock personnel lost over recent decades and to replace retiring staffers. A major
chunk of the cash, he said, will go toward modernizing outdated technologies. “That will allow
us to provide benefits to individuals but also to companies better going forward,” Adeyemo said.
“And the first area of focus is going to be on these climate provisions.”

Successful implementation of the IRA prevents extinction

Subramanian 22, senior fellow at Brown University, is a distinguished non-resident fellow at
the Center for Global Development (Arvind, “Global Cooperation Is Not Necessary to Fight
Climate Change,” Project Syndicate,
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/multilateral-cooperation-climate-change-
unnecessary-inflation-reduction-act-by-arvind-subramanian-2022-11)//BB

This week’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Egypt highlights the growing
consensus that multilateral cooperation is necessary to avert environmental catastrophe. But
with geopolitical tensions spiking and the US-China rivalry heating up, such efforts seem
doomed to fail, much like previous efforts to promote global coordination on vaccines, trade,
technological innovation, and macroeconomic policy. The good news is that the consensus may
be wrong: A lack of multilateral cooperation need not be fatal to the climate cause. The existing
frameworks for international coordination are outdated anyway, and technological competition,
fueled by the United States’ climate-focused Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), may prove to be a
more potent driver of innovation, ensuring that the fight against climate change continues
apace. So far, the main framework for promoting multilateral cooperation on climate change
has relied on the principle of “cash for cuts,” whereby developed countries offer financial aid to
persuade developing countries to launch ambitious decarbonization efforts. But this approach is
no longer credible, given that the international community has failed to meet its financial
commitments and has shown no sign of improving. Worse, the “cash for cuts” paradigm is
premised on a double standard. While lower-income countries are asked to reduce emissions,
rich countries are increasing their reliance on fossil fuels, particularly in the aftermath of Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine. Moreover, the European Union’s planned border tax on carbon-intensive
imports would effectively punish lower-income countries in Africa and elsewhere, limiting their
own clean-energy transition. The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism essentially foists
developed-world policies on poorer countries, making it tantamount to climate imperialism.
Fortunately, rapid technological advances have sharply reduced the price of renewables bringing
decarbonization within financial reach. That is why some developing countries, notably India
and China, have embarked on massive renewable-energy programs over the past decade.
Nonetheless, given the need for massive investments in renewable-energy infrastructure and
already-elevated storage costs, the transition to a net-zero economy is still not financially viable.
Moreover, the transition would dislocate millions of people in developing countries who earn
their living from fossil fuels, leading to enormous adjustment costs. Underestimating these costs
or believing that these problems will resolve themselves is another, subtler form of climate
imperialism. While multilateral cooperation in the fight against climate change seems unlikely,
America’s new IRA could be a global game changer. By subsidizing renewable-energy research
and development, it would obviate the need for onerous and inequitable carbon-taxation
mechanisms. More to the point, such measures would help create a new, hopeful narrative that
focuses on mitigating climate change through technological innovation and boosting supply,
rather than sacrifice and reduced demand. Like the US, few developing countries are likely to
“carbon tax” their way to emissions reductions. The IRA could also help lower-income countries
to reduce the costs of decarbonization by encouraging the deployment of technologies such as
low-cost batteries and carbon capture and storage. In our book Greenprint, Aaditya Mattoo and
I argue that by making greater use of these technologies, developing countries could meet their
energy needs without increasing global climate emissions. The IRA is essentially a protectionist
trade and industrial policy. As such, it could spark an international arms race of green-energy
subsidies. But that might be a good thing. A global subsidy war could spur technological
innovation, potentially driving down the price of renewables. Moreover, it may do for new
technologies what China’s subsidies for photovoltaics did for the global solar-energy industry. As
many have warned, the IRA is not without risks. President Joe Biden’s signature legislation links
many of its subsidies and incentives to production and research in the US and North America. It
thus constitutes what the World Trade Organization calls “local content requirements.” The EU,
one of America’s biggest trading partners, has complained about this barrier to trade. But, given
the urgency of the existential threat posed by climate change, a global rush to subsidize key
technologies seems like a feature, not a bug. To the extent that a global subsidies race could
make clean energy financially viable, it would save rich countries the charade of committing to
provide trillions of dollars to poorer countries that they cannot raise. Finally, such a race could
help resolve developing countries’ grievances about the rich world’s climate hypocrisy. Driving
down renewable-energy costs would be a global public good provided by the developed world –
assuming, of course, that whatever new technologies emerge would be freely available. The
unequal global rollout of COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a reminder that the mere invention
of new technologies does not guarantee an equitable distribution. The Green Revolution of the
1960s, when industrialized countries significantly reduced global hunger and poverty by
introducing high-yield crops across the developing world, is a useful model for distributing
cheap, non-proprietary renewable technologies. But to achieve a green revolution for the
twenty-first century, the world must move beyond stale and divisive discussions about which
countries are responsible for the climate threat. Given today’s geopolitical rivalries, efforts to
strengthen multilateral cooperation on climate change are likely to be futile. But competitive
technological progress, even if promoted by protectionist policies, could save the planet.
 Interest DA:
Inflation is cooling, latest data proves.
Mutikani 8/10/23 [Lucia Mutikani, covers macroeconomics, Reuters, US inflation cooling as
consumer prices rise moderately again, https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-consumer-
prices-rise-moderately-july-weekly-jobless-claims-above-expectations-2023-08-10/ IG]

WASHINGTON, Aug 10 (Reuters) - U.S. consumer prices increased moderately in July as higher rents were mostly offset by

declining costs of goods such as motor vehicles and furniture, a trend that could persuade the Federal Reserve
to leave interest rates unchanged next month. The report from the Labor Department on Thursday also showed
underlying inflation pressures subsided further last month. The annual increase in prices
excluding the volatile food and energy components, the so-called core inflation, was the
smallest in nearly two years. Moderate inflation, together with a cooling labor market, bolstered economists' conviction
that the U.S. central bank will be able to engineer a "soft landing" for the economy, after a year of
hand-wringing about a recession. "Significant progress on the inflation front has been made, a persistent
trend of disinflation is evident," said Sung Won Sohn, a finance and economics professor at Loyola Marymount
University in Los Angeles. "It is time for the central bank to stop its campaign to beat inflation, it should wait and
see for a while." The consumer price index rose 0.2% last month, matching the gain in June. Shelter accounted for more than 90% of

the increase in the CPI, with rental costs increasing 0.4%. Food prices gained 0.2%. Grocery food prices increased 0.3% after being

unchanged in June. They were boosted by higher prices for eggs, beef, dairy as well as fruit and vegetables. Still, grocery store prices

have slowed considerably, increasing 3.6% on a year-on-year basis in July after peaking at 13.5% in August 2022.

