You are on page 1of 350

Econ Generic

DDI 2008

Serrano
ECON GENERIC INDEX
ECON GENERIC INDEX............................................................................................................1
******Bizcon................................................................................................................................12
BIZ CON 1NC..............................................................................................................................13
BIZ CON 1NC..............................................................................................................................14
Bizcon increasing.........................................................................................................................15
Bizcon increasing.........................................................................................................................16
Investor Con Stable......................................................................................................................17
Investor Con – Brink...................................................................................................................18
Consumer Confidence High........................................................................................................19
Investor Confidence - High.........................................................................................................20
Investor Con High – Mortgage Lenders....................................................................................21
Link – Investor Con.....................................................................................................................22
Link – Regulations.......................................................................................................................23
Link – Regulations.......................................................................................................................24
Link – Regulations.......................................................................................................................25
Link – Regulations.......................................................................................................................26
Link – Regulations.......................................................................................................................27
Link – Finesregulations...............................................................................................................28
Links- Mandates..........................................................................................................................29
Links- Emission Reductions........................................................................................................30
Links- Regulations Cause Blackouts..........................................................................................32
Link – Kills Investment...............................................................................................................33
Link – Kills Investment...............................................................................................................35
Regulations Kill Biz Con.............................................................................................................36
Link - Litigation...........................................................................................................................37
Link - Litigation...........................................................................................................................38
Link - Litigation...........................................................................................................................39
Link – Permits..............................................................................................................................40
Links: Cap and Trade..................................................................................................................41
Links: Cap and Trade..................................................................................................................42

1
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Litigation Kills Invest Con..........................................................................................................43
Regulations Kill FDI....................................................................................................................44
Biz Con s/o - Tech.........................................................................................................................45
Biz Con Spillover – Domestic......................................................................................................46
Biz Con Spillover - Global...........................................................................................................47
AT: Regulations Help Businesses................................................................................................49
Flight Bad – Econ/Environment.................................................................................................50
AT: No Flight................................................................................................................................51
Consumer Con Key to Econ........................................................................................................52
Biz Con Key to Growth...............................................................................................................53
Investment Key to Econ...............................................................................................................54
Investment Key to Econ...............................................................................................................55
Foreign Investment Internal Link..............................................................................................56
Foreign Investment Internal Link..............................................................................................58
AT: Regulations Competitiveness............................................................................................59
Bizcon key to Econ.......................................................................................................................60
Indo-Pak war................................................................................................................................61
****Biz Con Aff Answers............................................................................................................63
2AC Biz Con Frontline................................................................................................................64
2AC Biz Con Frontline................................................................................................................66
2AC Biz Con Frontline................................................................................................................67
Small business confidence low....................................................................................................68
Election Kills Bizcon....................................................................................................................69
BIZ CON CYCLICAL................................................................................................................70
Bizcon declining - flooding..........................................................................................................71
Biz Con Low.................................................................................................................................72
Biz Con Low.................................................................................................................................73
Consumer Confidence Down......................................................................................................74
Investor Confidence Low............................................................................................................75
Consumer Con Low.....................................................................................................................76
Consumer Con Low.....................................................................................................................78
Consumer Con Low.....................................................................................................................79

2
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Aff – No Effect on Investment.....................................................................................................80
Regulations Increase FDI............................................................................................................81
Aff – T/ Increases Productivity...................................................................................................82
Energy prices -> inflation............................................................................................................83
*** Fiscal Discipline.....................................................................................................................84
1NC Shell(1/2)...............................................................................................................................85
1NC Shell(2/2)...............................................................................................................................86
Fiscal D is High Now....................................................................................................................87
Fiscal D is High Now....................................................................................................................88
Fiscal D is High Now....................................................................................................................89
Link- Emergency Spending.........................................................................................................90
Obama Fiscal D............................................................................................................................91
LINK - EARMARKS...................................................................................................................92
LINK - EARMARKS...................................................................................................................93
Snowball Link..............................................................................................................................94
Snowball Link..............................................................................................................................95
Link-Wind....................................................................................................................................96
Link- Pork Barrel Spending.......................................................................................................97
Link – Perception.........................................................................................................................98
Link – Ag.......................................................................................................................................99
Link – Hydrogen........................................................................................................................100
Link – Taxes................................................................................................................................101
Link-Nuclear..............................................................................................................................102
Link-Alternative Energy...........................................................................................................103
Link-Alternative Energy...........................................................................................................104
Link-Alternative Energy...........................................................................................................105
Link-Alternative Energy...........................................................................................................106
Link-Alternative Energy...........................................................................................................107
Link – Foreign Aid.....................................................................................................................108
Link – Military...........................................................................................................................109
Link – Military...........................................................................................................................110
Link – Military...........................................................................................................................111

3
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Link education/health/science..................................................................................................112
Link – development....................................................................................................................113
Link – Interior Policies..............................................................................................................114
Link – Terrorism........................................................................................................................115
Link – Farm Bills.......................................................................................................................116
Link – emergency spending.......................................................................................................117
Link – elections cause snowball................................................................................................118
Dollar Key to econ......................................................................................................................119
Fiscal D Key to Econ..................................................................................................................120
Fiscal D Key to Econ..................................................................................................................121
Fiscal D Key to Econ..................................................................................................................122
Fiscal D Key to Econ..................................................................................................................123
Fiscal D Key to check Russia....................................................................................................124
Fiscal D K deficit........................................................................................................................125
Fiscal D K Biz Con.....................................................................................................................126
Fiscal D K Heg............................................................................................................................127
Debt -> Recession.......................................................................................................................128
Debt -> Recession.......................................................................................................................129
Debt -> military aggression.......................................................................................................130
US Deficit -> global econ collapse.............................................................................................131
****Fiscal D Answers................................................................................................................132
2AC (1/2).....................................................................................................................................133
2AC (2/2).....................................................................................................................................134
FISCAL D Low...........................................................................................................................135
FISCAL D Low...........................................................................................................................136
FISCAL D Low...........................................................................................................................137
FISCAL D Low...........................................................................................................................138
NO SPILLOVER – EARMARKS ...........................................................................................139
No increase in money.................................................................................................................140
McCain & Obama Fiscal D low................................................................................................141
Spending -> boost econ..............................................................................................................142
*** Congressional Trade Off.....................................................................................................143

4
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
CongTrade-Off – 1NC F-22.......................................................................................................144
CongTrade-Off – 1NC F-22.......................................................................................................145
CongTrade-Off – 1NC NMD.....................................................................................................146
CongTrade-Off – 1NC NMD.....................................................................................................147
CongTrade-Off – 1NC NMD.....................................................................................................148
Trade off with F22.....................................................................................................................149
Chopping block..........................................................................................................................150
Chopping block..........................................................................................................................151
Chopping block..........................................................................................................................152
Airpower Impact........................................................................................................................153
Airpower Impact........................................................................................................................154
Airpower Impact........................................................................................................................155
Airpower Impact........................................................................................................................155
*** CONGTRADE OFF AFF ANSWERS...............................................................................157
CongTrade-Off – 2AC F-22.......................................................................................................158
CongTrade-Off – 2AC F-22.......................................................................................................159
CongTrade-Off – 2AC F-22.......................................................................................................160
CongTrade-Off – 2AC NMD.....................................................................................................161
CongTrade-Off – 2AC NMD.....................................................................................................162
CongTrade-Off – 2AC NMD.....................................................................................................163
No forced trade-off.....................................................................................................................164
Trade-off with other things.......................................................................................................165
F22 Trade Off inevit...................................................................................................................166
NMD stuff...................................................................................................................................167
Missile Defense Key to Stability................................................................................................168
Missile Defense May Get Cut....................................................................................................169
Mid-East Impact........................................................................................................................170
NMD Good..................................................................................................................................171
NMD Bad....................................................................................................................................172
NMD Bad....................................................................................................................................173
***DOD Trade off......................................................................................................................174
1NC..............................................................................................................................................175

5
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
1NC..............................................................................................................................................176
1NC..............................................................................................................................................177
Budget Tight...............................................................................................................................178
F-22 Chopping Block.................................................................................................................179
F-22 Chopping Block.................................................................................................................180
F-22 Chopping Block.................................................................................................................181
F-22 Impacts...............................................................................................................................182
***DOD Trade off Answers......................................................................................................183
2AC..............................................................................................................................................184
2AC..............................................................................................................................................184
2AC..............................................................................................................................................185
2AC..............................................................................................................................................186
F-22’s suck..................................................................................................................................188
***DOE Trade OFF...................................................................................................................189
DOE TRADE OFF 1NC............................................................................................................190
DOE TRADE OFF 1NC............................................................................................................191
DOE TRADE OFF 1NC............................................................................................................192
DOE TRADE OFF 1NC............................................................................................................193
Nuclear Energy funding key.....................................................................................................194
ITER Brink/Internal Link........................................................................................................195
ITER Brink/Internal Link........................................................................................................196
ITER Brink/Internal Link........................................................................................................197
ITER Brink/Internal Link........................................................................................................197
ITER Brink/Internal Link........................................................................................................199
ITER Brink/Internal Link........................................................................................................200
Link – General............................................................................................................................201
Link – General............................................................................................................................202
Gas/Oil R&D Trade off..............................................................................................................203
Natives specific link....................................................................................................................204
Renewable energy trade-off......................................................................................................205
Renewable energy trade-off......................................................................................................206
Renewable energy trade-off......................................................................................................207

6
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Scientific Innovation Impact.....................................................................................................208
Every dollar Key........................................................................................................................209
French relations..........................................................................................................................210
French relations..........................................................................................................................211
US-INDIAN Relations...............................................................................................................212
US-INDIAN Relations...............................................................................................................213
US-INDIAN Relations...............................................................................................................214
US-INDIAN Relations...............................................................................................................215
ITER k heg..................................................................................................................................216

......................................................................................................................................................216
ITER Solves All Energy.............................................................................................................217
ITER Solves All Energy.............................................................................................................218
ITER Solves All Energy.............................................................................................................219
ITER SAFE ................................................................................................................................220
FUNDING KEY TO US INVOLVEMENT IN ITER.............................................................221
ITER SAFE/FEASIBLE............................................................................................................222
***DOE Trade off Answers.......................................................................................................223
No trade off.................................................................................................................................224
ITER = nuke power...................................................................................................................225
ITER -> Prolif............................................................................................................................226
ITER -> Prolif............................................................................................................................227
*** EPA DA................................................................................................................................228
*EPA 1NC*.................................................................................................................................229
EPA Budget Tight .....................................................................................................................231
EPA Budget Tight .....................................................................................................................232
EPA Budget Tight .....................................................................................................................233
EPA Budget Tight .....................................................................................................................234
EPA Budget Tight .....................................................................................................................235
U—CO2 CUT NOW..................................................................................................................236
U—CO2 CUT NOW..................................................................................................................237
U—CO2 CUT NOW..................................................................................................................238

7
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
U—AE CUT NOW.....................................................................................................................239
BRINK—WATER BUDGET....................................................................................................240
BRINK—WATER BUDGET....................................................................................................241
Unique internal link: ................................................................................................................242
Water Protection – uniqueness/brink.......................................................................................243
LWCF BRINK ...........................................................................................................................244
"The president's final budget deals a huge blow to the agencies and programs charged with
safeguarding our nation's natural resources," she said. "The next administration will be
burdened with mending the damage caused by President Bush's disastrous policies. "For
example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the principal source of funds for
acquisition of lands for parks and wildlife refuges, would be crippled by a budget cut of
nearly $104 million, wiping out more than 67 percent of its funding," Clark warned." . 244
Air Pollution Impacts................................................................................................................245
Trade Off is Normal means.......................................................................................................246
Trade Off is Normal means.......................................................................................................247
Trade Off is Normal means.......................................................................................................248
Link – NASA SPENDING.........................................................................................................249
EPA=NM.....................................................................................................................................250
EPA=NM.....................................................................................................................................251
EPA=NM.....................................................................................................................................252
EPA=NM.....................................................................................................................................253
LINK: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES................................................................254
LINK: CAP AND TRADE.........................................................................................................255
LINK - GHG REGULATION...................................................................................................256
LINK—NUCLEAR POWER...................................................................................................257
LINK: REBATES.......................................................................................................................258
LINK - RPS ...............................................................................................................................259
LINK: TAX INCENTIVES ......................................................................................................260
TERROR=FIRST TO GO.........................................................................................................261
REGULATIONS KILL TERROR...........................................................................................262
REGULATIONS COSTLY.......................................................................................................263
REGULATIONS COSTLY.......................................................................................................264
FUNDING KEY.........................................................................................................................265

8
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Clean Water Trade Off..............................................................................................................266
Ent’l Justice Impact...................................................................................................................267
Pollution trade off......................................................................................................................268
Pollution trade off......................................................................................................................269
Toxic Waste.................................................................................................................................270
Air Pollution Impacts................................................................................................................271
Air Pollution Impacts................................................................................................................272
Pollution Enforcement...............................................................................................................273
EPA KEY....................................................................................................................................274
EPA KEY....................................................................................................................................275
EPA KEY....................................................................................................................................276
EPA KEY....................................................................................................................................277
EPA KEY....................................................................................................................................278
TERROR IMPACT CALC.......................................................................................................279
TERROR IMPACT CALC.......................................................................................................280
BIOTERROR!............................................................................................................................281
BIOTERROR!............................................................................................................................281
BIOTERROR!............................................................................................................................283
DISEASE MODULE.................................................................................................................283
DISEASE MODULE.................................................................................................................285
DISEASE MODULE.................................................................................................................286
Water Terrorism.........................................................................................................................287
Water Terrorism.........................................................................................................................288
Water Terrorism.........................................................................................................................289
Water Terrorism.........................................................................................................................290
Water Terrorism.........................................................................................................................291
Water Terrorism.........................................................................................................................292
Water Terrorism.........................................................................................................................293
Water Terrorism.........................................................................................................................294
Water Terrorism.........................................................................................................................295
Water Terrorism.........................................................................................................................296
Water Terrorism.........................................................................................................................297

9
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Water Terrorism.........................................................................................................................298
.....................................................................................................................................................298
Internal Link – Tradeoffs general ........................................................................................299
SuperFind...................................................................................................................................300
***EPA Aff Answers .................................................................................................................301
2AC Front line - EPA.................................................................................................................302
2AC Front line - EPA.................................................................................................................303
2AC Front line - EPA.................................................................................................................304
BUDGET DEAD NOW.............................................................................................................305
Trade-offs now ..........................................................................................................................306
NO LINK—TAXPAYERS.........................................................................................................307
NO LINK—TAXPAYERS.........................................................................................................308
NO LINK—TAXPAYERS........................................................................................................309
NO LINK—STATES.................................................................................................................310
NO LINK—FAILURES.............................................................................................................311
LINK N/U—CLIMATE CHANGE.........................................................................................312
EPA=FAIL..................................................................................................................................313
NO AUTHORITY......................................................................................................................314
Pollution Answers......................................................................................................................315
Water terrorism answers...........................................................................................................316
No Enforcement turns the case.................................................................................................317
EPA Enforcement Low..............................................................................................................318
Ans to Water Terrorism.............................................................................................................319
AFF, against States CP..............................................................................................................320
***Econ Impacts ......................................................................................................................321
US ECON HIGH........................................................................................................................322
US ECON HIGH........................................................................................................................323
US ECON HIGH........................................................................................................................324
A2_economy resilient.................................................................................................................325
Dollar collapse -> !.....................................................................................................................326
General ......................................................................................................................................327
General ......................................................................................................................................328

10
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
US K World Econ.......................................................................................................................329
Heg ............................................................................................................................................330
Heg ............................................................................................................................................331
Extinction....................................................................................................................................332
Quality of Life ...........................................................................................................................333
Quality of Life ...........................................................................................................................334
Quality of Life ...........................................................................................................................335
Imperialism ................................................................................................................................336
Oil Impact ..................................................................................................................................337
Econ Impacts - Environment....................................................................................................338
Econ Impacts - Environment....................................................................................................338
Econ Impacts - Environment....................................................................................................340
Econ Impacts – Air pollution....................................................................................................341
*** ECON IMPACT ANSWERS .........................................................................................342
General Econ Impact 2AC Frontline.......................................................................................343
General Econ Impact 2AC Frontline.......................................................................................344
General Econ Impact 2AC Frontline.......................................................................................345
General Econ Impact 2AC Frontline.......................................................................................346
General Econ Impact 2AC Frontline.......................................................................................347
Trade Debt ans..........................................................................................................................348
Dollar Collapse inevitable .......................................................................................................349
Aff – low econ solves environment...........................................................................................350

11
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano

******Bizcon

12
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
BIZ CON 1NC

A. Investor confidence is on the brink – rescue of financial


institutions shored up confidence, but any erosion cascades globally

WSJ (Wall Street Journal), 7-15-08, “The Multifront War Over Investor Confidence”,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121610307854153963.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
That seemed to help, at least temporarily, since investors yesterday bought $3 billion in short-term debt in a Freddie
auction that drew more bids than usual and thus allowed the company to offer lower yields and keep down its
borrowing costs, as The Wall Street Journal notes. This confidence stems from the powerful promise Treasury
Secretary Henry Paulson essentially made to back Fannie and Freddie on Sunday, however much he expressed a
preference for keeping their shareholder-owned structures. As BusinessWeek's Michael Mandel argues, the two
seem to be "on the inevitable road to being bailed out, nationalized, and shrunk," since the placement of "the full
faith and credit of the U.S. government behind two private financial companies" can't be undone. Still, if Mr.
Paulson's weekend moves helped shore up short-term confidence in Fannie and Freddie's ability to keep pumping
money into the housing market, they didn't solve long-term worries about their capitalization, the Journal says. The
rescue of Fannie and Freddie came "after Wall Street executives and foreign central bankers told Washington that
any further erosion of confidence could have a cascading effect around the world," officials tell the New York
Times. And yet, the start-and-stop market cascades tied to the mortgage crisis that began early last year were at it
again today. Yesterday's fall in U.S. banking stocks today is translating into hefty losses in Shanghai, Singapore,
Hong Kong and Japan, and in London, Frankfurt and Paris, too. The dollar reached a new low against the euro,
which was buying more than $1.60, and U.S. stock futures are down ahead of the market open in New York.

B. Government regulation causes investors to wait to invest –


uncertain about the future of the laws and the company
Alain Verbeke, Director of MBA Studies - Solvay Business School, University of Brussels, 4 Dec 1998.
[“Corporate strategies and environmental regulations: an organizing framework,” Strategic Management Journal,
Volume 19 Issue 4, Pages 363 – 375]

In our view, many firms at present fear a quadrant 1 scenario. They do not invest in developing green capabilities
because of the high uncertainty regarding leveraging effects associated with these investments. In many cases it is,
for example, unclear ( a ) how government regulation, both in terms of command and control regulations and
market-based instruments will evolve over time, ( b ) to what extent the impact of ‘green consumerism’ will
increase in terms of affecting purchasing decisions of buyers, ( c ) what the industry standards and benchmarks will
be in the area of environmental protection. This is consist- ent with Jaffe’s analysis, which demonstrated the
benefit of waiting to make irreversible invest- ments in clean technologies until better technol- ogies become
available ( Jaffe et al, 1995 ).

13
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
BIZ CON 1NC
C. Lack of business confidence destroys the economy

John Braithwaite, Australian Research Council Federation fellow, 2004, The Annals of The American Academy of Political
and Social Science, March, “Emancipation and Hope,” Lexis
The challenge of designing institutions that simultaneously engender emanci- pation and hope is addressed within the
assumption of economic institutions that are fundamentally capitalist. This contemporary global context gives more force to the
hope nexus because we know capitalism thrives on hope. When business confidence collapses, capitalist economies head for
recession. This dependence on hope is of quite general import; business leaders must have hope for the future before they will
build new factories; consumers need confidence before they will buy what the factories make; investors need confidence before
they will buy shares in the company that builds the factory; bankers need confidence to lend money to build the factory;
scientists need confidence to innovate with new technologies in the hope that a capitalist will come along and market their
invention. Keynes’s ([1936]1981) General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money lamented the theoretical neglect of
“animal spirits” of hope (“spontaneous optimism rather than . . . mathematical expectation” (p. 161) in the discipline of
economics, a neglect that continues to this day (see also Barbalet 1993).

D. Economic stagnation leads to nuclear war


Walter Russel Mead, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, 1992, NEW PERSPECTIVES

But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates—or even shrink In that case, we will face a new period of international
conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India—these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear
weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the ‘30s.

14
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Bizcon increasing

Bizcon is increasing in the squ due to small business success


Buisness Wire, “Administaff Announces Results of Business Confidence Survey
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_May_12/ai_n25408031, May 12th 08

Nearly 78 percent of owners and managers of small businesses say their companies are either growing as planned or at a
faster pace than forecast at the beginning of the year, according to results of a Business Confidence Survey released
today by Administaff (NYSE:ASF), a leading provider of human-resources services for small and medium-sized businesses.
Survey respondents also are actively filling open positions with 44 percent saying they are hiring full-time employees
and 11 percent planning to bring in part-timers. Administaff also released compensation data compiled from its client base
of more than 6,000 small and medium-sized businesses throughout the country. A comparison of first-quarter data against the
same period in 2007 shows that average compensation is up 4.9 percent and average commissions have increased 6.8
percent. In addition, overtime pay is running 9.5 percent of regular pay.

Buisness confidence up in squo


TIER, “Domestic and international business confidence rising”,
http://investintaiwan.nat.gov.tw/en/news/200706/2007062101.html , June 21, 2007

Business confidence is rising, as companies are holding a more optimistic outlook for the second half of 2007, according to
the Taiwan Institute for Economic Research (TIER). TIER based these conclusions on the results of its latest survey of the
manufacturing and service sectors. Nearly 50% of the surveyed manufacturers said that they were "optimistic" about
economic performance in the second half of the year. The survey was presented at a meeting hosted by TIER president
David Hong and researcher Chen Miao. As organizations such as the UK's Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) and the United
Nations have revised their economic growth forecasts upwards, the global economy should remain strong, which means
Taiwan will continue to maintain strong exports, said Chen. Although manufacturers were less positive about business
performance in April in comparison to March, they held an optimistic outlook for the next three to six months -- the
percentage of manufacturers who said they were "positive" about their business outlook rose from 44.3% to 49.2%,
according to Chen.

Business confidence up in squo – at: floods


Dayton Business Journal, “Survey: Midwest floods dampen business confidence level”,
http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2008/06/30/daily1.html?surround=lfn , June 30, 2008

National City's monthly business confidence survey hit a record low in June, helped along by growing gloom in its
territories affected by recent flooding, the bank said. Only 57.8 percent of respondents expressed confidence in the
economy, down from more than 60 percent in May, National City said in a news release. States affected by flooding had
the largest drops: Missouri's economic outlook results fell to 59 percent from 77.4 percent over the month; Illinois' to 61.7
percent from 71.2 percent; and Indiana's to 66.9 percent from 70.7 percent.

Bizcon increasing – real estate


Mark Zandi , http://www.zey.com, “Survey of Business Confidence”, 2008

Global business confidence has remained in a tight range since late May, consistent with a global economy that is barely
growing. Developed economies, including the U.S., Europe and Japan, are contracting moderately, while most developing
economies are expanding moderately. This is an improvement since late April, however, when global business confidence fell
to a record low. The most measurable improvement has been among real estate operations, financial services companies, and
business service firms. These firms are still dour, but not nearly so. As has been the case for the past year, the most negative
responses are to the broad questions concerning present conditions and the outlook.

15
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Bizcon increasing

Business confidence looking up now – interest rate cuts

The Mercury, 3/26/08. “Market gets a $42b boost,” Factiva

THE Australian sharemarket gained 3 per cent yesterday, adding $42 billion in value, amid renewed buying.

Bargain hunters snapped up stocks following signs of improved business confidence in the United States.

The all ordinaries gained 173.3 points to 5355.7.

It was the biggest one-day gain since last Wednesday, after the US Federal Reserve made a large cut to interest rates.

Macquarie Equities adviser David Halliday said sentiment had improved in the United States amid JP Morgan's increased bid for
troubled investment bank Bear Stearns and moves by the US Federal Reserve to keep the financial system orderly.

Lucinda Chan, division director at Macquarie Private Wealth, said: ``What you are seeing is confidence moving into this market.

``It's the first time in months the market's seen some positive signs leading to the upwards and while the bad times are not entirely
over, some risk appetite has returned to the market and people are starting to look for some bargains.''

Global investor confidence is rising in the squo.

CNBC, “Small Business Confidence at Lowest Since 1980 ”, http://www.cnbc.com/id/25073260/site/14081545, /July


10th, 2008

Small business owner confidence in the U.S. economy deteriorated to its lowest in 28 years, according to a survey
released Tuesday. The National Federation of Independent Business said its index of small business optimism fell 2.2 points in
May to 89.3, the lowest reading since 1980, when the index plunged as a recession hit.

16
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Investor Con Stable
Investor confidence stable – strong debt sales prove

The Guardian, (Reuters), 7-14-08, “US pledge fails to lift cloud over Fannie, Freddie”,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7651704
The Treasury Department is seeking Congressional approval for a temporary increase in the credit line it provided for Fannie
and Freddie. Its size is to be determined by Paulson, who told the Fed not to lend to Fannie and Freddie until they exhaust their
Treasury credit lines. Debt buyers seemed confident in the mortgage agencies. Monday's $3 billion debt sale from Freddie drew
stronger demand than a similar one on July 7. Fannie announced that it will sell $3 billion worth of debt on Wednesday. While
Monday's debt auction was routine, it was viewed as a key test of market appetite following last week's stock sell-off. Freddie's
treasurer said the sale was "business as usual," and he did not perceive a crisis of investor confidence.

Global investor confidence is rising in the squo.

State Street, “INVESTOR CONFIDENCE INDEX RISES FROM 72.3 TO 81.0 IN MAY ”,
http://pr.statestreet.com/us/en/20080520_1.html, May 20th, 2008

Global Investor Confidence rose by 8.7 points to 81.0 from a revised April level of 72.3. North American investors were the key
drivers of this, as their risk appetite increased by 8.0 points from 77.0 to 85.0. In other regions, the confidence levels saw
negligible changes from the previous month, with European investor confidence falling by 0.5 points to 76.3 and Asian investor
confidence rose by 0.2 to 86.4.

17
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Investor Con – Brink
Investor confidence is on the brink – rescue of financial institutions shored up
confidence, but any erosion cascades globally

WSJ (Wall Street Journal), 7-15-08, “The Multifront War Over Investor Confidence”,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121610307854153963.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
That seemed to help, at least temporarily, since investors yesterday bought $3 billion in short-term debt in a Freddie auction
that drew more bids than usual and thus allowed the company to offer lower yields and keep down its borrowing costs, as The
Wall Street Journal notes. This confidence stems from the powerful promise Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson essentially
made to back Fannie and Freddie on Sunday, however much he expressed a preference for keeping their shareholder-owned
structures. As BusinessWeek's Michael Mandel argues, the two seem to be "on the inevitable road to being bailed out,
nationalized, and shrunk," since the placement of "the full faith and credit of the U.S. government behind two private financial
companies" can't be undone. Still, if Mr. Paulson's weekend moves helped shore up short-term confidence in Fannie and
Freddie's ability to keep pumping money into the housing market, they didn't solve long-term worries about their capitalization,
the Journal says. The rescue of Fannie and Freddie came "after Wall Street executives and foreign central bankers told
Washington that any further erosion of confidence could have a cascading effect around the world," officials tell the New York
Times. And yet, the start-and-stop market cascades tied to the mortgage crisis that began early last year were at it again today.
Yesterday's fall in U.S. banking stocks today is translating into hefty losses in Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan, and
in London, Frankfurt and Paris, too. The dollar reached a new low against the euro, which was buying more than $1.60, and
U.S. stock futures are down ahead of the market open in New York.

18
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Consumer Confidence High

Despite economic slowdown, US consumer confidence is looking up – spending high now

Business World, 5/23/08. “Special Feature: Consumer Loans; Consumer spending on the rise” Lexis

The United States may be experiencing a slump, but local consumer spending is going the opposite direction. With improved
consumer confidence, the low interest rate environment and overseas workers' remittances, consumer spending is definitely going
uphill.

Remittances particularly supported the robust consumer confidence in the country as total dollar remittances totaled $14.4 billion last
year, up 13.2% year-on-year. It was also higher than the forecast $14.3 billion level.

19
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Investor Confidence - High

Despite inflation, investors are buying more than ever

Washington Post, 7/17/08. “Stocks Rebound Despite Big Jump In June Inflation; Financial Shares Post Double-Digit Gains,” Lexis

Other prices were also up in June, indicating that high prices for oil and other commodities are working their way through the
economy. Transportation costs were up 3.8 percent last month; rents and the cost of education and other services rose briskly, too.
Overall, core inflation -- which excludes food and energy -- increased 0.3 percent in June, a substantial increase over the previous four
months. But investors, buoyed by the Wells Fargo news, brushed off the inflation report and streamed to buy up stocks that were at
the lowest level in years. The S&P 500 Banks Index rose 23 percent, the biggest jump since September 1989. Share prices of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac more than erased steep losses from Tuesday, with Fannie Mae surging 31 percent and Freddie Mac rising 30
percent. Shares of Washington Mutual, the largest U.S. savings and loan, jumped 25 percent, while J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of
America, the nation's largest commercial banks, climbed 16 and 22 percent, respectively. Wachovia, which holds more deposits from
Washington area residents than any other commercial bank, gained 16 percent. Wells Fargo reported a second-quarter profit of $1.75
billion, or about 53 cents a share. That was 21 percent lower than its profit in the corresponding quarter a year earlier but exceeded the
expectations of most Wall Street analysts, who had predicted a profit of 50 cents a share. Even more encouraging to investors was the
company's announcement that it would raise its dividend 10 percent, a move that reaffirmed a positive long-term outlook.

US investors are becoming optimistic after a drop in oil prices and higher-than-expected bank profits

The International Herald Tribune, 7/17/08. “Stocks rise in U.S. and Europe as oil declines;
MARKET ROUNDUP,” Lexis

U.S. and European stocks rose Wednesday after oil prices fell sharply on news of an unexpected leap in U.S. crude supplies last week
and after a big American bank posted surprisingly strong results. All told, the events helped to ease investor fears about the battered
financial sector. Spot gold prices tumbled about 2 percent as crude oil slid and the dollar extended gains after the Federal Reserve
chairman, Ben Bernanke, Ben Bernanke said that under certain conditions currency intervention might be warranted. Shares in the
beaten-down financial sector surged. The S&P financial index rose 6.3 percent, while the KBW banks index gained 9.4 percent. Not
all the news was positive. Data showed U.S. consumer price inflation accelerated to an annual rate of 5 percent in June - well above
economists' forecasts - and U.S. government debt prices fell sharply. U.S. crude oil futures fell more than 4 percent after a U.S.
government agency reported a surprise increase in import levels, causing crude prices to chalk up the biggest two-day loss in
percentage terms since January 2007. While the two-day drop in the price of oil of almost $15 only brought crude to a three-week
low, the fall was enough to help Wall Street indexes rally about 2 percent in late trading. Equity markets had slipped entirely into bear-
market territory earlier in the week. An index of top European shares also closed higher, a day after hitting a three-year closing low.
Stronger-than-expected quarterly results by Wells Fargo, one of the biggest U.S. banks, helped turn a sour mood on Wall Street that
has seen banking shares slide to decade lows as the sector looks for still more capital after record infusions.

20
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Investor Con High – Mortgage Lenders
Fed action on Fannie Mae boosted investor con

Maurna Desmond, Forbes writer, 7-14-08, “Investors Still Shy Of Fannie & Freddie”,
http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/07/14/fannie-freddie-gse-markets-econ-cx_md_0714markets11.html
Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE - news - people ) surged Monday morning, but
then cooled after news that the Federal Government announced a three-pronged plan on Sunday to ensure that the two
government-backed lenders, which own or guarantee roughly $5.3 trillion or half of all outstanding U.S. mortgage debt, are
able to continue operating. The government's action turns an implicit government guarantor into an explicit one, and boosted
investor confidence, at least initially. Freddie was down 1.4%, or 11 cents, to $7.64 and Fannie added 2.8%, or 29 cents, to
$10.54 by noon in New York.

21
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Link – Investor Con

Energy market intervention destabilizes investor confidence

Benedict Brogan, political editor Daily Mail, 3-10-08, “Darling attacked over energy subsidies”,
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=432592&in_page_id=2
Darling's latest plan to hit the hugely profitable energy suppliers were rubbished by industry executives. They warned that the
proposals will threaten the ability of companies to invest billions of pounds in new nuclear power stations and windfarms. Sam
Laidlaw, chief executive of the British Gas group Centrica, told the Adam Smith Institute today: 'There is a worrying tendency
towards short-term fiscal interventions or now, from some quarters, even price controls for some groups of customers. 'Such
intervention is contrary to the operation of competitive markets, threatens to destabilise investor confidence and risks jeopardising
construction of the critical power-generation and gas-supply infrastructure we need.'

22
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Link – Regulations
Regulation causes businesses to fear litigation, shattering confidence
Glenn Hubbard, Dean of the Columbia School of Business, “REDUCING REGULATION AND LITIGATION
WHILE ENHANCING SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS WILL IMPROVE THE COMPETITIVENESS OF U.S.
CAPITAL MARKETS”, http://www.capmktsreg.org/pdfs/Summary_11.30interimreport.pdf, 2008

The evidence suggests that balance does need to be restored. A substantial portion of the erosion in U.S. markets global and
internal competitiveness – and the only factors over which U.S. policymakers have control – relates to insufficiently
coordinated, costly and/or excessive market regulation and enforcement, public and private.  Regulatory requirements for
complying with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act cost companies, on average, $4.36 million in the first year – a stiff price
for most public companies and a significant burden for small ones, particularly first time market entrants. Nearly open-ended
responsibility of auditors in complying with Section 404 has made an already consolidation-shriveled profession virtually
uninsurable for this work. Insufficiently coordinated state and federal enforcement laws and activities have led to state
authorities driving matters that are more national in scope. Improper criminalization of entire companies has sometimes
forced them out of business, eliminating thousands of innocent employees’ jobs. Private enforcement in the form of
securities law class action suits (which do not exist outside the U.S.) resulted in $150 million of liabilities in 1995. By 2004,
this had exploded to $3.5 billion – a figure that does not even include an additional $4.74 billion of penalties assessed by US
public enforcement bodies.

Regulation burdens businesses and cripples business confidence

Gary Banks, Chairman Productivity Commission, ‘03 “Reducing the business costs of regulation”,
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/7802/cs20030320.pdf
It is an established fact that the burden of regulation falls more heavily on small businesses; not because they are more heavily
regulated, but because they have the least capacity to cope. Operators or managers of smaller businesses are less likely to have
specialist staff with detailed knowledge of regulations or taxation matters. Regulations are more likely to be dealt with by
prime decision-makers, distracting them from their core role. The costs of such managerial diversion are very difficult to
assess, but are potentially large. The Small Business Deregulation Taskforce found that, among other things: • small businesses
often do not understand their compliance obligations; • unnecessary delays in processing and approvals, and duplication of
information requirements, were resulting in lost time; and • inconsistency in administrative interpretation can result in
uncertainty about processes and outcomes, which impact adversely on business confidence.

Strict regulations and taxes deter investment and decrease growth and jobs – Canada proves

The Fraser Institute, Canadian Economic Journal, 10/20/99. “Mining Policy: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly,”
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/1998/december/mining_policy.html

Most regions in Canada are blessed with a geology that is attractive for mining. Unfortunately, some of those same regions are
burdened with cumbersome, restrictive policies that reduce their overall investment attractiveness. If Canada wants to maintain a
healthy mining industry, it cannot afford to be complacent about its policy climate because countries around the world are now
competing to attract mining dollars to their jurisdictions. Anti-business policy climates deter investment, reduce economic growth, and
cost jobs. As some Canadian jurisdictions have determined, the formula for encouraging investment and prosperity is not complicated.
It does not require complex plans to create jobs and manage the economy. Rather, it requires eliminating onerous regulations,
simplifying permit processes so they are timely and efficient, lowering taxes, and eliminating uncertainty about expropriation without
compensation.

23
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Link – Regulations

Lowered taxes and regulations key to economy – CEOs agree

Chief Executive. 7/10/08. “CEOs Portray a Dismal Forecast for the U.S.,” PR Newswire, Lexis.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4174871779&format=GNBFI&so
rt=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4174871782&cisb=22_T4174871781&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8054&
docNo=14

MONTVALE, N.J., July 10 /PRNewswire/ -- With the economy overtaking Iraq as one of the main issues this election year, Chief
Executive magazine conducted a survey among CEOs between June 13 and June 27 in an effort to gauge CEO sentiment on the
direction of the U.S. economy. CEOs were asked which policy position they think the U.S. should take to increase or maintain
American competitiveness as well as questions on which countries will generate the highest number of jobs and where the top paying
jobs will be in the future.

An overwhelming majority of American CEOs believe that in order to create the highest paying jobs and maintain the U.S.' economic
competitiveness, the government needs to reduce taxes and regulation, privatize education and remove restrictions on trade.

Regulation causes businesses to fear litigation, shattering confidence


Glenn Hubbard, Dean of the Columbia School of Business, “REDUCING REGULATION AND LITIGATION
WHILE ENHANCING SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS WILL IMPROVE THE COMPETITIVENESS OF U.S.
CAPITAL MARKETS”, http://www.capmktsreg.org/pdfs/Summary_11.30interimreport.pdf, 2008

The evidence suggests that balance does need to be restored. A substantial portion of the erosion in U.S. markets global and
internal competitiveness – and the only factors over which U.S. policymakers have control – relates to insufficiently
coordinated, costly and/or excessive market regulation and enforcement, public and private.  Regulatory requirements for
complying with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act cost companies, on average, $4.36 million in the first year – a stiff price
for most public companies and a significant burden for small ones, particularly first time market entrants. Nearly open-ended
responsibility of auditors in complying with Section 404 has made an already consolidation-shriveled profession virtually
uninsurable for this work. Insufficiently coordinated state and federal enforcement laws and activities have led to state
authorities driving matters that are more national in scope. Improper criminalization of entire companies has sometimes
forced them out of business, eliminating thousands of innocent employees’ jobs. Private enforcement in the form of
securities law class action suits (which do not exist outside the U.S.) resulted in $150 million of liabilities in 1995. By 2004,
this had exploded to $3.5 billion – a figure that does not even include an additional $4.74 billion of penalties assessed by US
public enforcement bodies.

Regulation increases uncertainty about the profitability of a firm, deterring investment

Wayne Gray, Dept of Economics, Clark Univ, 1993, “ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION AND MANUFACTURING
PRODUCTIVITY AT THE PLANT LEVEL” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper Series, No. 4321, p.4.

Regulation may also increase the uncertainty faced by firms, affecting their decisions in a variety of ways. Viscusi (1983) discusses
the role of uncertainty about future regulations (and hence about the future profitability of the firm) in reducing a firm's investment, or
at least in postponing the investment until the uncertainty is resolved. Hoerger, Beamer, and Hanson (1983) point out that new
product development could be affected by uncertainty about future regulation of new products. Development of new production
processes could also be hindered by uncertainty about future regulations, as current regulatory requirements are generally designed
with existing production processes in mind.

24
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Link – Regulations

Environmental regulations cause companies to lose jobs, investment and output

Michael Greenstone, Dept Economics – MIT, 2002 [“The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: Evidence
from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of Manufactures,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 110, no. 6]
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/342808

This paper provides new evidence that environmental regulations re- strict industrial activity. I find that in the first 15 years after the
CAAAs became law (1972–87), nonattainment counties (relative to attainment ones) lost approximately 590,000 jobs, $37 billion in
capital stock, and $75 billion (1987 dollars) of output in polluting industries. Although these estimates are not derived from a
randomized experiment and therefore cannot meet a strict definition of causality, they provide robust evidence that these regulations
deter the growth of polluters. In the first place, the findings are derived from the most comprehensive data available on clean air
regulations and manufacturing activity. Second, the preferred statistical model for plant-level growth controls for all permanent plant
characteristics, unrestricted industry shocks, and un- restricted county shocks. Third, the effects are robust across a variety of
specifications. Finally, the regulation effects are evident across three different measures of manufacturing activity and a wide range of
pol- luting industries. The federal standards for ozone and particulates were tightened re- cently, causing a substantial increase in the
number of nonattainment counties.39 The balance of evidence from this paper suggests that the new nonattainment counties will
experience reductions in employment, investment, and shipments in polluting industries. To gain a clearer understanding of whether
it is worthwhile to incur the costs associated with these reductions, it is crucial to understand the regulations’ effec- tiveness at
cleaning the air and the benefits of cleaner air. Recent re- search finds that these policies are effective at reducing concentrations of
air pollution and that cleaner air, particularly reductions in TSPs, provides substantial monetary benefits to homeowners and reduced
in- fant mortality rates (Smith and Huang 1995; Henderson 1996; Chay and Greenstone 2000, 2002a, 2002b). Regardless of whether
these pol- icies pass or fail a cost-benefit test, this paper’s findings undermine the contention that environmental regulations are
costless or even benefi- cial for the regulated.