Expansionary fiscal policy will trigger further interest rate hikes – that
decimates the financial sector and spreads globally
Tobias Adrian and Vitor Gaspar, 11/21/ 2022, International Monetary Fund, “How Fiscal
Restraint Can Help Fight Inflation,” https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/11/21/how-
fiscal-restraint-can-help-fight-inflation, mm
Government support was vital to help people and firms survive pandemic lockdowns and support the economic recovery. But
where inflation is high and persistent, across-the-board fiscal support is not warranted. Most
governments have already dialed back pandemic support, as noted in our October Fiscal Monitor. With many people still struggling,
governments should continue to prioritize helping the most vulnerable to cope with soaring food and energy bills and cover other
costs—but governments should also avoid adding to aggregate demand that risks dialing up
inflation. In many advanced and emerging economies, fiscal restraint can lower inflation while reducing debt.
Central banks are raising interest rates to dampen demand and contain inflation, which in many
countries is at its highest levels since the 1980s. Because rapid price gains are costly to society and detrimental to stable economic
growth, monetary policy must act decisively. While monetary policy has the tools to subdue inflation, fiscal policy can
put the economy on a sounder long-term footing through investment in infrastructure, health care, and education; fair distribution
of incomes and opportunities through an equitable tax and transfer system; and provision of basic public services. The overall fiscal
balance, however, affects the demand for goods and services, and inflationary pressures. A
smaller deficit cools
aggregate demand and inflation, so the central bank doesn’t need to raise rates as much .
Moreover, with global financial conditions constraining budgets, and public debt ratios above pre-pandemic levels, reducing deficits
also addresses debt vulnerabilities. Conversely, fiscal stimulus in the current high inflation environment
would force central banks to slam on the brakes harder to curb inflation. Amid elevated public
and private sector debt, this may raise risks for the financial system, as our Global Financial Stability
Report described in October. Against that backdrop, policymakers have a responsibility to provide strong protections to those in
need, while paring back elsewhere or raising additional revenues to reduce the overall deficit. Fiscal responsibility—or even
consolidation where needed—demonstrates that policymakers are aligned against inflation. When fiscal adjustment is sustained,
ideally through a medium-term fiscal framework that sketches the direction of policy over the next few years, it also addresses
looming pressures on debt sustainability. These include aging populations in most advanced and several emerging economies, and
the need to rebuild buffers that can be deployed in future crises or economic downturns. In our research, we use a stylized two
country model (where the “home economy” may be the US or a group of advanced economies). We study two different approaches
to curb inflation. The first relies exclusively on monetary tightening to cool the overheating economy, whereas the second involves
fiscal consolidation. Both are constructed to have similar effects on economic growth, and each is effective in reducing inflation.
Under the first, higher interest rates and the weaker growth contribute to rising public debt. Meanwhile, the currency appreciates as
higher yields attract investors. Under the second approach, fiscal tightening cools demand without the need for interest rates to rise,
so the real exchange rate depreciates. And with lower debt-service costs and smaller primary deficits, public debt declines. The real
exchange-rate appreciation under tighter monetary policy implies that inflation falls a bit more, but this difference would diminish if
more countries pursued these policies. Faced with high food and energy prices, governments can improve their fiscal position by
moving from broad-based support to assisting the most vulnerable—ideally, through targeted cash transfers. Because supply shocks
are long-lasting, attempts to limit price increases through price controls, subsidies, or tax cuts will be costly to the budget and
ultimately not be effective. Price signals are critical to promote energy conservation and encourage private investment in
renewables. The desirable fiscal stance and measures underpinning it will depend on country-specific circumstances, including
current inflation rates and longer-term considerations such as debt levels and developmental needs. In most countries, higher
inflation strengthens the case for fiscal restraint, calling for raising revenue or prioritizing spending that preserves social protection
and growth-enhancing investments in human or physical capital. In the United States, the early-1980s disinflation
under Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker exemplified the challenges of controlling inflation . Inflation had
become entrenched at high levels, and fiscal policy was expansionary. The Fed had to raise rates
sharply to rein in inflation, causing a collapse in housing investment and historically large
appreciation of the dollar. Manufacturing was hard hit, leading to calls for trade protectionism.
That historical episode is relevant for many countries facing similar challenges today. A more balanced removal of
policy stimulus, including fiscal restraint, can reduce the risk that some parts of the economy—
especially those most sensitive to interest rates—experience disproportionate effects, or that
large swings in the currency heighten trade tensions. This would also reduce risk globally. Less
abrupt interest rate hikes would imply a more gradual tightening of financial conditions and mitigate financial stability risks. This
would tend to limit adverse spillovers to emerging market economies and reduce the risk of
sovereign debt distress. Avoiding a sharp appreciation of the US dollar or other major currencies
would also lessen pressures on emerging markets that borrow in those currencies . While many
central banks are tightening policy in response to the large and persistent rise in global inflation,
the policy mix matters. Fiscal restraint will reduce the cost of bringing inflation back to target in
a timely way, compared with the alternative of leaving monetary policy alone to act .

Economic decline causes nuclear war and global existential accidents.