Government regulation causes investors to wait to invest – uncertain about the future of the laws and the company

Alain Verbeke, Director of MBA Studies - Solvay Business School, University of Brussels, 4 Dec 1998. [“Corporate strategies and
environmental regulations: an organizing framework,” Strategic Management Journal, Volume 19 Issue 4, Pages 363 – 375]

In our view, many firms at present fear a quadrant 1 scenario. They do not invest in developing green capabilities because of the high
uncertainty regarding leveraging effects associated with these investments. In many cases it is, for example, unclear ( a ) how
government regulation, both in terms of command and control regulations and market-based instruments will evolve over time, ( b )
to what extent the impact of ‘green consumerism’ will increase in terms of affecting purchasing decisions of buyers, ( c ) what the
industry standards and benchmarks will be in the area of environmental protection. This is consist- ent with Jaffe’s analysis, which
demonstrated the benefit of waiting to make irreversible invest- ments in clean technologies until better technol- ogies become
available ( Jaffe et al, 1995 ).

25
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Link – Regulations

Regulation undermines investment


Consumers' Research Magazine, August 1996, p.L/N. (BLUEOC1600)
Who Pays for All This? In general, the cost of regulating is initially expressed as a cost of doing business. Okay, but who pays this
tariff? We all do, in one way or another. Consider a standard situation in which a law requires certain practices to be followed in hiring
or procedures to be used to assure product quality. The former will raise costs by forcing employers to expand their job search and fill
out forms to prove compliance; the latter will raise costs by requiring changes in the production process. Sometimes, firms can pass
these costs to consumers, making them pay more; sometimes firms can't pass them along at all, so they will have lower profits, which
means that owners or shareholders foot the bill. But, often, employers pass these costs down the line with lower wages and salaries.
Other times, when costs cannot be directly passed off to employees, employers will respond by either hiring fewer people or laying off
those already employed. Either way, higher business costs from regulation will result in lower wages and/or higher unemployment.
Excessive regulation also discourages investment in domestic business: Why plop a factory down on regulated soil when unregulated
opportunities beckon abroad? Moreover, the threat of regulatory changes creates uncertainty, which scares investors, who then demand
higher returns, and tends to make planning horizons more short term. Further, regulation stymies innovation. This has been especially
true in the drug and medical-device industry. Long approval periods shorten the effective patent time for the results of expensive
research and development and thus diminish returns on discoveries without lowering risk. A larger gap between risk and return renders
many research and development projects too unprofitable to under take. And last, all of the above make it harder for domestic firms to
compete in international markets in which many foreign-based firms do not have to contend with the effects of excessive regulation.

Regulations drain the economy


David Schoenbrod, Professor, New York Law School, JOURNAL OF SMALL & EMERGING BUSINESS LAW, 2001, p. 108
(WFU197)
The weight of EPA's unnecessarily heavy hand falls primarily on us and our joy rather than on corporate fat cats and their purses.
Although the direct costs of EPA's requirements fall in the first instance on existing firms, those who pay the price in the end are
primarily ordinary people. For example, auto buyers, not auto manufacturers, pay most of the cost of emissions controls on new cars.
More generally, ordinary people pay for most of the direct costs of environmental pollution control by way of higher prices for goods,
higher taxes, and less pay. To the extent that the direct costs of pollution control are reflected in the bottom lines of corporations, most
of us are adversely affected anyway because so many of us now own shares of corporate stock, directly or through various pension
plans.

Regulation discourages entrepreneurship


James L. Huffman, Dean and Professor of Law, Northwestern School of Law of Lewis and Clark College; JOURNAL OF SMALL &
EMERGING BUSINESS LAW, Summer 2000, pp. 314-5 (WFU201)
Disparities in income and wealth are probably affected as well. One important opportunity for low income individuals to improve their
lot is through entrepreneurship and innovation. By definition, these entrepreneurs are capital poor, so they cannot afford even small
delays in advancing from idea to product or service. If entrepreneurship is discouraged by regulation, lower income individuals are left
to either hourly employment in the businesses of others or the largess of the state. Neither of these options holds the promise for
significant advancement or personal satisfaction that a successful business venture can provide.

Regulations reduce productivity


Frank Cross, Professor of Business Regulation, University of Texas, ECOLOGY LAW QUARTERLY, 1995, pp. 757-8 (WFU202)
Environmental rules may impair productivity in several discrete ways. By requiring capital investment, environmental regulations use
capital that might otherwise have been used for productivity enhancement. Environmental and occupational health and safety rules
may require manpower for monitoring thus reducing the workforce available for other more productive activities. Required changes in
operation may also reduce productivity. New plants tend to be more productive than older plants; however, environmental
requirements discourage the development of new plants because environmental requirements are consistently stricter for new sources.
In addition, "(r)iskier, longer term investment may be discouraged by uncertainties about the stringency. timing and applicability of
many regulations and by regulatory requirements for studies and permits that can introduce considerable delays between investment
and income."

26
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Link – Regulations
Legal brawls magnify costs of government mandates
Pietro Nivola, senior fellow in the Brookings Governmental Studies Program, Winter 1996, Brookings Review, p.20 (BLUEOC1603)
For Sheer contentiousness, however, the process of social regulation in the United States seems hard to top. It is not unusual for
decisions, buffeted by legal contestation, to remain in limbo for years. Regulated interests spend lavishly on lawyers and lobbyists.
Their machinations are met by the counter-suits and counter-lobbying of organized advocacy groups, frequently armed with statutory
private rights of action that few, if any, other governments would countenance. Caught in the middle of the legal brawls, not a few
dazed entrepreneurs wait indefinitely for the next shoe to drop before making desirable investments.

27
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Link – Finesregulations

Environmental fines threaten investors – unexpected losses for stockholders

Paul Lanoie, Development Director, HEC Montreal. 1/1/94. “The market response to environmental incidents in Canada: a theoretical
and empirical analysis.” Southern Economic Journal. Vol. 60, No. 3

Table III indicates that suit settlements with fines imposed on firms result in stockholders experiencing abnormal losses on day 0. Not
unexpectedly, this is true only for the two last subsamples of cases (cases with the same media exposure and Canadian cases with the
same media exposure) where abnormal losses of respectively 1.65% and 2% of market value are observed. This result is maintained
when we consider only the four firms for which we have both the announcement of the lawsuit and the suit settlement: they suffer
significant abnormal losses of 2.7% on the day of the announcement of the suit settlement and no loss when the lawsuit is
announced.(15) These results suggest that the size of fines, or the fact that there is a fine in itself, is an unexpected surprise for
shareholders. This is plausible in a legal context in which, as described above, fines TABULAR DATA OMITTED are the exception
rather than the rule. Interestingly, these results contrast with those of MRG who find abnormal losses on day 0 for lawsuits, but not for
suit settlements. This suggests that American environmental authorities have been more successful than their Canadian counterpart in
designing enforcement mechanisms in which a lawsuit can impose a credible threat on investors |17; 18~.

Investors are worried by the threat of penalties on polluters and their affect on future profits

Denis Cormier, Professor - Ecole des sciences de la gestion, and Michel Magnan, Lawrence Bloomberg Chair in Accountancy, John
Molson School of Business, Concordia University, 1997. [“Investors' assessment of implicit environmental liabilities: An empirical
investigation,” Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 16, 215-241

In recent years, individual and institutional investors have become increas- ingly concerned about corporate pollution. Their concerns
result from enhanced social awareness and a realization that a firm's environmental performance is likely to result in costly sanctions
or penalties which will affect its future financial performance. In such a context, traditional financial statements may not adequately
capture the financial conse- quences of a firm's environmental management. In addition, the level of disclosure in financial
statements may not be sufficient for stockholders and other stakeholders to reasonably assess a firm's environmental risk (Rubinstein
1989, pp. 30-34).

28
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano

Links- Mandates

Indirect costs of government mandates add large expenses


Richard Stewart, Prof. of Law, NYU, 1993, The Yale Law Journal, p.2083 (BLUEOC1604)
The dysfuntions of the relatively centralized, legalistic regulatory system in the U.S. have become more pronounced in this
ambitious second stage of regulation, which moves requirements further up industry's cost curves. Compliance outlays under
the U.S. regulatory system have increased rapidly and are projected to continue to grow at an accelerating pace. 218 Pollution
control outlays alone exceed $120 billion annually and are expected to rise to $185 billion by the end of the decade. 219 The
indirect costs of regulation in the U.S. may add a further 50% to such figures. 220 Perhaps even more important are the indirect
effects of the regulatory constraints, delays, and uncertainties, and the large and often unpredictable liability awards that
distinguish the U.S. system. 221

29
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano

Links- Emission Reductions

Studies on the Kyoto Protocol show that ANY method of reducing emissions would indiscriminately
annihilate key sectors of the economy
Raymond Keating, Chief Economist of the Small Business Survival Committee, June 4, 1998,
http://republicans.smbiz.house.gov/hearings/105th/1998/980604/keating.asp
On behalf of the Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC) and its more than 40,000 members across the nation, I appreciate the opportunity to offer the
following comments regarding the potential impact of the Kyoto Protocol, or "Global Warming Treaty," agreed to this past December by the Clinton Administration
in Kyoto, Japan. SBSC is an advocacy and information organization that supports policies which promote the survival and growth of the entrepreneurial sector of
our economy. As I will more fully explain in a moment, SBSC opposes the Global Warming Treaty for several reasons, but primarily due to the crushing
costs that would be imposed on businesses of all sizes and in practically all industries, as well as on consumers and the economy in general. As most
studies of the Global Warming Treaty indicate -- whether performed by private industry or by the Clinton Administration itself -- this treaty will be an
indiscriminate killer of businesses and jobs. And this will be the case no matter what the means utilized to reduce so-called "greenhouse gas emissions" --
primarily CO2 -- that is, whether through higher taxes, increased regulations, an emissions "cap and trade" system, or some combination of these options.
Like other Americans, we also have other concerns about this treaty, such as national security implications, the fact that it is based on, to be generous, debatable
science, the exclusion of "developing" nations, the foreign aid and transfer of wealth implications among nations, as well as the often secretive and at times
misleading methods used by the Clinton Administration in seeking to advance its global climate policies.

CO2 is the fuel of the global economy – reductions in emissions would devastate the economy
Lewis,
Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Bourne et. al, Director of the Energy and Environment Task Force, 2004
(Marlo and Sandy, http://www.cei.org/gencon/025,03801.cfm, Jan 9)
A study in the November 1, 2002 issue of Science magazine examined possible technology options that might be used in coming decades to stabilize atmospheric
CO2 concentrations.13 Such options include wind and solar energy, nuclear fission and fusion, biomass fuels, efficiency improvements, carbon sequestration, and
hydrogen fuel cells. The report found that, "All these approaches currently have severe deficiencies that limit their ability to stabilize global climate." It specifically
disagreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's assessment that, "known technological options could achieve a broad range of atmospheric CO2
stabilization levels, such as 550 ppm, 450 ppm or below over the next 100 years." As the study noted, world energy demand could triple by 2050. Yet, "Energy
sources that can produce 100 to 300 percent of present world power consumption without greenhouse emissions do not exist operationally or as pilot plants."
The bottom line: "CO2 is a combustion product vital to how civilization is powered; it cannot be regulated away." Given current and foreseeable technological
capabilities, any serious attempt to stabilize CO2 levels via regulation would be economically devastating and, thus, politically unsustainable.

Any meaningful reduction in carbon emissions would cause a protracted U.S. economic depression
Raymond Keating, Chief Economist of the Small Business Survival Committee, June 4, 1998,
http://republicans.smbiz.house.gov/hearings/105th/1998/980604/keating.asp
The author shows that altering the carbon/energy ratio or the development of new technologies will not come close to being enough to reduce carbon emissions.
Indeed, continued economic growth and capital stock renewal will ensure that carbon levels continue rising. The author notes only two avenues that will allow
the U.S. to meet its Kyoto Protocol goals: "A decline in GDP of about 4 percent per year would reduce the demand for energy and thereby carbon emissions
sufficient to achieve the Kyoto target. Alternatively, an increase in the price of energy of about 12 percent per year for a ten year period also would achieve the
Kyoto target. " He concludes: "Either of these changes would impose unacceptable costs on the American economy." To say the least. According to these
estimates, in effect, an extended U.S. economic depression would be necessary in order to meet Kyoto Protocol goals. * A DRI-McGraw Hill study by Dr.
Lawrence Horowitz found the following: * a $100 per ton carbon tax could lower emission levels close to 1990 levels by 2010 and would cost the economy
$203 billion annually in lost output; * $200 per ton carbon tax would be required to reduce emissions below 1990 levels, and would cost the economy $350
billion in lost products and services; * annual job losses from 1995 to 2010 under a $100 per ton carbon tax would hit 520,000, and would leap to 1.1
million annually under a $200 per ton carbon tax; * gasoline prices could jump by as much as 60 cents per gallon, and electricity costs could increase by 50
percent, and home heating oil by 50-100 percent. * Resources Data International Inc. (RDI) was retained last year by Peabody Holding Company Inc., reportedly
the world's largest private coal producer, to study the economic impact of a new global warming treaty. RDI estimated that a $100 per ton carbon tax imposed
in order to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels would: * limit the annual growth rate in the supply of electricity between 1995 and 2015 to0.83% from a
projected 1.45%; * place up to $1.314 trillion, or 14% of GDP, at risk in 2010 and up to $16.823 trillion cumulatively from 2005 to 2015. RDI estimates
that any kind of CO2 trading program would mimic the effects of a carbon tax, with the federal government collecting at least $133 billion annually.

The U.S. economy is dependent on fossil fuels – taking away carbon is like taking a guitar away from
Hendrix
Sebastian Oberthur, Senior fellow at Ecologic, and Hermann Ott, head of the climate policy division at the Wuppertal Institute, 1999
(The Kyoto Protocol: International Climate Change Policy for the 21st Century, p. 19)
Outweighing these positive forces is the country's pattern of economic and societal development, which has relied heavily on the
availability of low-price energy, making the US one of the most energy intensive economies in the OECD. As Steve Rayner put it, "the

30
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
history of US energy demand and the existing resources infrastructure and institutions make the US economy as dependent upon fossil
fuel as a heroin addict is on the needle".25 Because of the very high energy intensity associated with American technology and
lifestyles, low-costs means of saving energy and reducing GHG emissions are in fact abundant.21 Nevertheless, the perception
(furthered by some for obvious political reasons) that reducing C02 emissions would be exorbitantly costly has been comparatively
widespread in the US.

31
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano

Links- Regulations Cause Blackouts

Environmental regulations risk supply shortages and severe power outages


James M. Inhofe, R-OK and Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, May 12, 2004 (FDCH, “Hearing on Oil
and Gas Environmental Regulations” p. online)
In hopes to appear responsive to constituents, some members of Congress have suggested that we drastically alter the situation with respect to boutique fuels, or
gasoline blends produced to meet a particular need of a particular geographic area. Price volatility is a very real problem when there is a supply disruption.
Neighboring areas don't make the special blend so they are unable to meet the supply shortfall. However, given the experience of the proposed sulfur regulation
roll back, sweeping changes to our fuel policies without careful consideration and study can have detrimental price impacts for consumers. That's why I worked to
conclude carefully crafted study in H.R. 6, the House-Senate Conference report of the energy bill, to consider environmental and economic impacts of new fuels
policy. In this constrained market, we must consider the environmental and the economic more stringent -- environmental regulations means that refiners must
make environmental upgrades rather than increase capacity to meet consumer demand. The third chart is before you, but it's self-explanatory, but you don't just
have to take my word for it. The Energy Information Agency concluded that tighter product specification will result in increasing likelihood of outrageous
outages, diminishing yields in prime fuels.

Regulatory uncertainty discourages investment and causes power shortages


Doug Ose, Republican representative from California, April 8, 2003, http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/108h/87231.txt
We need to keep in mind that it takes years to propose, site, and build a power plant.Up and down the State, power plant construction is being delayed and companies
are scrapping plans to build more generation. Energy companies cite political and regulatory uncertainty as the principal obstacle to new
energy supply. Wall Street refuses to invest in such an unstable environment. Yet, experts predict that California will experience shortages
again in a few short years. It is, therefore, essential that we get on with the reform process in order to encourage investments in energy
generation and transmission. A stable marketplace, with clear, rational rules, is the only way to supply the lowest cost, most environmentally
clean energy that Californians deserve. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer.

32
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Link – Kills Investment
Taxes and regulations tank business confidence, decreasing investment

ICAEW (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales), 5-9-08, “Business confidence still fragile says ICAEW/Orange
UK survey”, http://www.icaew.com/index.cfm?route=135719
The latest ICAEW- Orange UK Business Confidence Monitor shows that while forecasts for GDP and profit growth have increased
this quarter, almost half of the finance professionals surveyed are worried about the growing burdens of tax and regulation, leading
them to invest less in the economy and so endanger long term prospects for economic growth. Despite rising profit forecasts for the
fourth quarter in a row (6.3 per cent), firms in the UK predict that they will increase their capital investment budgets at a lower rate
than they did over the past year, from 3.0 per cent last year, down to 2.2 per cent over the coming 12 months. This suggests that
businesses are not as confident about investing capital in the UK. Eric Anstee, Chief Executive of the ICAEW, said: “While the BCM
shows the economy is moving in the right direction, the longer term economic outlook looks fragile. A lack of business investment
could play an important role in weakening economic growth further down the road, especially if world economic imbalances start to
unravel. I would urge the Government to revisit its taxation and regulatory regimes to renew confidence among businesses of all sizes
which, despite higher profit growth expectations and rising confidence, remain nervous of further investment.”

Regulation decreases business investment and investor confidence and kills


competitiveness

Susan Lee writing for Consumers’ Research Magazine, Aug. 1996, “How Government Menaces Our Economic Health”, vol. 79
no. 8, pp. 16-17
Who Pays for All This? In general, the cost of regulating is initially expressed as a cost of doing business. Okay, but who pays this
tariff? We all do, in one way or another. Consider a standard situation in which a law requires certain practices to be followed in
hiring or procedures to be used to assure product quality. The former will raise costs by forcing employers to expand their job
search and fill out forms to prove comp1ianc the latter will raise costs by requiring changes in the production process. Sometimes,
firms can pass these costs to consumers, making them pay more; sometimes, firms can’t pass them along at all, so they will have
lower profits, which means that owners or shareholders foot the bill. But, often, employers pass these costs down the line with
lower wages and salaries. Other times, when costs cannot be directly passed off to employees, employers will respond by either
hiring fewer people or laying off those already employed. Either way, higher business costs from regulation will result in lower
wages and/or higher unemployment.
Excessive regulation also discourages investment in domestic business: Why plop a factory down on regulated soil when
unregulated opportunities beckon abroad? Moreover, the threat of regulatory changes creates uncertainty, which scares investors,
who then demand higher returns, and tends to make planning horizons more short term.
Further, regulation stymies innovation. This has been especially true in the drug ind medical- device industry. Long approval
periods shorten the effective patent time for the results of expensive research and development and thus diminish returns on
discoveries without lowering risk. A larger gap between risk and return renders many research and development projects too
unprofitable to undertake. And last, all of the above make it harder for domestic firms to compete in international markets in which
many foreign-based firms do not have to contend with the effects of excessive regulation.

Regulation hinders investment and growth

Tobias Madden, Regional Economist FedGazette, Fed Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Jan. ‘08 “Mixed bag for 2008”,
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/08-01/poll.cfm
The biggest challenges facing businesses are securing workers and complying with government regulation. “We have been in such
an incredibly tight labor market,” a Montana manufacturer said. Over half of all respondents expect a challenging time finding
workers. Leaders from the agricultural and retail sectors have the hardest time securing workers. About three-quarters of the
Dakota respondents expect finding workers as a challenge or a serious challenge, compared with only 23 percent of the
respondents from the U.P. About half of all respondents see government regulation as a challenge. The respondents from the
finance, insurance and real estate sector expect the toughest government regulation. “Regulation by state and national government
will hamper investment and growth seriously,” said a financial services respondent from the U.P.

33
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano

34
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Link – Kills Investment

Regulation hurts growth – limits innovation and diverts attention from key
areas

Freehills, 4-13-06, “Decreasing regulatory burden: An important opportunity for business”,


http://www.freehills.com.au/publications/publications_5768.asp
The taskforce recognised that excessive or inappropriate regulation acts impede economic growth. It limits the scope for
innovation, undermines entrepreneurial drive and reduces productivity and competition. The cost of such regulation affects
business, government and the community at large. In regard to the effect on business, in addition to the monetary cost, compliance
diverts management attention from a company’s core business.

35
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Regulations Kill Biz Con

Businesses fear environmental policy – regulations raise the price of their products

Patrick Bernhagen, Department of Politics and International Relations - University of Aberdeen, 8/15/05. “Business Political Power:
Economic Voting, Information Asymmetry, and Environmental Policy in 19 OECD Countries,”
http://convention2.allacademic.com/getfile.php?file=apsa05_proceeding/2005-10-06/40383/apsa05_proceeding_40383.pdf

For the purpose of empirically assessing the sources of business political influence, I focus on the area of environmental regulation.
Aiming to reduce negative externalities flowing from the actions of citizens and businesses, environmental regulation virtually always
has cost implications for business (Golub 1998, 1). At the macroeconomic level, environmental policy is blamed for reducing
industrial productivity (Christiansen and Haveman 1981). Increasing sensitivity to global economic compe- tition and budgetary
constraints makes governments wary of any form of regulation which might threaten economic growth, foreign investment, export
markets, and em- ployment creation. Regulations requiring firms to reduce emissions, increase recy- cling, pay more for energy, or
switch to more expensive fuels and input materials all raise the final price of their products, with the result that “green” states lose
markets to “dirty” states that lack similar environmental standards (Golub 1998, 4). This ar- gument is frequently hammered home by
business. Criticizing the British govern- ment’s target of a twenty-percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, for
example, the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Digby Jones, recently complained, “if our action is not
matched by similar efforts from the rest of the world, we will undermine the competitiveness of British companies for no real
environmental gain.” 2 Indeed, the CBI accepts that, to some degree, it has op- posed every one of approximately 250 EU
environmental directives passed. over the past twenty years. 3 To the extent that governments share this perception of the
environment-competitiveness nexus, they are induced to engage in a ‘race to the bot- tom’ or ‘ecological dumping’ (Golub 1998, 4).

36
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Link - Litigation
Hawkish lawyers make government regulation a unique arena for increased
litigation

Lisa Rickard, Prez U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, 2007, “Trial lawyers storm capitol”,
http://thehill.com/letters/clean-reliable-cost-effective-nuclear-power-none-of-these-2007-10-05.html
America needs more lawsuits. That’s the message hundreds of plaintiffs’ trial lawyers from across the country have taken to
Capitol Hill this week in lobbying Congress to make it easier to bring more lawsuits. It isn’t surprising. The plaintiffs’ bar has
been chomping at the bit since last November’s elections. “We are going to get things done,” declared the treasurer of the
Association of Trial Lawyers of America at the time. (They’ve since changed their name to the “American Association for
Justice.”) One thing that you can say for the plaintiffs’ trial lawyers association: They haven’t disappointed their members.
They’ve been working hard. No bill has been too big or too small not to slip in a liability-expanding provision. Passing the farm
bill? Invalidate arbitration agreements in meat-packer and producer contracts, so that more business disputes become lawsuits. Or,
better yet, why don’t we outlaw arbitration in all contracts so that the only realistic way to resolve disputes is with a lawsuit?
Reauthorizing Food and Drug Administration funding? Perfect opportunity to take away the federal government’s uniform
consumer protection powers and allow for 50 different sets of food and drug laws — and while they’re at it, open the door to
thousands of state lawsuits for years to come. Or how about a bill funding the war on terror? Why don’t we allow each state to
enact its own set of security laws and regulations? The more sets of confusing government regulations, the more the likelihood
of lawsuits. At every turn, the plaintiffs’ trial lawyers are looking to cash in on Capitol Hill. They’ve bragged to their membership
that their political donations helped to elect this Congress. Now they want a return favor, asking for plaintiffs’ trial lawyer
earmarks that give them the ability to bring more lawsuits.

Costs of litigation kills competitiveness and domestic investment


Robert A. Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Lee Axelrad, senior research
associate with the UC Berkeley Center for the Study of Law & Society ’97, “Adversarial Legalism: International Perspective” in
“Comparative Disadvantages? Social Regulations and the Global Economy” Ed. Pietro S. Nivola. Published by Brookings Institute
Press, pp. 187
The impact of higher liability and legal costs can be more pronounced for particular industries. Here the key question is
whether the higher costs fall on inputs or on product design. Ignore the exact magnitudes, just worry about getting the signs
right. Input costs might be higher for certain U.S. industries because of various regulations or liability-related costs. And
regardless of whether the higher costs are offset by social benefits, they hurt U.S. exports abroad, while also making it easier
for foreigners to sell their goods in America (though foreign-owned businesses in the United States presumably do not get this
advantage unless they are screwdriver plants, which purchase all their basic inputs abroad).

Economic costs of litigation outweigh any possible benefit to environmental


protection

Robert A. Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Lee Axelrad, senior research
associate with the UC Berkeley Center for the Study of Law & Society ’97, “Adversarial Legalism: International Perspective” in
“Comparative Disadvantages? Social Regulations and the Global Economy” Ed. Pietro S. Nivola. Published by Brookings Institute
Press, pp. 163
It seems reasonably clear that U.S. adversarial legalism generates higher costs than do some alternative modes of governance.
Yet there is little evidence in the policy areas covered by our research that the higher expenditures imposed by the system yield
better environmental protection, more safety, and so on than the results that prevail in other sophisticated democracies In other
words, our comparative interviews with corporate officials suggest that a significant share of the costs of U.S. adversarial
legalism is not fully offset by its benefits. We proceed by identifying several categories of such costs, then by reviewing the
comparative literature on the subject and reporting conclusions from our interviews with multinational enterprises. At the end
we return to the question of whether adversarial legalism confers adequate compensatory benefits.

37
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Link - Litigation

Litigation kills investor confidence – trials damage the image of companies

David Cid, President of Salus International, '3. Interviewed by Wanja Eric Naef http://www.iwar.org.uk/infocon /espionage-cid.htm

The first line of defence is really protection. Once you have to go to the United States Attorney's Office and say someone stole this
information from us the damage has already been done. So the EEA provides a disincentive for someone to do that, but it really does
not help the company per se. The criminal courts are the kinds of places where you are not made whole, you simply punish the person
who did something bad. On the civil side there is the possibility of recovering damages and you may recoup monetarily, but again the
process of litigation takes forever, it is embarrassing to the company and it can cause loss of faith of stockholders and other investors.
So, there is really nothing good about having a serious information compromise. The EEA is an important facet of our society's
response to this sort of thing, but it is really not a solution and it is really not the best option available to a company. Once you need to
go to criminal trial you have already been seriously damaged.

Environmental litigation hurts business equity – deters investment

Paul Lanoie, Development Director, HEC Montreal. 1/1/94. “The market response to environmental incidents in Canada: a theoretical
and empirical analysis.” Southern Economic Journal. Vol. 60, No. 3

There is a growing concern that regulations that promote safety (e.g., automobile safety and product safety) may have little impact on
the level of risk associated with the utilization of such products |21; 29~. A similar concern has been recently raised with respect to
regulations that promote safety in the workplace |12~. A reason often advocated to explain this phenomenon is the lack of adequate
enforcement mechanisms. In particular, it is often argued that fines imposed on agents not complying with these regulations are not
severe enough to have a deterrence effect |30~. With respect to the enforcement of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act (R.S.O.
1980, c. 141), Saxe writes that "the majority of fines were too low to act as effective deterrents" |23, 104~. However, some authors
have challenged this view in showing that the market provides additional monetary incentives for firms to comply with the regulations
by punishing non-complying firms through lower stock market prices. For example, some analyses have shown that public
announcements of lawsuits against American firms not complying with workplace safety |8~, product safety |31~ and environmental
regulations |19~ have caused significant drops of the equity value of these firms. In this last study, it was found that the announcement
of lawsuits against firms violating the American Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA 1976) had a significant negative
impact on their equity value on the day of the announcement, while announcements of suit settlements (e.g., fines) had no effect. In
most studies, authors argue that the reductions in stock prices have some deterrence effect on firms.

Litigation kills investor and consumer confidence

Anthony Q. Fletcher, A.B. Columbia U, ‘95 “Curing Crib Death: Emerging Growth Companies, Nuisance Suits, And
Congressional Proposals for Securities Litigation Reform”, Harvard Journal on Legislation
32 Harv. J. on Legis.
Third, litigation raises the potential of irreparable harm to a company’s reputation. In fact, consumer attitudes may be so adversely
affected upon the initiation of a class action shareholder suit that some consumers may begin to view a particular product and its
entire industry negatively.47 Since most consumer purchases involve potential repeat customers, a class action suit may
significantly stifle future revenues.48 Litigation has the potential to damage a company’s reputation, and consequently may deter
both consumer and investor interest.

38
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Link - Litigation

Pollution management causes huge shareholder losses – companies held accountable for all cleanup costs and become more
susceptible to future lawsuits

Michael Muoghalu, Director of MBA Program, Pittsburgh State University. 10/90. “Hazardous Waste Lawsuits, Stockholder Returns,
and Deterrence,” Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 57 Issue 2, p357

Table II presents the return information for the Pollution Management, Others, and Petrochemical industry subsamples. Pollution
Management firms suffer the largest shareholder losses, 6.249 percent (z = -6.716). The large losses are not surprising for a number of
reasons. First, under the Superfund Act, Pollution Management firms can be held liable for all cleanup costs at dump sites they
control, even if they generate none of the waste products. Second, a lawsuit at one location may increase the probability of additional
lawsuits by increasing regulatory and public awareness of the firm’s practices. Third, the increased awareness of the firm’s practices
may cause client firms, fearing a joint liability, to seek other disposal options. Another possible factor in explaining the abnormal
returns is the small size (in terms of assets, market values, and cash flows) of Pollution Management firms relative to other firms in
the study.

39
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Link – Permits
Carbon rationing hurts consumers – will be excluded from permit feeding frenzy

Brian Mannix, associate administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation,
10/9/03. “A Mountain of Money,” http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/energy/mountain-of-money.pdf

Once rationing is imposed and the price of energy goes up, there will be many more claimants getting in line. Can the government
refuse to give C-rations to schools? To hospitals? To the armed forces? To local police departments? To mass transit? To
manufacturers facing foreign competition? The average consumer will have no place in this contest, except as a victim. The politics
of carbon rationing cannot be understood by looking just at theories of climate change or at the serious economic losses that rationing
would cause. Rationing will extract tens to hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue per yearfrom consumers, and the fate of that
revenue is what will drive political decisions. Advocates of rationing argue that we should start a program with modest goals. But
once a feeding frenzy for C-rations begins, modesty, and restraint will be very scarce indeed.

40
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Links: Cap and Trade

Emissions caps slow economic growth


Coon, Senior Policy Analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, 2004(Charli E., “As Reliable as the
Groundhog: Kyoto’s Proponents Are Back,” 7/18,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm530.cfm?renderforprint=1
Likewise, Charles River Associates (CRA), an economics, finance, and business consulting firm, analyzed the proposal (PDF link) and found that imposing an
emissions cap equal to 2000-level emissions in perpetuity would increase the cost of residential electricity by over 19 percent and raise gasoline prices 14
percent by 2020. In addition, natural gas and electricity prices for industry would increase by 32 percent and 43 percent, respectively, by 2020. The CRA study
also shows that the purchasing power of the typical household (2.6 members and an income of $49,000) would erode by over $600 in 2010 and by $1,000 in
2020. More disturbingly, however, CRA notes that the cost burdens associated with this proposal would fall most heavily on the poor and elderly. CRA data
show that the poorest 20 percent of households would have to bear energy cost increases 64 percent larger than the highest income households. The elderly
would have to bear cost increases 15 percent higher than those under age 65. Additionally, CRA projects that higher energy prices would cost 39,000 jobs by
2010 and 190,000 jobs by 2020. Finally, CRA projects that all industries would suffer losses in production. For example, coal production, electricity
generation, and oil refining would decline by 57 percent, 7.9 percent, and 8.8 percent, respectively, by 2020. Non-energy sectors that are dependent on energy,
chemicals, and steel would be the hardest hit. CRA estimates that, collectively, production from energy-intensive industries would decline $70 to $160 billion
by 2020.

Emissions caps slow economic growth


Coon, Senior Policy Analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, 2004 (Charli E., “As Reliable as the
Groundhog: Kyoto’s Proponents Are Back,” 7/18
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm530.cfm?renderforprint=1
Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) may try to attach an amended version of last year’s Climate
Stewardship Act of 2003 (S. 139) to the class-action lawsuit bill that is being debated in the Senate this week or to another legislative
vehicle. Studies show that this energy-suppressing proposal, whether in its original version or in its amended form, would have an
adverse impact on the nation’s economy. It would increase the cost of energy for consumers, impact job creation, and slow the nation’s
economic growth. For these reasons alone, Congress should continue to reject attempts to impose caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

Binding emission caps will cripple a critical sector of US economy and exports and causing massive job
outsourcing
Stone chairman, president and CEO of Stone Container Co. ’98 – Roger “A Call for Common Sense” Global Climate Change, A senior Level
Debate at the Intersection of Economics, Strategy, Technology, Science, Politics, and International Negotiation p. 141
As we all know, the first UN Framework Convention on Climate Change issued a call on the developed nations to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gases to
1990 levels by the year 2000. As I understand it, the current U.S. position now calls for mandated emissions reduction targets and timetables; we heard that today.
This would be accomplished primarily, I think, by setting a cap on energy consumption and may also lead to new taxes on both energy and carbon emissions
as well as impose excessive energy efficiency standards and perhaps severely re strict the way we manage our nation’s working forests. Massive changes
such as these could permanently cripple our pulp and paper industry. A carbon tax could increase our direct costs by as much as 150 percent over the next
eighteen years and raise manufacturing costs by up to 14 percent. And if credit is not given to the use of biomass fuels, manufacturing costs could rise as much as
30 percent. Indirect costs would probably be higher than that 30 percent number. I don’t think it takes a scientist or a Kellogg School graduate to understand the
impact of a 30 percent hike in manufacturing costs. Paper mills could permanently close, thousands of jobs would probably be lost, and our position as the
world’s leading paper producer would surely deteriorate, if not vanish.
As an industry, paper’s payroll is about $26 billion a year, and we ex port goods worth more than $11.5 billion. In fact, our exports represent more than 2 percent of
all U.S. exports. From our perspective it would be just plain silly to jeopardize all of this based on a theory founded on poor or inexact science or someone’s
complex social or environmental agenda, using the false issue of climate change. What’s worse is that the jobs lost in the United States—and I think this is
referred to as some thing that has to be negotiated—will move to the developing nations that are aggressively expanding their pulp and paper capacity,
nations such as Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Brazil. These countries are not a part of the climate change equation as I understand it. And this means
that, at the moment, they are not required to reduce their CO emissions, nor do they subscribe to the practice of sustainable forestry. They are free to cut
their virgin tropical or rain forests at unsustainable levels. So what would the net effect of all this be? Well, the way we see it is that it will lead to an
increase in CO emissions on a worldwide basis and a loss of forests rich in biodiversity. Clearly this is not a level playing field, and we see no
environmental benefit in this scenario. In my opinion the loss of thousands of jobs to overseas countries that follow no environmental standard, frankly, is
absurd.

41
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Links: Cap and Trade

Binding emissions reductions would devastate six U.S. industries critical to the global economy: paper,
iron and steel manufacturing, petroleum refining, aluminum, chemical and cement manufacturing
Mulchay executive vice president and CEO of Northern Indiana Public Service Company ’98 – Patrick “The Importance of
Flexibility Implemented Through Voluntary Commitments to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions” Global Climate Change, A senior
Level Debate at the Intersection of Economics, Strategy, Technology, Science, Politics, and International Negotiation p. 87-8
A U.S. Department of Energy study analyzed the potential economic impacts of increased energy prices on energy-intensive
industries, assuming that new greenhouse gas control policies will constrain only industrialized countries and that any
emissions control mechanism—from new energy taxes to emissions standards and tradable emissions permits—will drive up
energy costs to some degree. According to the study, rising energy prices driven by new climate commitments could have a
crushing effect on six U.S. industries: paper and allied products, iron and steel manufacturing, petroleum refining, aluminum
production, chemical manufacturing, and cement manufacturing. Increased energy costs from emissions mandates could
devastate the U.S. steel industry (which has already invested heavily in energy efficiency and pollution control technologies),
without bringing a significant de crease in worldwide energy-related emissions from steelmaking. Production will simply be
shifted to developing countries and may possibly lead to higher levels of overall pollution due to lower standards in those
countries. This issue highlights the necessity for the thoughtful application of binding agreements for all nations—developing
and developed. Energy costs account for approximately one-third of the cost of making steel. Almost half of the electricity
NIPSCO generates is de livered to the steel industry. Steelmaking facilities in northern Indiana have invested substantially in
the past decade to improve their efficiency, both in production and in energy use. Primary Energy, a subsidiary of NIPSCO
Industries, is developing cogeneration projects with several of our steelmaking customers. These projects will contribute
significantly to NIPSCO’s greenhouse gas reductions. In 1998 three Primary Energy cogeneration projects will go on-line at
Inland, U.S. Steel, and National Steel, displacing nearly one million metric tons of NIPSCO’s carbon dioxide emissions.
Sensible decision making on the greenhouse gas issue should involve a careful balancing of costs and benefits. However, this is
complicated by the global effects of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, the long-term consequences and short-
term costs associated with the issue, and the global economy and tension between developed and developing nations.

Cap-and-trade deters investment – investors fear unstable prices


LA Times, 5/28/07. “Time to tax carbon,” http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-carbontax28may28,0,2888366.story?coll=la-
opinion-leftrail

Cap-and-trade would also have a nasty effect on consumers’ power bills. Say there’s a very hot summer week in California. Utilities
would have to shovel more coal to produce more juice, causing their emissions to rise sharply. To offset the carbon, they would have
to buy more credits, and the heavy demand would cause credit prices to skyrocket. The utilities would then pass those costs on to their
customers, meaning that power bills might vary sharply from one month to the next.

That kind of price volatility, which has been endemic to both the American and European cap-and-trade systems, doesn’t just hurt
consumers. It actually discourages innovation, because in times when power demand is low, power costs are low, and there is little
incentive to come up with cleaner technologies. Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists prefer stable prices so they can calculate
whether they can make enough money by building a solar-powered mousetrap to make up for the cost of producing it.

42
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Litigation Kills Invest Con

Litigation kills investor confidence

David Cid, President of Salus International, '03 (http://www.iwar.org.uk/infocon /espionage-cid.htm


The first line of defence is really protection. Once you have to go to the United States Attorney's Office and say someone stole this
information from us the damage has already been done. So the EEA provides a disincentive for someone to do that, but it really
does not help the company per se. The criminal courts are the kinds of places where you are not made whole, you simply punish
the person who did something bad. On the civil side there is the possibility of recovering damages and you may recoup monetarily,
but again the process of litigation takes forever, it is embarrassing to the company and it can cause loss of faith of stockholders and
other investors. So, there is really nothing good about having a serious information compromise. The EEA is an important facet of
our society's response to this sort of thing, but it is really not a solution and it is really not the best option available to a company.
Once you need to go to criminal trial you have already been seriously damaged.