Dr. Mathew Maavak 21, PhD in Risk Foresight from the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, External
Researcher (PLATBIDAFO) at the Kazimieras Simonavicius University, Expert and Regular
Commentator on Risk-Related Geostrategic Issues at the Russian International Affairs Council,
“Horizon 2030: Will Emerging Risks Unravel Our Global Systems?”, Salus Journal – The Australian
Journal for Law Enforcement, Security and Intelligence Professionals, Volume 9, Number 1, p. 2-
8

Various scholars and institutions regard

global social instability as the greatest threat facing this decade. The
catalyst has been postulated to be a Second Great Depression which, in turn, will have
profound implications for global security and national integrity. This paper, written from a broad systems
perspective, illustrates how emerging risks are getting more complex and intertwined; blurring boundaries between the economic,
environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological taxonomy used by the World Economic Forum for its annual global risk forecasts. Tight

couplings in our global systems have also enabled risks accrued in one area to snowball into a full-
blown crisis elsewhere. The COVID-19 pandemic and its socioeconomic fallouts exemplify this systemic chain-reaction. Onceinexorable
forces of globalization are rupturing as the current global system can no longer be sustained due to poor governance and runaway wealth fractionation.
The coronavirus pandemic is also enabling Big Tech to expropriate the levers of governments and mass communications worldwide. This paper
concludes by highlighting how this development poses a dilemma for security professionals. Key Words: Global Systems, Emergence, VUCA, COVID-9,
Social Instability, Big Tech, Great Reset INTRODUCTION The new decade is witnessing rising volatility across global systems. Pick any random “system”
today and chart out its trajectory: Are our education systems becoming more robust and affordable? What about food security? Are our healthcare
systems improving? Are our pension systems sound? Wherever one looks, there are dark clouds gathering on a global horizon marked by volatility,
uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA). But what exactly is a global system? Our planet itself is an autonomous and selfsustaining mega-system,
marked by periodic cycles and elemental vagaries. Human activities within however are not system isolates as our banking, utility, farming, healthcare
and retail sectors etc. are increasingly entwined. Risks accrued in one system may cascade into an unforeseen crisis within and/or without (Choo, Smith
& McCusker, 2007). Scholars call this phenomenon “emergence”; one where the behaviour of intersecting systems is determined by complex and
largely invisible interactions at the substratum (Goldstein, 1999; Holland, 1998). The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is a case in point. While experts
remain divided over the source and morphology of the virus, the contagion has ramified into a global health crisis and supply chain nightmare. It is also
tilting the geopolitical balance. China is the largest exporter of intermediate products, and had generated nearly 20% of global imports in 2015 alone
(Cousin, 2020). The pharmaceutical sector is particularly vulnerable. Nearly “85% of medicines in the U.S. strategic national stockpile” sources
components from China (Owens, 2020). An initial run on respiratory masks has now been eclipsed by rowdy queues at supermarkets and the
bankruptcy of small businesses. The entire global population – save for major pockets such as Sweden, Belarus, Taiwan and Japan – have been
subjected to cyclical lockdowns and quarantines. Never before in history have humans faced such a systemic, borderless calamity. COVID-19 represents
a classic emergent crisis that necessitates real-time response and adaptivity in a real-time world, particularly since the global Just-in-Time (JIT)
production and delivery system serves as both an enabler and vector for transboundary risks. From a systems thinking perspective, emerging risk
management should therefore address a whole spectrum of activity across the economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological
(EEGST) taxonomy. Every emerging threat can be slotted into this taxonomy – a reason why it is used by the World Economic Forum (WEF) for its
annual global risk exercises (Maavak, 2019a). As traditional forces of globalization unravel, security professionals should take cognizance of emerging
threats through a systems thinking approach. METHODOLOGY An EEGST sectional breakdown was adopted to illustrate a sampling of extreme risks
facing the world for the 2020-2030 decade. The transcendental quality of emerging risks, as outlined on Figure 1, below, was primarily informed by the
following pillars of systems thinking (Rickards, 2020): • Diminishing diversity (or increasing homogeneity) of actors in the global system (Boli & Thomas,
1997; Meyer, 2000; Young et al, 2006); • Interconnections in the global system (Homer-Dixon et al, 2015; Lee & Preston, 2012); • Interactions of actors,
events and components in the global system (Buldyrev et al, 2010; Bashan et al, 2013; Homer-Dixon et al, 2015); and • Adaptive qualities in particular
systems (Bodin & Norberg, 2005; Scheffer et al, 2012) Since scholastic material on this topic remains somewhat inchoate, this paper buttresses many of
its contentions through secondary (i.e. news/institutional) sources. ECONOMY According to Professor Stanislaw Drozdz (2018) of the Polish Academy of
Sciences, “a global financial crash of a previously unprecedented scale is highly probable” by the mid- 2020s. This will lead to a trickle-down meltdown,
impacting all areas of human activity. The economist John Mauldin (2018) similarly warns that the “2020s might be the worst decade in US history” and
may lead to a Second Great Depression. Other forecasts are equally alarming. According to the International Institute of Finance, global debt may have
surpassed $255 trillion by 2020 (IIF, 2019). Yet another study revealed that global debts and liabilities amounted to a staggering $2.5 quadrillion
(Ausman, 2018). The reader should note that these figures were tabulated before the COVID-19 outbreak. The IMF singles out widening income
inequality as the trigger for the next Great Depression (Georgieva, 2020). The wealthiest 1% now own more than twice as much wealth as 6.9 billion
people (Coffey et al, 2020) and this chasm is widening with each passing month. COVID-19 had, in fact, boosted global billionaire wealth to an
unprecedented $10.2 trillion by July 2020 (UBS-PWC, 2020). Global GDP, worth $88 trillion in 2019, may have contracted by 5.2% in 2020 (World Bank,
2020). As the Greek historian Plutarch warned in the 1st century AD: “An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all
republics” (Mauldin, 2014). The stability of a society, as Aristotle argued even earlier, depends on a robust middle element or middle class. At the rate
the global middle class is facing catastrophic debt and unemployment levels, widespread social disaffection may morph into outright anarchy (Maavak,
2012; DCDC, 2007). Economic stressors, in transcendent VUCA fashion, may also induce radical geopolitical
realignments. Bullions now carry more weight than NATO’s security guarantees in Eastern
Europe. After Poland repatriated 100 tons of gold from the Bank of England in 2019, Slovakia, Serbia and Hungary quickly followed suit. According
to former Slovak Premier Robert Fico, this erosion in regional trust was based on historical precedents – in
particular the 1938 Munich Agreement which ceded Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland to Nazi Germany. As Fico reiterated (Dudik & Tomek, 2019): “You
can hardly trust even the closest allies after the Munich Agreement… I guarantee that if something happens, we won’t see a single gram of this
(offshore-held) gold. Let’s do it (repatriation) as quickly as possible.” (Parenthesis added by author). President Aleksandar Vucic of Serbia (a non-NATO
nation) justified his central bank’s gold-repatriation program by hinting at economic headwinds ahead: “We see in which direction the crisis in the
world is moving” (Dudik & Tomek, 2019). Indeed, with
two global Titanics – the United States and China – set on a
collision course with a quadrillions-denominated iceberg in the middle, and a viral outbreak on its tip, the seismic ripples will
be felt far, wide and for a considerable period. A reality check is nonetheless needed here: Can additional bullions
realistically circumvallate the economies of 80 million plus peoples in these Eastern European nations, worth a collective $1.8 trillion by purchasing
power parity? Gold however is a potent psychological symbol as it represents national sovereignty and economic reassurance in a potentially
hyperinflationary world. The portents are clear: The current global economic system will be weakened by rising nationalism and autarkic demands.
Much uncertainty remains ahead. Mauldin (2018) proposes the introduction of Old Testament-style debt jubilees to facilitate gradual national
recoveries. The World Economic Forum, on the other hand, has long proposed a “Great Reset” by 2030; a socialist utopia where “you’ll own nothing
and you’ll be happy” (WEF, 2016). In the final analysis, COVID-19 is not the root cause of the current global economic turmoil; it is merely an accelerant
to a burning house of cards that was left smouldering since the 2008 Great Recession (Maavak, 2020a). We also see how the four main pillars of
systems thinking (diversity, interconnectivity, interactivity and “adaptivity”) form the mise en scene in a VUCA decade. ENVIRONMENTAL What
happens to the environment when our economies implode? Think of a debt-laden workforce at
sensitive nuclear and chemical plants, along with a concomitant surge in industrial accidents?
Economic stressors, workforce demoralization and rampant profiteering – rather than manmade climate change – arguably pose the
biggest threats to the environment. In a WEF report, Buehler et al (2017) made the following pre-COVID-19 observation: The ILO
estimates that the annual cost to the global economy from accidents and work-related diseases alone is a staggering $3 trillion. Moreover, a recent
report suggests the world’s 3.2 billion workers are increasingly unwell, with the vast majority facing significant economic insecurity: 77% work in part-
time, temporary, “vulnerable” or unpaid jobs. Shouldn’t this phenomenon be better categorized as a societal or economic risk rather than an
environmental one? In line with the systems thinking approach, however, global risks can no longer be boxed into a taxonomical silo. Frazzled
workforces may precipitate another Bhopal (1984), Chernobyl (1986), Deepwater Horizon (2010) or Flint water crisis (2014). These disasters were
notably not the result of manmade climate change. Neither was the Fukushima nuclear disaster (2011) nor the Indian Ocean tsunami (2004). Indeed,
the combustion of a long-overlooked cargo of 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate had nearly levelled the city of Beirut, Lebanon, on Aug 4 2020. The
explosion left 204 dead; 7,500 injured; US$15 billion in property damages; and an estimated 300,000 people homeless (Urbina, 2020). The
environmental costs have yet to be adequately tabulated. Environmental disasters are more attributable to Black Swan events, systems breakdowns
and corporate greed rather than to mundane human activity. Our JIT world aggravates the cascading potential of risks (Korowicz, 2012). Production and
delivery delays, caused by the COVID-19 outbreak, will eventually require industrial overcompensation. This will further stress senior executives,
workers, machines and a variety of computerized systems. The trickle-down effects will likely include substandard products, contaminated food and a
general lowering in health and safety standards (Maavak, 2019a). Unpaid or demoralized sanitation workers may also resort to indiscriminate waste
dumping. Many cities across the United States (and elsewhere in the world) are no longer recycling wastes due to prohibitive costs in the global corona-
economy (Liacko, 2021). Even in good times, strict protocols on waste disposals were routinely ignored. While Sweden championed the global climate
change narrative, its clothing flagship H&M was busy covering up toxic effluences disgorged by vendors along the Citarum River in Java, Indonesia. As a
result, countless children among 14 million Indonesians straddling the “world’s most polluted river” began to suffer from dermatitis, intestinal
problems, developmental disorders, renal failure, chronic bronchitis and cancer (DW, 2020). It is also in cauldrons like the Citarum River where
pathogens may mutate with emergent ramifications. On an equally alarming note, depressed economic conditions have traditionally provided a waste
disposal boon for organized crime elements. Throughout 1980s, the Calabriabased ‘Ndrangheta mafia – in collusion with governments in Europe and
North America – began to dump radioactive wastes along the coast of Somalia. Reeling from pollution and revenue loss, Somali fisherman eventually
resorted to mass piracy (Knaup, 2008). The coast of Somalia is now a maritime hotspot, and exemplifies an entwined form of economic-environmental-
geopolitical-societal emergence. In a VUCA world, indiscriminate waste dumping can unexpectedly morph into a Black Hawk Down incident. The laws of
unintended consequences are governed by actors, interconnections, interactions and adaptations in a system under study – as outlined in the
methodology section. Environmentally-devastating industrial sabotages – whether by disgruntled workers, industrial competitors, ideological maniacs
or terrorist groups – cannot be discounted in a VUCA world. Immiserated societies, in stark defiance of climate change diktats, may resort to dirty coal
plants and wood stoves for survival. Interlinked ecosystems, particularly water resources, may be hijacked by nationalist
sentiments. The environmental fallouts of critical infrastructure (CI) breakdowns loom like a Sword of Damocles