Litigation causes a negative market reaction – automobile liability proves

DANIEL TINKELMAN, Assoc. Prof – Accounting, Pace University, Et al, 2007. “Using the Event Study Methodology to Measure
the Social Costs of Litigation - A Re Examination Using Cases from the Automobile Industry.” Review of Law & Economics, Vol. 3
Issue 2, p1-42. (co-authored by: SURESH GOVINDARAJ, associate prof - Accounting, Business Ethics & Information Systems, State
University of New Jersey and PICHENG LEE, associate prof – Accounting, Pace University)

In a comprehensive study extending prior research, Prince and Rubin (2002) use the event study methodology, and find negative
market reaction to a sample of 15 initial filings of product liability litigation and 29 other litigation events against U.S. automakers
between 1973 and 1995. They conclude that the event study methodology is a useful way to measure the costs of litigation. In
contrast, after examination of a new sample of 144 initial filing events and 465 other litigation events for six major automobile firms
from 1985 to 2000, and after re-examining Prince and Rubin’s data, we find that the market reaction to all but the most extreme and
infrequent events is generally not significant. We suggest that the event study methodology may not generally be useful to study the
social costs of litigation, but may be useful for unexpected abnormal litigation events where the potential liabilities (including
reputation and other losses triggered by litigation) may far exceed the legal liability reserves set up by firms. We find mixed results
for the market impact of litigation against a competitor. When a product liability lawsuit is first filed against a U.S. firm, the market
values of the Japanese firms significantly decline. When a Japanese firm is sued for product liability, the U.S. firms register a
significant increase in market value. However, these spillover results have to be interpreted with caution because of small sample
sizes and possible confounding events.

43
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Regulations Kill FDI

Environmental regulations stifle foreign investment – statistical evidence


Yuquing Xing, professor of economics at Graduate School of International Relations, International University of Japan, 4/18/01, “Do
Lax Environmental Regulations Attract Foreign Investment?” Environmental and Resource Economics, ,
http://www.springerlink.com/index/3JUUUG48YY29QHMU.pdf

The statistical evidence suggests that there exists a significant negative linear relationship between FDI of the US chemical and metal
industries and the strin- gency of environmental regulation in a foreign host country. In general, lax environmental policy tends to
attract more capital inflow from the US for pollu- tion intensive industries. Viewed differently, tough environmental regulations
would tend to impede or discourage FDI from these industries. Since chemicals and primary metals are probably the most polluting of
all industries, this result may have implications for the relationship between environmental regulations and capital movements for
other polluting industries. Also, this finding provides indirect support to the “pollution haven” hypothesis, which postulates that
devel- oping countries may utilize lenient environmental regulations as a strategy to compete for the investment of polluting industry
from developed countries. This result is strengthened by our inability to find a similar effect for other sectors for which pollution is
less of a problem – electrical and non-electrical machinery, transportation equipment and food products.

Foreign investment has empirically decreased because of strict regulations and taxes

Department of the Treasury, 5/10/07. “An Open Economy is Vital to United States Prosperity,”
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp395.htm

At $1.9 trillion, the total stock of FDI in the United States in 2005 was equivalent to 15% of U.S. GDP. Foreign investment in the
U.S. is the ultimate vote of confidence in our economy. It signals a long-term belief in the strength of our markets and the skill of our
workforce.
*
In the last few years, the United States has not received as high a share of total worldwide FDI as it did before 2000. This trend
could be due to the growth of opportunities in emerging markets, burdensome U.S. legal, regulatory and corporate tax regimes, or the
misperception that the United States is no longer open to foreign direct investments.

44
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano

Biz Con s/o - Tech

Changes in technology spill over to all sectors and globally – financial integration means news spreads quickly

Thomas Dalsgaard et al, Principal Administrator - Economics Department of the OECD, 2002. “ONGOING CHANGES IN THE
BUSINESS CYCLE – EVIDENCE AND CAUSES,” Société Universitaire Européenne de Recherches Financières,
http://www.suerf.org/download/studies/study20.pdf

There may be a number of causes behind increased share price correlations across countries. Financial integration and reduced
divergencies in macroeconomic policies are examples with repercussions throughout the economies. Others relate to global
developments in individual sectors driving correlations. An example could be technological change. In this case, increased cross-
country correlations would be driven by the sectors where such common technological change took place. Thus, the news driving
share price co-movements would tend to be industry-specific and increased aggregate correlation across countries would be the result
of increasingly correlated news in some industries. In the alternative case of economy-wide developments driving share price
correlations, the news driving increased correlation should be spread over all industries. Conditional variances of share price returns
may be considered aproxy indicator of risk, which again is affected by the arrival of new information. Thus, if conditional variances
have become more highly correlated in some sectors but not in others, this may suggest that the news driving share prices in the
former sectors have had amore global character, possibly as aresult of common technological developments. To shed light on this,
time-varying conditional variances of equity returns have been estimated for the G7 countries using aGARCH technique. Bilateral
correlations of conditional variances have subsequently been calculated for country pairs and the averages taken over all such country
pairs. This has been done for two sub-periods since 1973 and for anumber of sectors (Table 3). The results indicate an increased
correlation of total market volatility (or risk) driven, in particular, by the ITsector and more generally TMTshares (note that non-
cyclical services include the Telecom industry) as well as the financial sector. Given that major technological breakthroughs, product
developments and internationalisation have taken place in the TMTand financial sectors (where considerable deregulation and
liberalisation has taken place since early and mid 1980s) it is perhaps not surprising that the shocks affecting these industries transmit
more globally. Also, in light of the “new economy”, the results seem to be consistent with the hypothesis that common technology
shocks, spurred by rapid expansion of information and communication technology, may have been the main driving force in
concurrent asset price developments across borders.

45
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Biz Con Spillover – Domestic
Declines in biz and consumer con act as downside risks to the broader
economy – decrease demand

Commonwealth Budget ’02, “Statement 3: Economic Outlook”, http://www.budget.gov.au/2001-02/papers/bp1/html/bs3-


03.htm
From a domestic perspective, a key uncertainty relates to the possibility that the recent downward trend in business and
consumer sentiment is sustained over coming quarters. While the relationship between business and consumer sentiment
measures and actual growth outcomes can be loose, if the recent falls in these measures were sustained there may be downside
risk to the forecasts for business investment and consumption. On the other hand, there is a possibility that the lower dollar and
lower interest rates will provide a greater stimulus to economic growth than has been incorporated into the forecasts. There is
also the potential for stronger than forecast investment and consumption in 2001-02 if business and consumer confidence were
to rebound sharply from their current levels. The dwelling sector is expected to rebound strongly in 2001-02, although, there is
a greater than normal degree of uncertainty surrounding the timing and extent of this recovery. In particular, while the
Government's more generous First Home Owners Scheme and the recent reductions in interest rates should provide a
significant boost to activity in the sector, the timing and magnitude of this boost is difficult to assess. The key international
uncertainty is how the US economy will evolve over the next few quarters. The most likely outcome is that growth will slow in
the first half of 2001 as excess inventories are unwound and excess capacity is pared back, but will pick up quickly once the
adjustment is complete. In this case the impact on the rest of the world would be relatively mild and transitory. However, if
falls in consumer and business confidence were to translate into weaker demand then the deterioration in confidence would
likely become self-reinforcing and the outcome would be a deeper and more prolonged period of weakness than currently
envisaged.

Biz con spills over to other sectors

Contractor ‘6, “London IT firms 'the most attractive in Europe'”, http://www.contractoruk.com/news/002968.html


Asked yesterday about the prosperity of London-based IT firms, the Federation of Small Businesses said the confidence in the
sector could create a positive overspill. Said FSB spokesman Simon Briault: “Optimism in one small business sector can often
spill over into other areas, so this is potentially good news for all small businesses.”

46
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Biz Con Spillover - Global

Globalization means U.S. biz con spills over – effects other nations’ growth

F&D (Finance & Development, a quarterly mag of the IMF), 2005, “Economic Spillovers”, September 2005, Volume 42, Number 3
But just how large is the impact of external economic conditions on a country’s growth? And as the world economy becomes
more integrated, has the importance of growth spillovers increased? We undertook three studies to try to answer these
questions. One study analyzed trade-related growth spillover in over 100 industrial and developing countries. The other two
studies sought to assess the impact of the United States and South Africa on the growth of other countries. Our results show
that economic conditions in trading partners do in fact matter significantly for growth. After controlling for other growth
determinants, we found that a country’s economic growth is positively influenced by both the growth rate and relative income
level of its trading partners. Our findings also suggest that countries benefit relatively more if their trading partners grow faster
than they themselves do and are richer. And we found evidence that some countries are indeed engines of global or regional
growth: the impact of the United States is significant in many countries around the world, and South Africa matters for
economic growth in the rest of Africa. In all three cases, we found the estimated impact of growth spillovers to be relatively
large. It has been larger in recent decades and for open economies, implying that international spillover effects may increase in
importance as globalization continues. What theory tells us Economic conditions abroad—including growth rates and income
levels—are thought to influence a country’s growth through several channels. * The most obvious channel is trade linkages:
a rise in trading partners’ growth leads to an increase in their demand for imports, which then contributes directly to an increase
in the net exports of the home country. And the positive implications of trade for economic growth are not limited to countries
that run surpluses, since countries can benefit from technology transfers and other efficiency gains associated with international
trade (Coe and Helpman, 1995). * With growing foreign direct and portfolio investment, the spillover effects of trading
partners may also be transmitted through financial linkages. * Finally, there may be indirect effects, with business and
consumer confidence in major countries influencing confidence in other countries.

Growth of world econ tied to U.S. biz con and consumer con

UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe), ’02, “2002 - United States: leading the global recovery
Western Europe: moderate growth prospects”, http://www.unece.org/press/pr2002/02gen12e.htm
"An important risk to the forecast recovery in Europe and other regions of the world economy is its dependence on a sustained
and gradually strengthening expansion of domestic demand in the United States," said Mrs. Schmögnerová. This is expected to
stimulate domestic activity in the rest of the world, including Europe, via exports and the spillover effects from increasing
business and consumer confidence in the United States.

The internationalization of the market means business confidence spills over globally

Thomas Dalsgaard et al, Principal Administrator - Economics Department of the OECD, 2002. “ONGOING CHANGES IN THE
BUSINESS CYCLE – EVIDENCE AND CAUSES,” Société Universitaire Européenne de Recherches Financières,
http://www.suerf.org/download/studies/study20.pdf

A further, much more speculative, channel for greater synchronisation is the internationalisation of enterprises – over and above the
effect it may have on synchronisation of share prices as discussed in Box 4. For example, to the extent enterprises are multinational,
the need to retrench because of developments in one market may cause cut-backs in activities in other countries, and viceversain case
of buoyant conditions.38 It is difficult to get apicture of the potential importance of such effects. However, foreign direct investment
flows have expanded strongly in recent years pointing to apotentially rising influence of this channel (Figure 22). The transmission
of cyclical fluctuations over time may conceivably also be affected by “soft” factors such as confidence. Even if more tangible
influences such as linkages viatrade and asset prices may determine the overall magnitude of international transmission, its timing
could well be influenced by confidence. Indeed, over the decade of the 1990sthere has been avery high correlation between
indicators of business confidence and share prices in many countries, notably the United States. Although causality remains
uncertain, this may conceivably have speeded up the impact of share price developments by directly affecting the “animal spirits” of

47
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
investors. Nevertheless, despite closer correlation of equity returns over the last two decades, it is not obvious that cross-country
correlations of confidence indicators have increased in any systematic manner.

48
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
AT: Regulations Help Businesses

Even if regulations don’t hurt businesses, firms will overreact – they will ignore any benefits

Patrick Bernhagen, Department of Politics and International Relations - University of Aberdeen, 8/15/05. “Business Political Power:
Economic Voting, Information Asymmetry, and Environmental Policy in 19 OECD Countries,”
http://convention2.allacademic.com/getfile.php?file=apsa05_proceeding/2005-10-06/40383/apsa05_proceeding_40383.pdf

The negative link between environmental protection and economic performance is neither clear nor undisputed. While environmental
pioneers may suffer short-term economic disadvantages in international competition, early movers in the area of environmental
protection will be at an advantage in competition for innovative technologies (J?nicke 1992, 52). At the level of the individual firm,
however, no matter what society-wide benefits and even the long-term benefits to the firm there may be, envi- ronmental policies add
considerable compliance costs to firms. This may lead to cut- backs in research and development efforts, limit the innovative efforts of
firms, or even endanger their general profitability. As a result, firms will generally tend to em- phasize the costs of environmental
policy, while underestimating the benefits and op- pose environmental policy which they perceive to place them at a competitive
disad- vantage. Exceptions are cases where firms can achieve protectionist benefits through stricter environmental policies. In
practice, however, these are rather rare (Murphy 2004)

49
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Flight Bad – Econ/Environment

Industrial flight hurts the economy and can’t solve pollution – businesses will just move to laxer countries

Yuquing Xing, professor of economics at Graduate School of International Relations, International University of Japan, 4/18/01, “Do
Lax Environmental Regulations Attract Foreign Investment?” Environmental and Resource Economics, ,
http://www.springerlink.com/index/3JUUUG48YY29QHMU.pdf

To correctly interpret our findings, one should keep in mind that the environ- mental variable is only one of the determinants of the
FDI. Our empirical study only identifies the impact of environmental regulations on capital outflows and reveals the role of
environmental regulations in the decision-making of the FDI of polluting industries. It would not be appropriate to conclude that
environ- mental regulation alone can decide the direction of FDI flow for a polluting industry. We have no convincing evidence that
the environmental variable domi- nates other determinants in the process of determining FDI of a polluting industry. However, to the
extent that the environmental policy gap between developing and developed countries widens, more capital investment associated
with polluting industries can be expected to flow to countries with lax environmental regulation. This could result in a significant
migration of polluting industry to “pollution havens”. The flight of polluting industries may cause economic problems such as
unemployment in the short run for the country exporting capital, and may also expedite environment degradation of host countries. In
addition, the migra- tion of polluting industries only changes the geographic location of pollution generation. If the pollution is
undepleted and can spill over borders (via rivers, aquifers, precipitation or air movement), the reduction of the pollution at the
country with strict environmental regulations may be at least partially offset by an increase in pollution in other countries. Thus the
free mobility of capital asso- ciated with polluting industries may undermine noncooperative efforts at pollution control.

50
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
AT: No Flight

Skeptics of industrial flight are wrong – their studies focus on goods flow, not capital flow

Yuquing Xing, professor of economics at Graduate School of International Relations, International University of Japan, 4/18/01, “Do
Lax Environmental Regulations Attract Foreign Investment?” Environmental and Resource Economics, ,
http://www.springerlink.com/index/3JUUUG48YY29QHMU.pdf

An alternative view, without as much theoretical justification, is that environ- mental regulations have no effect on plant location. The
basic argument is either that cost effects are so small as to be negligible or that increased environ- mental quality is reflected in
reduced employee compensation. Without regulation, employees would have to be paid more to live and work in polluted conditions.
Thus in equilibrium, the total costs will be the same. Using the later argument, one would still expect to see particularly polluting
industries moving to loca- tions endowed with a clean environment (perhaps temporarily) and with weaker environmental
regulations. The empirical literature to date supports the view that environmental regulations do not matter.2
While empirical studies of the industrial flight/pollution haven hypotheses have been illuminating, their shortcomings suggest that the
question has not yet been fully answered. One problem with previous empirical studies is that the endo- genous variable, intended to
track the effects of environmental regulations, is unsatisfactory. For instance, Low and Yeates (1992) use a country’s share of
production in total world trade of pollution-intensive products as a proxy for specialization in polluting goods. This is a coarse
measure of specialization. Such a variable is determined by a wide variety of factors in addition to the strictness of environmental
regulations. Furthermore, it is capital flow, not goods flow, which should be most affected by differential environmental regulations.
Only in the long run will a country’s production mix reflect capital movements induced by differential environmental regulations.

51
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Consumer Con Key to Econ
High consumer confidence indicates strong consumer spending – the key
internal link into the economy

Investopedia, Forbes Media Company, ’08, “Consumer Confidence: A Killer Statistic”,


http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/103002.asp
Consumer spending is the one key to any market economy. On the airwaves, there's never a shortage of data, analysis and cable
commentary regarding consumer behavior. So what are the key fundamental consumption indicators in a good economy? How
about in a bad economy? The following article will recap the vital economic indicators of overall consumption, outlining what
trends to look for and when to look for them. There is no doubt that consumer spending is the most vital component of any
economy. Why? Depending on the economy's sheer breadth, consumer spending can range anywhere from 50-75% of GDP. In
the U.S. and most highly industrialized nations, this percentage is about 65% of total spending. The first part of measuring total
consumption is measuring consumer sentiment, which is derived completely from a consumer's standpoint.

Consumer confidence key to econ – drives economic activity

Jim Lee, Professor of Economics at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Oct. ‘02 “What is the role of consumer confidence in the
business cycle, and how does it affect the economy?”,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:jViVBhE4T_0J:www.tracer2.com/admin/uploadedPublications/181_tlmrexpert0210.pdf+consu
mer+confidence+key+to+economy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=22&gl=us
Consumers play a major role in the economy. This is because consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of U.S. output. Since
households’ economic outlook affects their spending behavior, their expectations influence the direction of economic activity in
the business cycle. Consumer confidence, or optimism about the overall economy, is commonly referred to as “animal spirits”
after a famous economist, John Maynard Keynes. Keynes asserted that the Great Depression of the 1930s was largely
attributable to a collapse of public confidence, which led to dramatic declines in consumer and business spending. Today,
consumer confidence receives a great deal of media attention. Rising consumer confidence is widely interpreted as a precursor
to higher future household spending. It is therefore a leading indicator of the overall economy. If consumers are more
optimistic about the economy, they will tend to spend more, especially on durable goods and other large purchases. A higher
overall demand for goods and services will subsequently lead to higher output and employment.

52
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Biz Con Key to Growth
Business confidence key to sustaining growth via investment

Sue Kirchhoff and Barbara Hegenbaugh, 2004, USA Today, “What's worrying business? Confidence erodes across industries”,
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/careers/news12.htm
Business investment and hiring are key to sustained economic growth, as consumer spending growth slows from its heady
pace. While corporate profits and spending have ramped up, economists are nervous about one key element -- confidence.
Business confidence has eroded since spring, according to several surveys. On Monday, economic consulting firm
Economy.com said its weekly survey of business owners showed declines were widespread, both geographically and across
industries. The U.S. index is off 25% from its peak earlier this summer. How business executives see the world is key for the
economy because it can influence decisions on hiring and investing. Nervousness is likely one reason hiring has been patchy
this year, spiking in March but growing less rapidly since then.

Lack of business confidence causes a recession

John Braithwaite, Australian Research Council Federation fellow, 2004, The Annals of The American Academy of Political
and Social Science, March, “Emancipation and Hope,” Lexis
The challenge of designing institutions that simultaneously engender emanci- pation and hope is addressed within the
assumption of economic institutions that are fundamentally capitalist. This contemporary global context gives more force to the
hope nexus because we know capitalism thrives on hope. When business confidence collapses, capitalist economies head for
recession. This dependence on hope is of quite general import; business leaders must have hope for the future before they will
build new factories; consumers need confidence before they will buy what the factories make; investors need confidence before
they will buy shares in the company that builds the factory; bankers need confidence to lend money to build the factory;
scientists need confidence to innovate with new technologies in the hope that a capitalist will come along and market their
invention. Keynes’s ([1936]1981) General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money lamented the theoretical neglect of
“animal spirits” of hope (“spontaneous optimism rather than . . . mathematical expectation” (p. 161) in the discipline of
economics, a neglect that continues to this day (see also Barbalet 1993).