over this decade. GEOPOLITICAL The primary catalyst behind WWII was the Great Depression. Since
history often repeats itself, expect familiar bogeymen to reappear in societies roiling with
impoverishment and ideological clefts. Anti-Semitism – a societal risk on its own – may reach alarming proportions
in the West (Reuters, 2019), possibly forcing Israel to undertake reprisal operations inside allied nations. If that

happens, how will affected nations react? Will security resources be reallocated to protect certain minorities (or the Top 1%) while

larger segments of society are exposed to restive forces? Balloon effects like these present a classic VUCA problematic.

Contemporary geopolitical risks include a possible Iran-Israel war; US-China military

confrontation over Taiwan or the South China Sea; North Korean proliferation of nuclear and
missile technologies; an India-Pakistan nuclear war; an Iranian closure of the Straits of
Hormuz; fundamentalist-driven implosion in the Islamic world; or a nuclear confrontation
between NATO and Russia. Fears that the Jan 3 2020 assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani might lead to WWIII were
grossly overblown. From a systems perspective, the killing of Soleimani did not fundamentally change the actor-interconnection-interaction adaptivity
equation in the Middle East. Soleimani was simply a cog who got replaced.
 Case
1. Aff revenue estimates are flawed- tax destroys wealth
Epstein, JD, 1-24-23
(Richard, Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow (adjunct) at the Hoover Institution, is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law
School, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago. https://www.hoover.org/research/wealth-tax-poor-idea)

Ironically, the rosy revenue projections that wealth-tax supporters such as Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel
Zucman made in 2021 for its revenue potential—starting in 2023—are now hopelessly out of date. Two
years ago, at the height of the pandemic, billionaires accumulated capital at near-record rates. Now,

potential gains from a wealth tax have fallen because of the enormous declines in wealth
(toward greater income equality!) experienced by virtually all newly minted tech moguls . Elon Musk leads the

pack, with capital losses of $115 billion in 2022 alone. He has good company in Jeff Bezos ($80 billion); Mark Zuckerberg
($78 billion); and Larry Page ($40 billion). In sum, the American billionaires lost $660 billion this past year , about one-third

of the $2 trillion in losses worldwide. Nothing guarantees that they will recover those losses any time soon, if ever.

Considering a hypothetical 3 percent wealth tax rate, close to $20 billion in domestic wealth-tax
revenue disappeared in 2022; this number would be far higher if the wealth tax also reached foreigners. Pass the tax and
those losses will only get larger. Killing the goose that lays a golden egg is to
be expected in any system that stresses redistribution first and growth second.

2. Wealth taxes reduce revenue and well being for all

Smith, PhD, 20
(Karl, Adjuct#TaxFoundation, former Economics@ChapelHill, https://www.bostonreview.net/forum_response/karl-smith-wealth-
tax-will-hurt-economy-not-help/ , 3-17)

Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman make two quite different claims about a progressive wealth tax. It is
necessary, they say, not just to raise government revenue, but also to curb the injustice of our current system
and to protect democracy from the ruinous effects of inequality. While they make a convincing case against concentrated power,
they fail to show why a wealth tax, and only a wealth tax, would effectively combat the ills they
intend to address. Their central contentions—that such a policy would diminish the power to influence government
policy, stifle competition, and shape ideology—are simply taken for granted. They devote hardly any
space to their most import assertion, that the income of today’s superrich is earned at the
expense of everyone else—and thus that everyone else’s well being will be improved if a wealth
tax were implemented.

In fact, by
their own estimates, the radical wealth tax they endorse would bring in less and less
revenue over time, since it would erode very large fortunes and prevent new ones from being created. For
the same reason, it would also reduce revenues raised by the capital gains tax, the income
tax, and the estate tax. A radical wealth tax could thus leave the less well off worse than they
are today. For their argument to work, the decline in wealth over time must produce meaningful gains for the average American.
But there are a number of problems with this presumption.

3. Rich can effectively evade and tax struck down

Baker, PhD, 20
(Dean, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, https://www.bostonreview.net/forum_response/dean-baker-
wealth-tax-distraction/ , 4-5)
Can a wealth tax combat the effects of this policy-driven upward distribution? I would argue that it
could not possibly succeed for very practical political reasons. First, as many have pointed out, it
would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional. This is not an abstract question of constitutional
law: it is a concrete question about how we would expect the current Supreme Court to rule on
the issue. Given the composition of the court, there can be little doubt on this question. And even before a
wealth tax gets to the court, it has to pass Congress. While Zucman and Saez are confident that the IRS can be
more successful in preventing evasion and avoidance than other countries have been, there is one
unstoppable form of tax avoidance: rich people can simply renounce their citizenship. In their proposal,
they seek to check this escape route by imposing a 47 percent exit tax. That would be a strong
disincentive, once the tax is in place. However, nothing would stop rich people from renouncing
their citizenship as the tax is being debated by Congress. Furthermore, they could use the threat of
mass renunciation as a weapon against a Congress debating a wealth tax. Suppose that a thousand of the
country’s richest people, controlling half or more of the wealth that was being targeted by a tax, signed onto a public letter
threatening to renounce their citizenship if Congress were to move forward with a wealth tax proposal. Does anyone think that
Congress would move ahead when faced with such a threat? Is
there any reason to believe that the country’s
richest people would not be prepared to take such extreme measures to protect their wealth?
They already spend huge amounts of money on tax lawyers and accountants to limit their tax
liabilities, often employing tactics of questionable legality. These are people who love their
money much more than their country. It would be absurd not to expect them to organize with
all the power at their disposal to stop a measure that would deal a huge blow to their wealth
and power. A newly elected progressive president would suffer a major political
embarrassment running into this brick wall.

4- The plan guts military recruitment and empowers anti war movements
Day 18
(Meagan, https://jacobin.com/2018/10/military-recruits-full-employment-welfare-state , 10-19)

Working-class support for the military is often overstated, but it is high enough to hamstring
any antiwar movement angling for mass support — which is the only kind of antiwar movement that can
win. The more recruits the military has, the more deeply it embeds itself in working-class
American life. This obviously presents an enormous obstacle to building opposition to war. And it is
precisely the working class that must oppose war, because not only are workers the majority of
society and the group with the actual leverage to force change, but they’re also the ones who fight
and die in the wars themselves. As Eugene V. Debs said, “The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has
always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain
and all to lose — especially their lives.” In order for our society to achieve peace, working people must realize they’re being conned
into war. So how do we go about removing the economic incentive for joining the military?
Ensuring full employment is a great start. Full employment means that everyone who’s
actively looking for a job can easily find one, which forces employers to compete with each other
for hires, and gives workers more options and more power in the economy. Although unemployment is
pretty low right now, there will inevitably be another economic crisis, and the gains made will evaporate. A better way to achieve full
employment for the long haul is a federal job guarantee of some kind.
4.5- The collapse of American military dominance risk global war
Michael Beckley 18. Professor of political science at Tufts. Unrivaled: Why
America Will Remain the World’s Sole Superpower. Cornell University Press.
The story of world politics is often told as a game of thrones in which a rotating cast of great
powers battles for top-dog status. According to researchers led by Graham Allison at Harvard, there have been
sixteen cases in the past five hundred years when a rising power challenged a ruling
power. 3 Twelve of these cases ended in carnage. One can quibble with Allison’s case selection, but the
basic pattern is clear: hegemonic rivalry has sparked a catastrophic war every forty
years on average for the past half millennium. The emergence of unipolarity in 1991 has put
this cycle of hegemonic competition on hold. Obviously wars and security competition still occur in today’s
unipolar world—in fact, as I explain later, unipolarity has made
certain types of asymmetric conflict more likely
—but none of these conflicts have the global scope or generational length of a hegemonic

rivalry. To appreciate this point, just consider the Cold War—one of the four “peaceful” cases of hegemonic rivalry
identified by Allison’s study. Although the two superpowers never went to war, they divided the world into rival

camps, waged proxy wars that killed millions of people, and pushed each other to
the brink of nuclear Armageddon. For forty-five years, World War III and human
extinction were nontrivial possibilities. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, by contrast, the
United States has not faced a hegemonic rival, and the world, though far from perfect, has been more
peaceful and prosperous than ever before. Just look at the numbers. From 1400 to 1991, the
rate of war deaths worldwide hovered between 5 and 10 deaths per 100,000 people and spiked
to 200 deaths per 100,000 during major wars. 4 After 1991, however, war death rates dropped to
0.5 deaths per 100,000 people and have stayed there ever since. Interstate wars have disappeared
almost entirely, and the number of civil wars has declined by more than 30 percent. 5
Meanwhile, the global economy has quadrupled in size, creating more wealth between 1991
and 2018 than in all prior human history combined. 6 What explains this unprecedented
outbreak of peace and prosperity? Some scholars attribute it to advances in communications technology,
from the printing press to the telegraph to the Internet, which supposedly spread empathy around the globe and caused entire
nations to place a higher value on human life. 7 Such
explanations are appealing, because they play on our
natural desire to believe in human progress, but are they convincing? Did humans suddenly
become 10 to 20 times less violent and cruel in 1991? Are we orders of magnitude more
noble and kind than our grandparents? Has social media made us more empathetic? Of course
not, which is why the dramatic decline in warfare after 1991 is better explained by
geopolitics than sociology. 8 The collapse of the Soviet Union not only ended the Cold War
and related proxy fighting, it also opened up large swathes of the world to democracy,
international commerce, and peacekeeping forces—all of which surged after 1991 and
further dampened conflict. 9 Faced with overwhelming U.S. economic and military
might, most countries have decided to work within the American-led liberal order rather
than fight to overturn it. 10 As of 2018, nearly seventy countries have joined the U.S. alliance
network—a Kantian community in which war is unthinkable—and even the two main
challengers to this community, China and Russia, begrudgingly participate in the institutions of
the liberal order (e.g., the UN, the WTO, the IMF, World Bank, and the G-20), engage in commerce with the
United States and its allies, and contribute to international peacekeeping missions . 11 History may
not have ended in 1991, but it clearly changed in profound ways—and mostly for the better.

5: the aff gives training, cross answers, people would get the training and go to
the private sector- a FJG isn’t competitive.
 Inequality
1. FJG is counterproductive – it kills motivation to work and efficiency
Standing, PhD Econ, 19
(Guy, British professor of Development Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London,[2] and co-
founder of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), PhD Econ@Cambridge, “Basic Income as Common Dividends: Piloting a
Transformative Policy,”
http://www.revistaprimerapiedra.cl/PDF/documentos/PEF_Piloting_Basic_Income_Guy_Standing2019.pdf//jum)

**bracketed for problematic language

Another failing of the job guarantee route is the mapping of a path to

‘workfare’. What would happen to somebody who declined to accept the guaranteed job? They would be labelled ‘lazy’ or
‘choosy’ and thus ‘ungrateful’ and ‘socially irresponsible’. Yet
there are many reasons for refusing a job. Studies
show that accepting a job below a person’s qualifications can lower their income and social status
for the long term. As what is happening in the current UK benefit system attests, those not taking jobs allocated to them
would face benefit sanctions, and be directed into jobs, whether they liked them or not. Jobs done in resentment or
under duress are unlikely to be done well. A job guarantee would be a recipe for perpetuating
low productivity. What would happen if a person in a guaranteed job performed poorly, perhaps because of limited ability or
simply because they knew it was ‘guaranteed’? If you are guaranteed a job, why bother to work hard? If you are an
employer and are given a subsidy to pay employees guaranteed a job, why bother to try to use
labour efficiently? If subsidised through tax credits or a wage subsidy, a worker
would need to produce only a little more value than the cost to the employer to
make it profitable to retain [them] him or her. This would cheapen low-productivity jobs relative to
others and inhibit the higher productivity arising from labour-displacing technological change. If a job of a certain type is guaranteed,
what happens if an employer wishes to invest in technology that would remove the need for such jobs? Those
calling for a
job guarantee also ignore the fact that any market economy requires some unemployment, as
people need time to search for jobs they are prepared to accept, and firms must sift
applicants for jobs they want to have done. To adopt a job guarantee policy would risk putting the economy in gridlock. Job
guarantee advocates, such as Larry Summers, President Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary, argue that people without jobs ‘are
much more likely to be dissatisfied with their lives’ and are more likely to be drug addicts and abusive than those with even low-
wage jobs.135 This is bogus. I suggest there
would be no correlation between life satisfaction and having a
job if the comparison was made between those in lousy jobs and those with no job but an
adequate income on which to live. Somebody facing a choice between penury and a lousy job will prefer the job. But
that does not mean they like or want it for itself. The polling company Gallup conducts regular State of the Global Workplace surveys
in over 150 countries. In 2017, it
found that globally only 15% of workers were engaged by their job, and
in no country did the figure exceed 40%. One recent UK survey found that 37% of jobholders did not
think their job made any significant contribution. Summers ends his article by equivocating – ‘the
idea of a jobs guarantee should be taken seriously but not literally’. He seems to mean government should try to promote more
employment, through ‘wage subsidies, targeted government spending, support for workers with dependants, and more training and
job-matching programmes’. In other words, he reverts to the standard social democratic package that has not done very well in the
past three decades. Besides being a recipe for labour inefficiency and labour market distortions, tending to displace
workers employed in the ‘free’ labour market and to depress their wages, the job guarantee
proposal fails to recognise that today’s crisis is structural and requires
transformative policies. Tax credits, job guarantees and statutory minimum wages would barely touch the precariat’s
existential insecurity that is at the heart of the social and economic crisis, let alone address the aspirations of the progressive and
growing part of the precariat for an ecologically grounded Good Society.136
2. Turn- Energy Poverty
A. Democratic GND causes it.
Loris, MA, 19
(Nicolas, Deputy Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The
Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-green-new-deal-raw-deal-american-taxpayers-energy-
consumers-and-the-economy, 2-25)