Bizcon is key to prevent economic collapse resulting from a lack of investment


Thomas Boston, Black Enterprise, “Confidence is key: economist cites the importance of business outlook to recovery -
The Economy & You”, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_6_33/ai_95845058, Jan 2003

Trying to jump-start the economy by reducing interest rates even further is like pushing on a string. Despite the fact that
the Federal Reserve has lowered the federal funds rate to 1.75%, its lowest level in 40 years, the Index of Leading Economic
Indicators (the measure used to gauge the future health of the economy) has declined for four consecutive months. Why
is the economy so anemic? One major reason is declining consumer and business confidence. Think of it this way:
Suppose you decide to make a major purchase, such as a house or automobile. If the price has been determined, two additional
factors are likely to figure prominently in your decision to make the purchase. The first factor is the interest rate, which is
nothing more than the cost of borrowing money. The second factor is how confident you are about your future earnings.
For example, if you are concerned about job security, you are not likely to make the purchase, no matter how low
interest rates might be. The same logic holds for business owners deciding whether to undertake a new investment.
While interest rates are important because they affect the total return on capital invested, if business owners are pessimistic
about future economic activity, even low interest rates will not be attractive enough to make them invest.

53
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Investment Key to Econ

Business investment key to the economy – recent investment-led recession proves

Economic Report of the President, Feb. 2004, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/2004_erp.pdf


Business investment in equipment and software surged in the late 1990s. Real investment increased at an average annual rate of
roughly 13 percent between the fourth quarter of 1994 and the fourth quarter of 1999, compared with an average annual rate of
less than 7 percent over the preceding three decades. The surge in investment was led by purchases of high-tech capital goods
—computers, software, and communications equipment—which increased at an average annual rate of 20 percent over the
period. Economic theory implies that businesses invest when they believe that there are profits to be made from that
investment. In the late 1990s, several developments fed a perception that the expected future return from newly installed capital
would be considerably greater than the cost of this capital. Rapid advances in technology had lowered the price of high-tech
capital goods dramatically throughout the 1990s and especially in the second half of the decade. For example, the quality-
adjusted price index for business computers and peripheral equipment fell at an average annual rate of 22 percent between late
1994 and late 1999. In addition, rapidly growing demand for business output led firms to believe that newly installed capital
would be used productively, boosting the expected return to investment. Moreover, technological progress and legislation
provided incentives for strong investment in high-tech equipment. The development of the World Wide Web enabled new and
established firms to enter e-commerce, and rapidly increasing household and business access to the Internet provided a large base of
potential customers for these firms. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provided for substantial deregulation of the
telecommunications industry and may have spurred investment in that sector. In addition, concern that some computer systems might
be inoperable after December 1999 caused a wave of so-called Y2K-related investment. Some analysis indicates that Y2K spending
alone boosted the growth rate of real equipment and software investment by more than 31⁄2 percentage points per year in the latter
part of the 1990s. Optimism about the potential gains from new capital, and from high-tech capital in particular, was reflected not
only in investment decisions but also in a sharp rise in stock prices. From late 1994 to late 1999, the Wilshire 5000—a broad index of
U.S. stock prices—nearly tripled. The Nasdaq stock price index, which is heavily weighted toward high-tech industries, registered an
even more dramatic ascent, increasing more than fourfold over this period. The increase in stock prices stimulated investment by
reducing the cost of equity capital. In addition, the rise in stock prices fueled a consumption boom by boosting the wealth of a
growing number of Americans and more generally signaling better future economic conditions. This consumption boom encouraged
further business investment. In mid-2000, business equipment investment abruptly slowed. After rising at an annual rate of 15 percent
in the first half of the year, real spending on business equipment and software inched up at about a 1⁄4 percent annual rate in the
second half. The slowdown in high-tech equipment investment was especially dramatic. For example, real outlays for computers had
skyrocketed at an annual rate of 40 percent in the first half of the year, but grew at less than one-quarter of that pace in the second
half. This stalling of investment preceded the downturn in the overall economy; by contrast, in the typical business cycle,
investment has turned down at the same time as overall economic activity (Chart 1-2). The unusual timing of the investment
slowdown in this recession is the reason that the recent business cycle has been widely viewed as an “investment-led”
recession. The sharp break in investment occurred in parallel with an apparent reevaluation of future corporate profitability among
financial market participants. By the end of 2000, the Wilshire 5000 index of stock prices was down 13 percent from its peak, and
analysts had substantially marked down their forecasts for S&P 500 earnings over the coming year. The movements were even more
dramatic in the high-tech sector. The Nasdaq index of stock prices dropped nearly 50 percent from its peak in March 2000 to the end
of the year. The prices of technology, telecommunications, and Internet shares fell particularly sharply, along with near-term earnings
estimates. The elevated valuations of many such companies also declined markedly. Indeed, the price-earnings ratio (where
“earnings” are those expected over the next year) for the technology component of the S&P 500 fell from a peak of more than 50 in
early 2000 to less than 35 by the end of the year. These facts and considerable anecdotal evidence suggest that business managers
and investors sharply revised downward the expected gains from new capital investment during this period. One factor that may
have contributed to the downward revision is a possible slowing of the pace of technological advance—the rate at which computer
prices were declining eased (from more than 20 percent in the late 1990s to about half that in 2000), and the software industry
reportedly developed no new so-called “killer applications” that required or spurred purchases of new hardware. In addition, firms
may have been disappointed by the response of households to e-commerce opportunities and to new communications technologies
such as broadband. Finally, previous investments had not uniformly translated into higher profitability, perhaps because the true
potential of new forms of capital could be realized only by changing other aspects of production processes. For example, new
computer systems designed to lower inventory management costs might have required an expensive reconfiguration of warehouses.

54
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Investment Key to Econ

Investor confidence key to the economy

Phil DeFeo, CEO of Pacific Exchange, 2002. http://www.nysearca.com/content/regulation/weekly/2002/PCX_wb-02-25.pdf

So the pendulum has swung. Stocks that once traded at sky-high prices are now cautiously valued. Investors have grown weary of
significant losses, and are now wary of a marketplace where the information provided cannot be trusted.
As long as investors do not trust the financial system, investment performance will lag economic performance. Lacking confidence,
they will overweight risk, discount values and potential returns, and shy away from committing new capital to the market. I believe
this can and will act as a brake on essential capital formation. I believe will weaken and slow both the economic recovery and long-
term growth.

55
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Foreign Investment Internal Link

Foreign investment key to US economy – jobs, R&D, capital account

USINFO, 2/12/07. “Foreign Investment in U.S. Benefits Economy, Bush Advisers Say,” http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-
english/2007/February/20070212165404AKllennoCcM0.7061731.html

Washington -- Foreign direct investment in the United States benefits the U.S. economy by stimulating growth, generating jobs for
U.S. workers, promoting research and development, and financing the current account deficit, say President Bush’s key economic
advisers.

Recently, foreign direct investment in the United States has stagnated, according to the annual Economic Report of the President
released February 12. The share of employment credited to foreign investment declined slightly between 2000 and 2004 and the share
of foreign investment in the U.S. capital account has declined since 1999.

The current account deficit is the broadest measure of U.S. transactions with the rest of the world. The U.S. capital account is the flow
of money both into the United States and from the United States for investment, grants and loans.

FDI key to US economy – fosters innovation and growth

Department of the Treasury, 5/10/07. “An Open Economy is Vital to United States Prosperity,”
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp395.htm

Foreign firms in the U.S. account for 5.7% of U.S. economic output, as well as 10% of all investment in plant and equipment in
the United States.
*
Foreign firms in the U.S. re-invested $48.6 billion (45% of their income) back into the U.S. economy in 2004. This investment
furthers innovation and promotes economic growth.
*
Foreign firms generate 19% of U.S. exports ($153.9 billion in 2006). This contribution is greater than their overall percentage of
U.S. economic output, which means they are doing more than their share to help improve the U.S. trade balance.
*
Foreign firms in the U.S. generate a disproportionate share of national R&D spending (13%, totaling $29.9 billion). This spending
strengthens U.S. global competitiveness in pharmaceuticals, high-tech, and other key sectors and produces innovative products that
help to improve our standard of living.
*
The economic benefits generated by inflows of foreign capital help strengthen economic leadership. In the late 1980s and early
1990s, some pointed with alarm to Japanese purchases of U.S. assets, fearing they foreshadowed the Japanese overtaking our
economic leadership. Twenty years later, the resulting jobs and economic growth show those fears were misplaced.

Reduced Foreign Investment leads to the collapse of Heg


Scott Champion, analyst with the Centre for Global Negotiations, “Will a US dollar collapse end American Hegmenony?”, Share
International, 6/2003,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:c7OliQOGgIEJ:shareno.net/dollarcollapse.htm+economic+collapse+and+hegemony&hl=en,
BB
Today, many forces are coming together that could lead to a collapse of the US dollar. Among these are its oversupply, low
interest rates, the need to fight deflation, continuing stock-market declines, and a potential derivatives meltdown [see Share
International May 1990] It is highly likely that in the not-too-distant future all of these factors will come into play
simultaneously. In addition, many of the world’s financiers, central bankers, and government officials cannot be pleased
with the economic and foreign policies of the Bush administration. They well know that the continued recycling of capital
into US assets serves, at least in part, to allow the US to dominate the world. If the people who control the world’s capital
were to decide, for whatever reason, to cease buying Treasury securities and to liquidate those they own, the dollar

56
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
would collapse and the US would experience an unprecedented economic shock. Were this to happen, the world would
witness the end of American hegemony.

57
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Foreign Investment Internal Link

Foreign Investment key to avoid economic collapse


Scott Champion, analyst with the Centre for Global Negotiations, “Will a US dollar collapse end American Hegmenony?”, Share
International, 6/2003,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:c7OliQOGgIEJ:shareno.net/dollarcollapse.htm+economic+collapse+and+hegemony&hl=en,
BB
For many years the US has been the economic engine for the world, standing in as purchaser of last resort for the world’s
supply of goods in times of global economic distress. Now the US itself is in trouble. If the US attempts to fight the rapidly
gaining forces of deflation by encouraging a depreciating dollar, it will export deflation to the rest of the world because foreign
currencies will rise relative to the dollar. This will damage foreign economies and inhibit their ability to buy goods and
services, including those from the US. Since the short-term benefit of a weak dollar to US corporations’ earnings will show up
quickly, while the long-term damage to the global economy will become apparent only with the passage of time, it is a fair
assumption that the US will take the easy route and worry about the global fallout later. The problem with this approach for the
Bush administration is that there are great risks to a weak dollar policy. The world economy is awash in dollars, and when there
is too much of something the price or value usually drops, sometimes precipitously. If confidence in the dollar or dollar
assets, such as Treasury bonds, declines, the world may, at some point, reconsider its involvement with US assets. The
results of such a reappraisal could be anything from mildly damaging to catastrophic. Seventy-five per cent of the
world’s central-bank assets are held in US dollars (as Treasury bonds). These bankers do not want their primary asset
to suffer a significant decline.

High debt levels leads to anti-american military aggression


The International Herald Tribune, August 18, 2007, “A debt culture gone awry; America's handicap”, Hamid Varzi, an
economist and banker based in Tehran, Pg. 5, lexis, BB
The U.S. economy, once the envy of the world, is now viewed across the globe with suspicion. America has become
shackled by an immovable mountain of debt that endangers its prosperity and threatens to bring the rest of the world
economy crashing down with it. The ongoing sub-prime mortgage crisis, a result of irresponsible lending policies designed
to generate commissions for unscrupulous brokers, presages far deeper problems in a U.S. economy that is beginning to
resemble a giant smoke-and-mirrors Ponzi scheme. And this has not been lost on the rest of the world. This new reality has
had unfortunate side effects that go beyond economics. As a banker working in the heart of the Muslim world, I have been
amazed by the depth and breadth of anti-Americanism, even among U.S. allies, manifested in reactions ranging from
fierce anger to stoic fatalism. Muslims outside the United States interpret America's policies in the Middle East not as an
effort to spread democracy but as a blatant neocolonialist attempt to solve its economic problems by force. Arabs and
Persians alike argue that America's fiscal irresponsibility has forced the nation to seek solutions through military
aggression.

58
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
AT: Regulations Competitiveness

All the evidence goes the other way – no empirical evidence that regulations stimulate competitiveness

Robert N. Stavins, Assoc Prof – Public Policy, Harvard, 1994. [“The Challenge of Going Green,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72
Issue 4, p37-48]

The picture is bleaker still for the tenet that environmental regulation stimulates innovation and competitiveness. Not a single
empirical analysis lends convincing support to this view. Indeed, several studies offer important, if indirect, evidence to the contrary.
Natural skepticism regarding this regulatory free lunch should remain unabated.

59
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Bizcon key to Econ
Bizcon is key to prevent economic collapse resulting from a lack of investment
Thomas Boston, Black Enterprise, “Confidence is key: economist cites the importance of business outlook to recovery -
The Economy & You”, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_6_33/ai_95845058, Jan 2003

Trying to jump-start the economy by reducing interest rates even further is like pushing on a string. Despite the fact that
the Federal Reserve has lowered the federal funds rate to 1.75%, its lowest level in 40 years, the Index of Leading Economic
Indicators (the measure used to gauge the future health of the economy) has declined for four consecutive months. Why
is the economy so anemic? One major reason is declining consumer and business confidence. Think of it this way:
Suppose you decide to make a major purchase, such as a house or automobile. If the price has been determined, two additional
factors are likely to figure prominently in your decision to make the purchase. The first factor is the interest rate, which is
nothing more than the cost of borrowing money. The second factor is how confident you are about your future earnings.
For example, if you are concerned about job security, you are not likely to make the purchase, no matter how low
interest rates might be. The same logic holds for business owners deciding whether to undertake a new investment.
While interest rates are important because they affect the total return on capital invested, if business owners are pessimistic
about future economic activity, even low interest rates will not be attractive enough to make them invest.

Biz con key to the economy – investment and employment

Thomas D. Boston, heads Boston Research Group in Atlanta & member of the Black Enterprise Board of Economists, 1-1-03,
“Confidence is key: economist cites the importance of business outlook to recovery”,
Think of it this way: Suppose you decide to make a major purchase, such as a house or automobile. If the price has been
determined, two additional factors are likely to figure prominently in your decision to make the purchase. The first factor is the
interest rate, which is nothing more than the cost of borrowing money. The second factor is how confident you are about your
future earnings. For example, if you are concerned about job security, you are not likely to make the purchase, no matter how low
interest rates might be. The same logic holds for business owners deciding whether to undertake a new investment. While interest
rates are important because they affect the total return on capital invested, if business owners are pessimistic about future
economic activity, even low interest rates will not be attractive enough to make them invest. Over the past year, business owners
have been more wary than consumers, so investments have lagged. Fortunately, consumer spending has carried the economy
forward--even though consumers are facing record levels of debt. But the situation has changed over the last three months. The
growing number of job losses has caused consumers to become cautious. As a result, if the economy is to improve, investment
must pick up. But low interest rates alone will not get the job done. Rather, the key index to watch is business confidence. The
Gazelle Index, a survey of 350 of the nation's fastest growing black-owned businesses as measured by workforce growth rates,
took a sharp drop, from 67.7 to 49.5, between the second and third quarters. An index value below 50 indicates that business
owners are more negative than positive about economic conditions. Why is the index value important? When business leaders are
concerned about the economy, they reduce hiring, which contributes to higher unemployment rates.

Business investment is the dominant factor – biz con dictates the direction of
the economy

Investopedia, Forbes Media Company, ’08, “Consumer Confidence: A Killer Statistic”,


http://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/103002.asp
Though not as powerful an indicator as consumer spending, business capital spending can be a killer statistic - since things can
get ugly in a hurry when overall business investment precipitously cuts back: the impact on the economy can be felt at an even
faster pace than as if the cut occurred purely along consumer lines. The rationale is that today's sophisticated and large
inventory-lean corporations often can gauge future demand before policy makers can implement changes, which often take
months to kick in due to embedded policy lags. Corporate spending is therefore very similar today to the role the stock market
has played in most recoveries: improvements can be foreseen as a leading indicator for things to come. On the flip-side,
cutbacks in corporate capital spending are indeed an ominous indicator. The PMI, or Purchasing Managers Index, is a
representation of the progress in corporate spending.

60
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Indo-Pak war

A decline in confidence leads to an Indo-Pak conflict to cover up economic collapse.

Micheal C. Rupert, “Global Economic Collapse Imminent,


Pension Fund Disaster”, http://www.rense.com/general26/ftw.htm, July 2002

The situation now is much, much worse as more factors combine to suggest that foreign investors and trust in the U.S.
economy might soon be a thing of the past. Your pension is at risk today and your home may be at risk in six months to a
year. One economic analyst has suggested that a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan might be the perfect
cover for the biggest financial wipe out in human history. I think that an ill-conceived and risky invasion of Iraq might
serve the same purpose. From consumer confidence, to corporate accounting, to the dollar, to gold, to foreign capital
flight, to pension fund wipe outs, to the derivative bubble, to debt, there is not a single economic indicator that is not
flashing red. The warnings are as clear, explicit and well-documented as were the warnings received by the U.S. government
throughout summer 2001 that a terrorist attack against the World Trade Center would take place during the week of Sept. 9
using hijacked airliners from United and American airlines. Nothing was done to prevent that and apparently nothing is being
done now in spite of the fact that $4.2 trillion of your money has been stolen right in front of your eyes.

61
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano

62
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano

****Biz Con Aff Answers

63
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
2AC Biz Con Frontline

US consumer and business confidence is dismal – free-falling faster than in


2001
The Globe and Mail, Canadian News, 5/31/08. “THREE STATS YOU JUST CAN'T BE WITHOUT ON A SATURDAY: THE
WEEK IN ECONOMICS,” Lexis

"In the U.S., consumer confidence is in freefall," he says. Confidence is falling faster now than between 2001 and 2003, when the
United States was enduring a high-tech meltdown, a mild recession and a major terrorist attack. European confidence peaked a year
ago and has plunged since then, especially in Britain. Japan's confidence levels peaked in 2006, but are now at recessionary levels.
Confidence in Canada is sliding too.
Consumers in these countries account for about 50 per cent of world production, he says. "The prognosis for near-term world
economic growth is not encouraging."
Business confidence is higher, but is also eroding in Europe, Japan, and particularly in the United States.
"Confidence is arguably most important when conditions slow," Mr. Hall warns. "Pessimism sells, it spreads rapidly, and can be self-
fulfilling. A significant lapse of confidence can even erode parts of the economy that are not drowning in the excesses created by a
protracted period of prosperity."

Investor confidence at an all-time low – housing market proves


BOYD ERMAN, The Globe and Mail's capital markets reporter, 7/12/08. “Good timing: Feds avoid Fannie-style mortgage freefall,”
The Globe and Mail, Lexis

That criticism misses a larger point, something that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are making painfully clear in the United States: The
housing market depends not just on the confidence and borrowing ability of people interested in trading up from a bungalow to a two-
storey with an ensuite Jacuzzi and a great room. It depends on investor confidence and the borrowing ability of the giant government-
backed lenders that really fund mortgages. In the United States, that investor confidence is gone and the ability of Freddie and Fannie
to borrow may follow. That's an unprecedented threat to the housing market, which is saying something given what the United States
has already been through. Freddie and Fannie are federally chartered companies created to help homeowners by purchasing the
mortgages that banks make, freeing up banks to make even more. With the implicit backing of the U.S. government, Fannie and
Freddie could borrow cheaply in the bond market to finance mortgage purchases. Until recently, that is. Investors are shying away and
borrowing costs have shot up relative to government bonds. Investors are worried about the highest delinquency rates on mortgages in
at least three decades. Many of those mortgages have terms like zero-down and 40-year amortizations. If those terms sound familiar,
it's perhaps because Canadian banks had been advertising them lately.

T/ Environmental regulations reduce perception of risk, encouraging investors


– studies prove
Stanley J. Feldman, Associate Professor of Finance at Bentley College, et al, 1996. “Does Improving a Firm’s Environmental
Management System and Environmental Performance Result in a Higher Stock Price?” Journal of Investing, (co-authored by Peter A.
Soyka, and Paul Ameer)

We have just completed a thorough evalu- ation of our ideas using real-world data on more than 300 of the largest public com-
panies in the U.S., and have produced results that validate our hypothesis. As suggested by financial theory, we have computed
changes in systematic risk for each firm over two time periods, and related these to a number of financial and environmental
variables using multiple regression analysis. We constructed our analysis to explain as much of the vari- ability in observed
systematic risk as pos- sible using factors suggested by finance theory and empirical observation. Using this approach, we were able
to isolate and quantify the effects of several environ- mental management and environmental performance measures that have both

64
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
practical and statistical significance. Our work suggests that environmental improvements such as those we have eval- uated might
lead to a substantial reduction in the perceived risk of a firm, with an accompanying increase in a public company’s stock
price, of perhaps five percent.

65
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
2AC Biz Con Frontline

T/ A. Incentives increase affected industries’ market control – increasing


productivity and income

Roger G. Noll, professor of economics emeritus at Stanford University and a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic
Policy Research, ’97, “Internationalizing Regulatory Reform” in “Comparative Disadvantages? Social Regulations and the Global
Economy” Ed. Pietro S. Nivola. Published by Brookings Institute Press, pp. 332-333
The international consequence of incentive-based environmental regulatory reforms is to reallocate production among nations in a
manner that reduces total social costs. These reforms reduce compliance costs for industries that need to control harmful pollutants. As
a result, the relative price of the products of these industries falls, and if their products are traded these industries gain a larger share of
the world market. In some cases, the principal effect is to substitute domestic production for exports that appeared attractive only
because they were produced in a less costly regulatory environment, and in other cases it is to increase exports of the industries that
experience lower regulatory compliance costs. In all cases, all prices and exchange rates will adjust so that some other industries
experience some compensating adjustment in net imports, and total trade can either rise or fall. But in all cases, the net effect is an
increase in world productivity and income as production moves to areas where the true social costs are lowest.

B. Increased productivity and business capital increases business investment –


key internal link into long-term growth and competitiveness

Christian E. Weller, Fellow at the Center for American Progress and an Associate Professor of Public Policy at the University of
Massachusetts Boston, and Amanda Logan, Research Associate at the Center, 3-5-08, “Slowing Productivity Growth Requires
Boosting Business Investment”, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/slow_productivity.html
The Labor Department reported this morning that worker productivity increased at an annual rate of just 1.9 percent in the
fourth quarter of last year, the slowest pace since the first quarter of last year. This also marks the third year in a row that
productivity growth fell below the crucial 2 percent-mark. In our report last year, “Ignoring Productivity at Our Peril,” we
examined the likelihood of a general slowdown in productivity and economic growth in the fourth quarter and what that would
mean to U.S. economic competitiveness over the course of 2008. As we pointed out in the report, worker productivity is a key
component of economic growth and stability. Over the past seven years, economic growth has largely been driven by consumer
spending, which is unsustainable in the long run because of the low personal savings rate, slow income growth, and high
household financial debt financing consumption. Despite record profit levels, many companies have chosen to use their money
in ways other than investing directly in growing their businesses’ overall productivity—and we are seeing the results. More
business investment can lead to higher future productivity growth via an enlarged capital base. The rewards of higher
productivity growth come in the form of more money for workers to spend on consumption items. This extra money will
provide businesses with an incentive to invest more in their buildings and equipment, thereby laying the foundation for even
higher productivity in the future.
The virtuous cycle of higher investment, rising productivity growth, and growing income helped lift almost all economic boats
in the 1990s. From 1995 to 2000, productivity grew at an annual rate of 2.5 percent, which some researchers have attributed to
investments in better technology such as hardware and software. Under the right circumstances, this translates into higher
living standards in an expanding economy. Boosting business investment to overcome indications of a vicious productivity
cycle taking hold in our economy would have positive effects for the economy both in the short term and the long term. In the
immediate future, faster investment growth could give the economy a much-needed boost as consumer spending has slowed in
the wake of a massive debt run-up and as households concentrate on repaying their record-level debt. Over the long term, faster
investment growth could also help lay a stronger foundation for innovation—the key but elusive measure of our nation’s
overall competitive advantage in the global economy. But businesses will not invest unless incomes rise faster, which means
policymakers need to ensure that workers can see more gains from a growing economy in the form of faster job growth and
higher wage growth. At the same time, policymakers must create additional incentives for companies to invest in new
technologies appropriate for a creative U.S. economy that remains on the cutting edge of global innovation. Our colleagues at
the Center for American Progress have detailed how the next administration and Congress can begin to chart this new course in
our “Progressive Growth” series of papers. It’s time we got started.

66
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
2AC Biz Con Frontline

Prefer our turns – litigation has no effect on investor confidence – no abnormal


returns
Michael Muoghalu, Director of MBA Program, Pittsburgh State University. 10/90. “Hazardous Waste Lawsuits, Stockholder Returns,
and Deterrence,” Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 57 Issue 2, p357

Table I also reports the abnormal returns around the settlements of hazardous waste lawsuits. No statistically significant abnormal
performances occur during the event window. The lack of abnormal returns indicates that the announcement of court
decisions/settlements provides no new systematic information to investors. To check whether the lack of significant returns was a
result of suits with positive returns canceling those with negative returns, the settlements were individually examined for abnormal
returns. Only 4 firms in the sample of 74 show significant abnormal returns during the two-day event interval (2 positive and 2
negative), which is fewer than would be expected randomly at the 90 percent confidence level. Given the lack of statistically
significant abnormal returns, no further analysis of lawsuit settlements is conducted.

Squo solves their impacts – biz con fluctuates in the business cycle, it will
eventually be restored

The Business Report, “Drop in business confidence part of a cycle”, http://www.fastmoving.co.za/news-archive/sa-


economy/drop-in-business-confidence-part-of-a-cycle, July 8th, 2008

The world economic market overall is uncertain at this stage, but all cycles - good and bad - come to an end. "But I
think that the country's macro-economic policies remain strong and despite a number of external global factors - like
the much-publicized subprime mortgage crisis and credit crunch faced by many countries - we should be heading for
less choppy waters as we approach the third and fourth quarters of next year," added Mokoena. "Also, as we head
towards the 2010 soccer World Cup I believe a more positive business sentiment will start emerging. Consumers and
companies just need to fine-tune their current business strategies and ensure they are well placed to weather the storm.
Those companies that plan for the business upturn now are the ones that are really going to shine.”

67
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Small business confidence low
Small business confidence is down due to rising prices

Chris Crum, “The Death of the American Dream?”,


http://www.smallbusinessnewz.com/topnews/2008/06/30/small-business-confidence-at-all-time-low, , 6/30,
2008

Unfortunately, small business economic confidence is at an all-time low. In fact, confidence indicators were down in every single
category of the survey. "With prices rising, especially gas and food, just about everybody is feeling the squeeze," says, Discover
business credit card director Ryan Scully. "People are starting to change their habits and cut back. For small business owners
who are seeing profits go down as a result, that means they have less to invest in finding new business," Scully added

Confidence low now – investors are preparing for low earnings and high oil prices

Glenn Mumford, staff writer - Australian Financial Review 6/24/08. “Testing times for investor confidence,” Australian Financial
Review. Factiva

Equities here and in the United States are in the process of building a major base, but recent market weakness has certainly provided a
key test of this belief. The fact that the local market’s forward price-earnings ratio has moved to less than 12 times - with the major
banks and resource companies registering at less than 10 times - suggests investors are pricing in either a new wave of negative
earnings revisions or a sustained bout of inflation-inspired P/E compression. The rising oil price will be significant in all this, and
local resources companies will be required to support the general market. This week could also see a resolution of iron ore pricing
negotiations for BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto. Do we bounce or do we dive? I’m sticking with the first option, but a lot will depend on
the oil price. Expect a volatile week.

68
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Election Kills Bizcon
The upcoming election has shattered business confidence due to ambiguity regarding the next president’s
economic policies.
Peter Ryan, ABC News, “Business confidence plunges on election uncertainty”,
http://www.abc.net/news/stories/2007/11/23/2098730.htm, 2007

The survey of 2,000 businesses, conducted by Telstra's directories arm Sensis, found confidence had fallen 16 points in the
three months to October to 43 per cent. The decline in confidence is the biggest fall in the survey's 14-year history. The
author of the Sensis Business Index, economist Christena Singh, said businesses were concerned about the outlook for
workplace relations as well as a possible change in leadership. "What we are finding is that small businesses are telling us that
their confidence has been impacted quite dramatically in the lead up to the election," Ms Singh said. "The main factors
influencing that are a potential change of government, with the key issues small businesses are looking at being
industrial relations and economic management ."We have been picking up strong economic conditions for the past few
years really from small businesses and they are concerned there might be some change there."

69
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
BIZ CON CYCLICAL

Although business confidence is decreasing, it fluctuates in a cycle meaning it will eventually be restored
The Business Report, “Drop in business confidence part of a cycle”, http://www.fastmoving.co.za/news-archive/sa-
economy/drop-in-business-confidence-part-of-a-cycle, July 8th, 2008

The world economic market overall is uncertain at this stage, but all cycles - good and bad - come to an end. "But I
think that the country's macro-economic policies remain strong and despite a number of external global factors - like
the much-publicized subprime mortgage crisis and credit crunch faced by many countries - we should be heading for
less choppy waters as we approach the third and fourth quarters of next year," added Mokoena. "Also, as we head
towards the 2010 soccer World Cup I believe a more positive business sentiment will start emerging. Consumers and
companies just need to fine-tune their current business strategies and ensure they are well placed to weather the storm.
Those companies that plan for the business upturn now are the ones that are really going to shine.”

70
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Bizcon declining - flooding
Bizcon declining in the squo – flooding is damaging agricultural sector of the economy
Buisness First, ABC News, “National City: Business confidence declines”,
http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2008/06/30/daily13.html20, 08

National City (NYSE: NCC) contacted business managers in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania,
and asked them two questions: Business outlook and hiring plans indices are calculated by adding the percentage of total positive
responses and half of the neutral responses. The composite index is calculated by averaging the outlook and hiring plans indices.
Respondents contacted in June said they feared ripple effects of recent Midwestern flooding, including higher food prices.
"Natural disasters seldom prove as damaging to economic growth as their first impressions," National City chief economist
Richard DeKaser said in a news release. "The impact of flooding on agriculture, however, is different as crop cycles, which are
measured in years, are not readily recouped. "In Louisville, 55.4 percent of business managers expressed optimism about the
economy, compared with 81.3 percent a year earlier. In Kentucky, 71.6 percent expressed optimism, down from 83.3 percent in
June 2007. In Indiana, 66.9 percent expressed optimism, down from 80.4 percent a year earlier.

71
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano

Biz Con Low

Banking crisis ensures business confidence remains low – tight credit market

William Rees-Mogg, The Times UK, 7-14-08, “This recession could easily tip into a depression”,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article4326794.ece
The present recession has some characteristics which make me think that it will be a relatively long one. The recession is centred on
banking and property. In an ordinary recession, one has to wait for consumers to regain their confidence, which, in turn restores the
confidence of business. Now one has to wait for the bankers as well. At present, banks are too anxious even to lend to each other, let
alone to expand consumer credit or business loans.

Buisness confidence is decreasing in the oil industry


Dayton Business Journal, “Survey: Midwest floods dampen business confidence level”,
http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2008/06/30/daily1.html?surround=lfn , June 30, 2008

Business confidence levels across the Gulf continued to fall in the second quarter, as inflation, high oil prices and
staffing problems dampened sentiment, the HSBC Gulf Business Confidence Index has revealed.The survey, released on
Sunday, found that while the general mood of Gulf business people remained buoyant, levels of business confidence had
maintained their downward trend of the past 18 months. Overall, the Business Confidence Index dipped to a mark of 94
from the benchmark 100 set in February 2007 when HSBC started the index. The index dropped from 96.8 in the first
quarter of this year.

Buisness confidence low – credit crunch.


Dayton Business Journal, “Survey: Midwest floods dampen business confidence level”,
http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2008/06/30/daily1.html?surround=lfn , June 30, 2008

"In the short term, these events do imply a greater measure of financial restraint on economic growth as credit becomes more
expensive and difficult to obtain." Already there are signs that it is getting harder to sell bonds linked to credit cards and
car loans, and there are worries that spreads on corporate bonds are tightening. The tightening of credit will hurt
economic growth because in the US consumers have borrowed heavily to fund their consumption. The latest figures
indicate that consumer and business confidence is slumping both in the US and Europe as worries about the effects of the
credit crunch grow.

Business confidence low now – struggling US economy

B&T Weekly, Australian News Magazine, 6/13/08. “Forum paints retail at a crossroads,” Factiva

The current economic landscape is the most significant challenge facing retailers in a generation. The problems are structural and a
consequence of costs growing faster than consumer spending. This is evident in mature retail markets.

The economic malaise is clearly affecting consumer spending and business confidence in the United States and Western Europe much
more than we have seen to date in Australia.

But while we haven't fallen off the cliff, local retailers can't afford to be complacent. Recent consumer confidence surveys indicate
mounting concern, while retail market darlings like Harvey Norman, David Jones and JB Hi Fi are cautious about weakening
consumer demand.

72
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano

Biz Con Low


Business confidence on the downturn now – global credit crunch

Reuters, 12/18/07. “Market woes, oil, forex to curb euro zone growth-EU,” Factiva

BRUSSELS, Dec 18 (Reuters) - The global credit crunch, created by uncertainty about the size of losses in the U.S. mortgage market,
will curb euro zone economic growth in coming quarters, the European Commission said on Tuesday.
Financial market estimates showed losses related to rising default rates in the U.S. mortgage market could reach $250-500 Billion
compared to an earlier range of $50-100 billion, the EU executive said in a quarterly report.
Euro zone growth was also at risk from high oil prices and the strong euro, it said, but added that activity would be supported by
robust employment and record-high corporate profitability.
"Tighter financing conditions, reduced confidence in the aftermath of the financial market turmoil and rising inflation, among other
factors, will weigh on growth in the next few quarters," the report said.
It said the global credit crunch would affect growth through higher market lending rates, lower consumer and business confidence and
reduced consumption in the United States.

Business confidence in the energy sector is low

International Swaps and Derivatives Association


5, “RESTORING CONFIDENCE IN U.S. ENERGY TRADING MARKETS”,
http://www.isda.org/press/pdf/isdaenergywhitepaper.pdf, April 2003

Starting with the Enron Corp. bankruptcy filing on December 2, 2001, the United States gas and power trading business has
sustained one blow after another. Credit downgrades, accounting scandals, governmental investigations, falling stock prices,
indictments and guilty pleas have been reported in the news for months. The companies involved have included many well-
respected energy trading companies. Throughout the energy trading business, few companies with gas and power trading
operations have been spared reputational harm and economic loss. There has been a loss of confidence in the entire business,
which emerged less than a decade ago. Rapid growth, inadequate credit and risk management controls, a poorly designed
California energy market and the Enron bankruptcy all contributed to this loss of confidence.

73
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Consumer Confidence Down
Consumer confidence is shot due to rising food and oil prices
Buisness Wire, “Administaff Announces Results of Business Confidence Survey
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_May_12/ai_n25408031, May 12th 08

A key measure of consumer confidence dropped in June to the fifth lowest reading ever, as Americans grew more
concerned about their jobs and rising food and fuel prices .The New York-based research group Conference Board said
Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index dropped to 50.4 from a revised 58.1 in May. The reading was the lowest
since February 1992, when it was 47.3.Economists had expected the index to decline to 56, according to
Briefing.com.Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board, said the report is an indication that the economy is "stuck in
low gear."

Consumer confidence low despite consumer spending

CNN, 6-24-08, “Consumer confidence tumbles to 16-year low”,


http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/24/news/economy/consumer_confidence/?postversion=2008062413
A key measure of consumer confidence dropped in June to the fifth lowest reading ever, as Americans grew more concerned about
their jobs and rising food and fuel prices. The New York-based research group Conference Board said Tuesday that its Consumer
Confidence Index dropped to 50.4 from a revised 58.1 in May. The reading was the lowest since February 1992, when it was 47.3.
Economists had expected the index to decline to 56, according to Briefing.com. Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board, said
the report is an indication that the economy is "stuck in low gear." "Perhaps the silver lining to this otherwise dismal report is that
Consumer Confidence may be nearing a bottom," Franco said in a statement. This year's loss of jobs, the simultaneous decline of
stocks and home prices, and the sharp rise in food and fuel prices all combined to leave this month's consumer confidence index at
roughly half that of 2007's composite average, according to economist Bernard Baumohl of the Economic Outlook Group. Baumohl
said consumer spending has held up well in recent weeks, despite "horrible" consumer confidence, but he expects that to change after
the effects of the economic stimulus and the annual tax refunds have subsided. "Getting both at this time of year had led to an increase
in household spending, but I expect this to be temporary. I'm looking for spending to trail off in the latter part of the summer,"
Baumohl said.

74
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Investor Confidence Low
Investor confidence low now – job cuts, high energy and food prices

Washington Post, 7/15/08. “Bush Expresses Confidence in Economy; Bernanke Cites Long List of Problems,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/15/AR2008071500999.html?hpid=topnews

Wall Street was lower again today, with major U.S. indexes off as much as 1.5 percent in early trading. Asian and European markets
both fell overnight.

Bernanke spoke at a time of uncertainty on a number of fronts. Despite a recent series of Fed actions to cut interest rate and keep cash
flowing among banks and financial companies, U.S. growth remains sluggish and employers have eliminated jobs for six months in a
row. Meanwhile, rising prices for energy, food and a list of commodities has made for an "unusually uncertain" outlook for inflation,
Bernanke said.

As a result, "accurately assessing and appropriately balancing the risks to the outlook for growth and inflation is a significant
challenge for monetary policy makers," Bernanke said. "Given the high degree of uncertainty, monetary policy makers will need to
carefully assess incoming information bearing on the outlook for both inflation and growth . . . In light of the increase in upside
inflation risk, we must be particularly alert" to evidence of higher long-term inflation expectations.

75
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano
Consumer Con Low
Consumer con at all time low

Reuters, 7-15-08, “US consumer confidence unchanged, near record low-ABC”,


http://www.reuters.com/article/economicNews/idUSN1536607520080715
American consumers' confidence held steady at a low level in the latest week, more than 30 points below its all-time average, a
report showed on Tuesday. The ABC News Consumer Comfort Index held at -41 in the week to July 13, unchanged from the
previous week on its -100/+100 scale. Its all-time low, reached in May, is -51 and its historical average -10. In a separate survey,
ABC said pessimism about the economy's direction is at a 27-year high of 78 percent.
Investor confidence at an all-time low – housing market proves

BOYD ERMAN, The Globe and Mail's capital markets reporter, 7/12/08. “Good timing: Feds avoid Fannie-style mortgage freefall,”
The Globe and Mail, Lexis

That criticism misses a larger point, something that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are making painfully clear in the United States: The
housing market depends not just on the confidence and borrowing ability of people interested in trading up from a bungalow to a two-
storey with an ensuite Jacuzzi and a great room. It depends on investor confidence and the borrowing ability of the giant government-
backed lenders that really fund mortgages. In the United States, that investor confidence is gone and the ability of Freddie and Fannie
to borrow may follow. That's an unprecedented threat to the housing market, which is saying something given what the United States
has already been through. Freddie and Fannie are federally chartered companies created to help homeowners by purchasing the
mortgages that banks make, freeing up banks to make even more. With the implicit backing of the U.S. government, Fannie and
Freddie could borrow cheaply in the bond market to finance mortgage purchases. Until recently, that is. Investors are shying away and
borrowing costs have shot up relative to government bonds. Investors are worried about the highest delinquency rates on mortgages in
at least three decades. Many of those mortgages have terms like zero-down and 40-year amortizations. If those terms sound familiar,
it's perhaps because Canadian banks had been advertising them lately.

US consumer and business confidence is dismal – free-falling faster than in 2001

The Globe and Mail, Canadian News, 5/31/08. “THREE STATS YOU JUST CAN'T BE WITHOUT ON A SATURDAY: THE
WEEK IN ECONOMICS,” Lexis

"In the U.S., consumer confidence is in freefall," he says. Confidence is falling faster now than between 2001 and 2003, when the
United States was enduring a high-tech meltdown, a mild recession and a major terrorist attack. European confidence peaked a year
ago and has plunged since then, especially in Britain. Japan's confidence levels peaked in 2006, but are now at recessionary levels.
Confidence in Canada is sliding too.
Consumers in these countries account for about 50 per cent of world production, he says. "The prognosis for near-term world
economic growth is not encouraging."
Business confidence is higher, but is also eroding in Europe, Japan, and particularly in the United States.
"Confidence is arguably most important when conditions slow," Mr. Hall warns. "Pessimism sells, it spreads rapidly, and can be self-
fulfilling. A significant lapse of confidence can even erode parts of the economy that are not drowning in the excesses created by a
protracted period of prosperity."