Direct Taxpayer Costs. Regardless, the

Green New Deal proposes that the federal government largely pay for the
transition, and this would come at significant cost to the taxpayer. Moreover, switching over to a 100 percent
renewable electricity grid is only a fraction of the plan. Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the
transportation, manufacturing, and agriculture sectors would substantially increase economic harm.
Americans will pay as taxpayers for the government borrowing and taxing to finance the Green New Deal but will
also devote more money to their energy bills. The reality is that the costs to families, businesses,
and the economy would be considerably greater than any direct cost to taxpayers. An essential
reason coal, natural gas, and nuclear power provide 83 percent of America’s electricity generation is because these resources are
abundant, reliable, and affordable. A
government-forced transition to 100 percent renewables or politically
determined clean energy sources would cause electricity rates to skyrocket. In fact, 29 states, the District of
Columbia, and 3 territories have a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which mandates that a certain percentage of a given
state’s electricity generation come from politically determined renewable sources. While a number of variables impact the price of
electricity, RPSs are a factor in driving electricity bills higher.21 Research from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in November 2018 has perhaps the most detailed model estimating the costs of deep decarbonization
in the electricity sector.22 The authors run 912 scenarios looking at a wide range of uncertainties that take into account
geographical differences in renewable potential, different technology cost assumptions, and different carbon-dioxide-emission-
reduction targets. In some scenarios they include “firm” low-carbon power sources, such as nuclear power, natural gas, and coal
with carbon capture and sequestration and high-capacity reservoirs for hydroelectric power. In
the scenario that achieves
zero carbon dioxide emissions in the power sector by using 100 percent renewable power, the study projects
that average electricity prices would increase to $150 to $300 per megawatt hour.23 (In
2017, the average was $105 per megawatt hour.24) As calculated by Philip Rossetti at the American
Action Forum, families would face electricity costs that are between 43 percent and 286
percent higher, resulting in households paying hundreds of dollars more in their monthly electricity bill.25 Regardless
of what Green New Deal proponents ultimately accept as clean energy sources, the reality is that 63
percent of America’s electricity needs are met by coal and natural gas. Petroleum products account for 92
percent of the country’s transportation sector use. They make up such high percentages because they are
abundant, reliable, and affordable. Significantly restricting their use would, in turn, significantly
raise the costs of electricity bills and the price at the pump. Importantly, the policies proposed in the Green New
Deal are highly regressive. More expensive energy adversely affects low-income

households disproportionately because they spend a higher percentage of their budget on

energy costs. Americans with after-tax incomes of less than $30,000 spend 23 percent of their budgets on energy, compared to
just 7 percent for those earning more than $50,000, according to a report by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.26
According to the 2011 National Energy Assistance Survey, a poll of low-income families, 24
percent went without food for a day, and 37 percent decided to forego medical and dental
coverage, in order to pay higher energy bills. Nearly one in five had a family member who
became sick due to the home being too cold.27
B. It turns and outweighs the case
Loris, MA, 19
(Nicolas, Deputy Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The
Heritage Foundation, https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/its-not-just-about-cost-the-green-new-deal-bad-
environmental-policy-too, 11-15)

Two recent National Bureau of Economic Research papers underscore the unintended consequences of energy
policy on human well-being. One found that cheaper home heating because of America's fracking revolution is

averting more than 10,000 winter deaths per year. The Green New Deal would wipe all of
that away, and reverse course by mandating pricier energy on families. Another paper found that the Japanese
government's decision to close safely operating nuclear power plants after Fukashima increased energy prices
and reduced consumption, which consequently, increased mortalities from colder temperatures. In
fact, the authors estimate that "the decision to cease nuclear production has contributed to more
deaths than the accident itself." Unintended consequences.
3. AI won’t cause mass job loss- empirics prove
Ling, PhD, 5-22-23
(Erin, lecturer in artificial intelligence and the future of work at the University of Surrey
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/22/ai-jobs-policies)

of doom, history offers reasons to be optimistic about AI and its

However, despite the predictions
impact on work and employment. Jobs have changed and evolved throughout history, which has
resulted in the creation of new professions that were previously inconceivable. For most of the 20th
century, typing was seen as a desired and decent job, and typists were in high demand. Illustration of humanoid
robot and a person chatting together over a water cooler ‘Why would we employ people?’ Experts on five ways AI will change work
Read more As
computers grew in popularity and typing got easier, the demand fell away, and the profession
nearly became extinct. But, thanks to the same trends, the demand for web designers, graphic
designers and copy editors increased. The advent of the computer gave birth to countless sectors
and transformed our way of life (mostly) for the better. I believe that AI can repeat this very trick, if we get it
right. What does that look like? For a start, it means understanding which jobs and industries are actually at risk, and how AI will
become part of them. AI can automate tasks such as data entry and administrative operations, which puts jobs that involve
repetitive data input and basic decision-making at risk. Interestingly, the banking and financial industries, which are generally seen as
white-collar jobs, may see a decrease in demand for data analysts and risk assessors as AI systems become more efficient at handling
large amounts of data. Manufacturing and logistics jobs seem an obvious target for AI, as automation is used more and more to save
on costs. Jobs
in transportation, assembly-line activities and repetitive manual work can be
automated to some extent. However, the technology still has limitations which require regular
maintenance and a balance between AI/robots and human workers. If jobs are poorly designed or if there is
an imbalance between AI and human workers, it could result in dissatisfied customers, decreased revenue (especially in the current
cost of living crisis), and even business closures. Two months ago, a restaurant named Robotazia in Milton Keynes that had robotic
waiters closed down due to rising costs and recruitment issues. We need to bear in mind that while
automation and
robotics can bring novelty and efficiency to certain industries, the overall impact on jobs can be
complex and multifaceted, with problems including maintenance costs, recruitment challenges and the need to adapt to
changing economic situations. Another area we need to watch is customer service. Chatbots are already being implemented in this
area, but their inability to understand complex scenarios can result in service failures and unhappy customers. Human support
should be maintained alongside these chatbots, especially in industries such as hospitality, where human interaction, empathy and
emotional/social intelligence are vital to customer loyalty. In the healthcare industry, AI has been used to aid medical diagnostics,
radiology interpretation and patient monitoring. However, while
AI can help healthcare professionals with data
analysis, imaging and decision-making, current AI is limited in performing difficult tasks that
require fine hand-eye coordination, and the physical execution of such tasks is still reliant on
human capabilities.

4- The plan permanently devastates the private sector generating make work
and inflation – turns case
Ip, 18 (Greg, "The Problem With a Federal Jobs Guarantee (Hint: It’s Not the
Price Tag) " WSJ, 5-2-2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-problem-with-a-
federal-jobs-guarantee-hint-its-not-the-price-tag-1525267192)//usc-br/
Why now? Unemployment was 20% or more when Roosevelt put millions to work through the Civilian
Conservation Corps and Works Progress Administration. Nowadays, full employment is part of the
Federal Reserve’s mandate, and while its record has blemishes, today it can claim mission accomplished. With the
unemployment rate now at 4.1%, mainstream economists consider the U.S. effectively at or beyond
full employment; Letting unemployment go lower risks shortages and inflation. But the big thinkers behind
the federal jobs guarantee have their eyes on a bigger prize. That 4.1% only represents the 6.6 million who are unemployed under the Labor
Department’s official definition. Another 5.1 million don’t meet it but want a job, and 5 million work part time because they can’t find full-time work.
Eradicating these last vestiges of un- or underemployment “would fundamentally transform the current labor market,” write Mark Paul, William Darity
and Darrick Hamilton in a paper for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-of-center think tank. Their proposal, which forms the basis of Mr.
Sanders’s bill, would “significantly alter the current power dynamics between labor and capital” by forcing all employers to match the federal standards
for pay and benefits. Yes, a job guarantee would cost a fortune, but ignoring the obvious political impediments, the price
tag isn’t the catastrophe some critics claim. To hire all the official and unofficial unemployed and half the involuntary part
timers at $15 an hour plus $3 an hour for benefits would cost around $450 billion, or 2.3% of gross domestic product. The actual cost could be much
lower: Many of the unemployed won’t take up the federal offer because they expect to get something better, don’t like what’s being offered, or face
some sort of obstacle (family, disability, etc.). Also, some of what gets spent on salaries will be saved in reduced Medicaid, tax credits, unemployment
insurance and other safety net outlays. Five scholars at the Levy Institute, a think tank, have advanced a plan they say will cost just 1% to 1.5% of gross
domestic product. The federal government spends three times that on Social Security and twice that on defense. The price tag would
jump in recessions as laid-off people flock to the program. That’s a feature, not a bug: By automatically injecting public
money into the economy, it would prop up spending, private employment and tax revenue, lessening the recession’s severity. And unlike universal
basic income, another
fashionable idea for reducing inequality in which everyone gets a check
regardless of whether they work, a jobs guarantee gets the taxpayer something in
return: workers. That, however, is also the problem. Here’s why. According to the Economic Policy Institute,
39% of the workforce, some 54 million people, now earn $15 an hour or less. All would have
an incentive to quit and join the federal program. Of course, most wouldn’t because their employers
would, grudgingly, raise pay to keep them, then pass the cost on to customers, a de facto inflation tax. Indeed, advocates
say the job
guarantee accomplishes the same thing as a $15 minimum wage without the job loss. Nonetheless,
potentially millions of workers would end up on the federal payroll instead of in the private

sector. And there’s the rub. Utopians would argue jobs exist to give people dignity and a decent
standard of living. The reality is more mundane: Jobs are how people, as producers, satisfy their
needs as consumers. Low-paid work such as brewing coffee, cleaning hotel rooms and
flipping hamburgers gets a bad rap but it satisfies a genuine demand: People want coffee, clean
hotels and hamburgers. A federal make-work program would crowd out many of those private

services. Crowding out is fine when the government is providing something more valuable , Roger
Farmer and Dmitry Plotnikov, economists at the University of California at Los Angeles, wrote in 2010. For example, military
spending
crowded out private consumption during World War II, when the U.S. “was fighting for its
survival.” In ordinary times, that is a harder case to make. A 2011 study by Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval and Christopher
Malloy of Harvard Business School found that when
a member of Congress takes over an important committee,
his state often enjoys an influx of federal spending. But that benefit is offset by a contraction in
private investment and employment, evidence of crowding out.
5- JG will be used to gut the welfare state and reinforce inequality
Standing ’19 [Guy; May; Professorial Research Associate; “A Report for the
Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer,” Progressive Economy Forum;
https://www.progressiveeconomyforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/
PEF_Piloting_Basic_Income_Guy_Standing.pdf]
The emphasis on jobs is non-ecological, since it is tied to the constant pursuit of economic growth. There are many instances,
support for fracking and for the third runway at Heathrow airport being recent examples, where the promise of more jobs has
trumped costs to health and the environment. And a job guarantee policy could have a strong appeal to the
political right as a way to dismantle the welfare state. Why pay unemployment
benefits if everybody has a guaranteed job? In the USA, one conservative commentator chortled that ‘over
100 federal welfare programs would be replaced with a single job guarantee
program.’137