Consumer confidence is at its lowest since 1992 – decreasing growth and home prices

Wall Street Journal, 6/25/08. “CONSUMER CONFIDENCE PLUMMETS,” Lexis

Conference Board reports US consumer confidence fell to 50.4 in June from 58.1 in May, for lowest reading since 1992; second-
quarter growth is expected to be around 0.9%; latest evidence of slumping growth and tumbling home prices suggests Americans'
willingness to keep spending is being tested, making economic contraction more likely; Federal Reserve faced with economic
weakness is likely to keep interest rate steady at 2%; graphs (L)

76
Econ Generic
DDI 2008

Serrano

77
Consumer Con Low
Consumer confidence is at its lowest since 1982 – high fuel and food prices and decreasing incomes

LA Times, 4/26/08. “Consumer confidence hits 26-year low, survey says,” Lexis

U.S. consumer confidence fell for a third straight month in April, hitting its weakest level in 26 years on heightened worries over
inflation and the sagging housing market, a survey showed Friday. The Reuters/University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers said its
final index of confidence for April fell deeper into recessionary territory, to 62.6 from 69.5 in March and below economists' median
expectation of 63.2 in a Reuters poll. The April result is the lowest since March 1982's 62.0, when the "stagflationary" period of low
growth and high inflation was still an issue for many Americans. "More consumers reported that their personal financial situation had
worsened than any time since 1982 due to high fuel and food prices as well as shrinking income gains and widespread reports of
declines in home values," the survey said. "Never before in the long history of the surveys have so many consumers reported hearing
news of unfavorable economic development as in the April survey." Nearly 9 in 10 consumers thought the economy was now in
recession, Reuters/University of Michigan said. Although a tax rebate will bolster consumer spending, consumers favor "by a wide
margin" using the rebate to repay debt and to add to their savings, according to the surveys.

Investor and consumer confidence low now – uncertainties about interest rates

National Post (Canada), 6/25/08. “U.S. traders await Fed decision,” Lexis

Stock markets in the United States fell yesterday, on concerns about the economy after a report showed consumer confidence hit a 16-
year low and as a profit warning from United Parcel Service (UPS/NYSE) stoked fears about corporate results.

But trading volume was thin, with investors hesitant to place any big bets as they wait to see whether or not the Federal Reserve keeps
interest rates on hold as expected today.

Consumer confidence is the lowest in 28 years – high petrol and food prices

The Sunday Times, 7/13/08. “Oil and credit woes fuel long summer of discontent,” Lexis

This is the summer of our discontent. Only 14% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States, the
lowest figure recorded by Gallup's pollsters since they began asking that question almost 15 years ago. Consumer confidence is at its
lowest level in 28 years, according to the respected Reuters/University of Michigan survey. And not many Americans are expecting
things to improve soon. "Consumers' economic outlook is so bleak that the Expectations Index has reached a new all-time low,"
reports the Conference Board. In part this pervasive gloom is due to petrol prices that have passed the $4-per-gallon (about 53p a litre)
level. In part it is the result of the squeeze soaring food prices are putting on consumers' wallets.

Consumer confidence falling – high energy prices

The Globe and Mail (Canada), 6/26/08. “Fed seems paralyzed by effect of energy prices on big picture,” Lexis

BCA noted that global expenditures on energy are approaching levels not seen since the early 1980s - and said the last time the "oil
drag" on consumers reached these levels, "the world economy veered off into a deep recession."

While the industrialized world's economy is less energy-intensive than it was a generation ago, and global fiscal and monetary
conditions are in much better shape, soaring energy costs are nevertheless a major threat to already fragile consumers (especially in
the U.S.), who are a key driver of global economic activity and who have already been battered by slumping housing and credit
markets.

As this week's U.S. Conference Board consumer confidence report showed, high energy costs are pushing them off the deep end.
Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg called the report "arguably the worst" in the 40 years the Conference Board has been
tracking consumer moods.
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Consumer Con Low


Consumer con at all time low

Reuters, 7-15-08, “US consumer confidence unchanged, near record low-ABC”,


http://www.reuters.com/article/economicNews/idUSN1536607520080715
American consumers' confidence held steady at a low level in the latest week, more than 30 points below its all-time average, a
report showed on Tuesday. The ABC News Consumer Comfort Index held at -41 in the week to July 13, unchanged from the
previous week on its -100/+100 scale. Its all-time low, reached in May, is -51 and its historical average -10. In a separate survey,
ABC said pessimism about the economy's direction is at a 27-year high of 78 percent.

79
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Aff – No Effect on Investment

Environmental regulations have no effect on investment – studies prove

G. Bruce Doern, Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration - Carleton University,
8/2004. “REGULATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES:KEY ISSUES AND
CHALLENGES,” http://www.huss.ex.ac.uk/politics/research/readingroom/DoernNRTEE.doc
After looking at the U.S. studies, Olewiler concluded in 1994 that they “give little evidence of environmental regulation having
any impact on investment in new plants or on patterns of international trade” (Olewiler, 1994, p. 87). But Olewiler also
immediately cautioned that there may well be greater impacts once 1980s and 1990s data was included and examined either at
an aggregate level or in particular industrial sectors. When adding very limited Canadian data on Canadian Pollution
Abatement Costs (PACs) to the 1994 picture, this study cautioned the reader on the limited nature of the Canadian data and the
problems of comparing it to the U.S. Nonetheless, one aspect of the Canadian data on PACs in the late 1980s was that
“Canadian PACs for pollution- intensive industries may be as much as three times those for similar U.S. industries” (Olewiler,
1994, p. 112). On an overall basis, Olewiler concluded, however, that “the available evidence suggests that international
investment flows have been relatively unresponsive to differences in environmental regulation across countries. A similar story
exists for differential regulations within countries. Other factor input costs are in general much more important, even for
pollution-intensive industries” (Olewiler, 1994, p. 111). Other studies also brought out similar conclusions (Dasgupta, Roy and
Wheeler, 1995; Jaffe, et.al., 1995; Vogel, 1998).

Litigation has no effect on investor confidence – no abnormal returns

Michael Muoghalu, Director of MBA Program, Pittsburgh State University. 10/90. “Hazardous Waste Lawsuits, Stockholder Returns,
and Deterrence,” Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 57 Issue 2, p357

Table I also reports the abnormal returns around the settlements of hazardous waste lawsuits. No statistically significant abnormal
performances occur during the event window. The lack of abnormal returns indicates that the announcement of court
decisions/settlements provides no new systematic information to investors. To check whether the lack of significant returns was a
result of suits with positive returns canceling those with negative returns, the settlements were individually examined for abnormal
returns. Only 4 firms in the sample of 74 show significant abnormal returns during the two-day event interval (2 positive and 2
negative), which is fewer than would be expected randomly at the 90 percent confidence level. Given the lack of statistically
significant abnormal returns, no further analysis of lawsuit settlements is conducted.

80
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Regulations Increase FDI

Environmental regulations increase foreign investment – China proves


Judith M. Dean, Economist – International Trade Commission, et al, 2/05. “Are Foreign Investors Attracted to Weak Environmental
Regulations? Evaluating the Evidence from China,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3505. (Mary E. Lovely, Hua
Wang) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=659122#PaperDownload

Conditional logit analysis indicates that Chinese-sourced equity joint ventures in highly polluting industries are deterred by relatively
stringent pollution regulation. This finding is consistent with the behavior described in the pollution haven hypothesis, though it
contradicts the notion that the pollution havens are created by industrial country investors. In contrast, equity joint ventures from
non-Chinese sources are actually attracted to provinces with more stringent environmental regulations, regardless of pollution-
intensity--the opposite of the pollution haven hypothesis. This attraction also holds for Chinese equity investment in low and medium
pollution-intenstive industries, though to a lesser extent. Even after accounting for the possibility of a nested decision, environmental
stringency still significantly attracts non-Chinese equity investment, while significantly deterring only Chinese equity investment in
highly pollution-intensive activities. In all specifications, corrections for the degree of state ownership reduce the size of the pollution
levy effects, but do not alter their effects or significance.

Environmental regulations reduce perception of risk – studies prove

Stanley J. Feldman, Associate Professor of Finance at Bentley College, et al, 1996. “Does Improving a Firm’s Environmental
Management System and Environmental Performance Result in a Higher Stock Price?” Journal of Investing, (co-authored by Peter A.
Soyka, and Paul Ameer)

We have just completed a thorough evalu- ation of our ideas using real-world data on more than 300 of the largest public com-
panies in the U.S., and have produced results that validate our hypothesis. As suggested by financial theory, we have computed
changes in systematic risk for each firm over two time periods, and related these to a number of financial and environmental
variables using multiple regression analysis. We constructed our analysis to explain as much of the vari- ability in observed
systematic risk as pos- sible using factors suggested by finance theory and empirical observation. Using this approach, we were able
to isolate and quantify the effects of several environ- mental management and environmental performance measures that have both
practical and statistical significance. Our work suggests that environmental improvements such as those we have eval- uated might
lead to a substantial reduction in the perceived risk of a firm, with an accompanying increase in a public compa- ny’s stock price,
of perhaps five percent.

81
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Aff – T/ Increases Productivity

Incentives increase affected industries’ market control – increasing


productivity

Roger G. Noll, professor of economics emeritus at Stanford University and a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic
Policy Research, ’97, “Internationalizing Regulatory Reform” in “Comparative Disadvantages? Social Regulations and the Global
Economy” Ed. Pietro S. Nivola. Published by Brookings Institute Press, pp. 332-333
The international consequence of incentive-based environmental regulatory reforms is to reallocate production among nations in a
manner that reduces total social costs. These reforms reduce compliance costs for industries that need to control harmful pollutants. As
a result, the relative price of the products of these industries falls, and if their products are traded these industries gain a larger share of
the world market. In some cases, the principal effect is to substitute domestic production for exports that appeared attractive only
because they were produced in a less costly regulatory environment, and in other cases it is to increase exports of the industries that
experience lower regulatory compliance costs. In all cases, all prices and exchange rates will adjust so that some other industries
experience some compensating adjustment in net imports, and total trade can either rise or fall. But in all cases, the net effect is an
increase in world productivity and income as production moves to areas where the true social costs are lowest.

82
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Energy prices -> inflation

High energy prices are causing rapid inflation.

CNBC, “Energy costs drive up US inflation”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/13/inflation.usa, /June


13th, 2008

Core prices, which exclude food and energy, were up 0.2%. Energy prices surged 4.4% during the month, the biggest rise
since November. That was driven by a 5.7% spike in gasoline prices during the month, also the biggest rise since
November. Consumer prices rose 4.2% compared with this time last year, the biggest rise since January. Julian Jessop at
Capital Economics said: "The latest US inflation data are not bad enough to panic the Fed into an early rate hike (not
while unemployment is soaring and the financial system is still creaking) but there is little good news here either. "Unless oil
prices drop back sharply soon, headline inflation is likely to remain uncomfortably high at around 4.0-4.5% until the
final months of the year."

83
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

*** Fiscal Discipline

84
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

1NC Shell(1/2)
A. Uniqueness-- Bush and the Blue Dogs are holding the line on fiscal disc
Housing Wire,7/15/2008, “Bush: Congress Needs to Move on Housing Bill”, http://www.housingwire.com/2008/07/15/bush-
congress-needs-to-move-on-housing-bill/, BB
The largest source of Bush’s veto threat had centered around a proposed provision in the Senate that would add $3.9
billion in Community Development Block Grant funding to allow local governments to purchase foreclosed and
abandoned real estate for use as affordable housing. The House version of the package contains no such provision, and so-
called “Blue Dog” Democrats — a name given to a group of conservative Democrats in the House — have been strongly
opposed to the measure, as well.

B. Link-- Congressional attempts at alternative energy are inevitably


earmarked
Newt Gringrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Winning the Future", 06/03/2008 , “Stop the
Green Pig: Defeat the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman Green Pork Bill Capping American Jobs and Trading America's Future”,
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26808, BB
Of these two approaches, the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman bill is definitely of the old school. The Wall Street Journal calls it
"the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s." The bill aims to reduce carbon
emissions into the atmosphere by 66% in 2050. To do this, it would have government set a limit on overall carbon emissions
and issue "allowances" to businesses that specify how much carbon they produce. Like Pork Barrel Politics? Wait Until You
See Energy Pork Barrel Politics And here's where we get into the Washington-style pork barrel politics. Half of these
"allowances" will be auctioned off to businesses - a massive, up front tax that is expected to cost $3.32 trillion. Businesses will
be forced to pass these indirect taxes along to consumers, of course, while Washington politicians decide which special
interests will get a piece of the new $3.32 trillion revenue out of the politicians' gigantic new Green Piggybank. Boxer-
Warner-Lieberman is riddled with earmarks, both to redistribute new tax revenues to politically favored groups (for
example, there is $136 billion earmarked for energy efficiency block grants to local governments) and for buying off
industries that might otherwise put their armies of lobbyists to work to defeat the bill. Bottom line: If you liked the
pork and political-favor-ridden Farm Bill and Transportation bills, you're going to love the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman
green pork bill.

C. Internal Link--Lack of Fiscal Discipline leads to Economic Collapse


Gerald J. Swanson, Professor; Thomas R. Brown Chair in Economic Education @ Eller College, America the Broke, 2004, pg. 13,
BB
Because foreign investors view the dollar as nothing more than another asset they buy in hopes of making a return,
increasing economic turmoil in the United States would probably provoke them to sell some, if not all, of their dollar
assets, causing the currency’s value to drop farther. As this vicious cycle gathered speed, foreign investors might quit
buying Treasury securities altogether. They might even start cashing in the bonds they already held. That would force
the government to print the money it couldn’t borrow—a surefire trigger for inflation and another blow to the value of
the dollar. What would happen then? We can only guess, because such a debacle has never occurred in modern times. At the
very least, the United States—and because of our wide-ranging influence the rest of the world, too—would be plunged
into economic chaos, all because of our unwillingness to reign in our reckless spending.

85
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

1NC Shell(2/2)
D. Impact- Economic Collapse leads to Nuclear War
Walter Russell Mead, Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, "Depending on the Kindness of
Strangers," New Perspectives Quarterly 9.3 (Summer 1992) pp. 28-30.
There is, or there should be, nothing surprising about the fix we are in. Everyone has known since the ‘70s that the U.S.
could no longer, single-handedly, manage the global economy. But, like Blanche Dubois, America’s leaders preferred to
ignore the unpleasant reality, and made no provisions to meet the coming challenge. There is something breathtakingly
casual in the way the American elite responds to its failures. The savings and loan debacle, the disintegration of our
inner cities, the budget deficit: Our public and private elites don’t care about them. Perhaps because they grew up in the
years when the U.S. faced no real economic challenges and knew no real limits, they don’t understand that failure has a
price. If so this new failure—the failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide
depression—will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions—billions—of people around the world have pinned
their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles—and drawn
closer to the West—because they believe our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy
stagnates—or even shrinks? In that case we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich
against poor. Russia, China, India—these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a
much greater danger to the world order than Germany and Japan did in the ‘30s.

86
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Fiscal D is High Now


Blue Dogs are able to maintain pay go
Denise Ross, covered South Dakota politics since 1999. She now publishes Hoghouse Blog and can be heard weekly as a political
junkie guest on South Dakota Public Radio. , 7/17/2008, Black Hills Pioneer, “‘Blue Dog’ Herseth Sandlin at center of House fiscal
watchdog group”, http://www.bhpioneer.com/articles/2008/07/17/opinion/doc487fb5450094f111315432.txt, BB
“With Democrats potentially controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in 2009, House leaders must not ignore the Blue
Dogs’ concerns if they want to keep the majority,” reports a recent National Journal cover story titled “Dog Days.” Herseth
Sandlin was one of four of the 49 Blue Dogs chosen for the National Journal interview and cover photo. South Dakota’s
congresswoman seems to have found growing power within a group that is itself growing in power. The Blue Dogs have grown
from 23 members when they first formed in 1994 after the GOP’s historic takeover of Congress, and they have expanded from
mostly Southern representatives to include members from the Midwest and West. They even have six members from the
Northeast. More importantly, recent heretofore unimaginable Democratic victories in red districts have been won by
candidates endorsed by and funded by the Blue Dogs. And, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco ponders her party’s
majority in the House, she knows much of the credit must go to the Blue Dogs, according to the National Journal. “She and
other House Democratic leaders are well aware that if just 19 Blue Dogs oppose them on party-line votes, the majority
can’t pass legislation,” reported the magazine. The Blue Dogs have unified around what’s called “pay-go” in Capitol Hill
shorthand, or a “pay as you go” budget rule that requires Congress to pay for new spending with either a tax increase
or other spending cuts. That rule has been waived a handful of times but only cautiously due to the Blue Dogs’ collective
swing-vote status.

Fiscal Discipline Now- No new spending bills till next year


The Hill, 7/15/2008, “House Republicans stand to benefit from earmark bans”, http://thehill.com/business--lobby/house-
republicans-stand-to-benefit-from-earmark-bans-2008-07-15.html, BB
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said earlier this month that he expects Congress will hold off on clearing
any of the spending bills until President Bush leaves office. Bush has called earmarks wasteful and promised to veto any
appropriations bill that has not reduced its earmarks by half from last year’s total. Nevertheless, several Republicans
and a few Democrats in both the House and Senate agreed that earmarks had gotten out of control and adopted
personal bans on requesting the projects this year.

Blue Dogs enforcing pay-go now


National Journal, 7/18/2008, “Debt Limit Won't Be On Housing Bill”,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20080718_4509.php, BB
The housing-recovery package that is expected on the House floor Wednesday will not raise the statutory debt limit of
$9.8 trillion, even though it will allow the Treasury Department to provide a line of credit to beleaguered mortgage-financing
giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. House Democrats decided not to conflate two issues as they try to quickly pass a final
measure before the August recess. The CBO has not scored the cost of the plan crafted by Treasury Secretary Paulson that
would provide a temporary increase for the line of credit the two have with Treasury and allow the department to purchase
equity in the two. The government sponsored enterprises own or guarantee about $5.2 trillion in mortgages, though lawmakers
do not expect the CBO estimate to be anywhere near that number. Paulson contends the two will not have to tap the public
funds because the legislation would send a strong signal to the markets that they will be fully capitalized. Lawmakers are
expected to place some restrictions on the proposal before attaching it to the housing package. House Financial Services
Chairman Barney Frank has signaled some provisions, such as no stock dividend could be paid out if either accesses the line of
credit, that the Treasury would have to buy preferred stock so it would be the first in line to others once the companies
produced profits and, if the line of credit is tapped, a new strengthened regulator would have the power to curb top
management compensation at Fannie and Freddie. Frank said any expenditure under the bill will be charged against the debt
limit. He argued that will be a limiting factor for Treasury if it is given such powers, an argument that could help sway the
concerns of the Blue Dog Coalition that has insisted the bill comply with pay/go rules.

87
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Fiscal D is High Now


McCain is creating the perception of fiscal discipline—it doesn’t matter if it is
true
Time Magazine, July 10, 2008, “McCain: Selling an Economic Policy”,
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1821470,00.html, BB
As frequently as he now talks about economic issues, his attempt to embrace two conservative economic models at once isn't
helping his credibility. On the one hand, McCain argues for fiscal discipline, with his promises to end wasteful pork-barrel
spending (which he mentioned five times during his appearance in Ohio). On the other, with his commitment to tax cuts, he
embraces supply-side economics, which maintains that short-term deficits don't really matter. But does it really matter to
voters if the numbers don't add up? Not necessarily, argues former Republican Congressman Vin Weber, an influential
conservative voice. In a time of economic anxiety, "voters want to know the candidate, first of all, understands the
seriousness of the problem, and second of all, they have to believe there's a commitment to change." Weber says what
voters listen for are "big signal issues."

Bush and the Blue Dogs are holding the line on fiscal disc
Housing Wire,7/15/2008, “Bush: Congress Needs to Move on Housing Bill”, http://www.housingwire.com/2008/07/15/bush-
congress-needs-to-move-on-housing-bill/, BB
The largest source of Bush’s veto threat had centered around a proposed provision in the Senate that would add $3.9
billion in Community Development Block Grant funding to allow local governments to purchase foreclosed and
abandoned real estate for use as affordable housing. The House version of the package contains no such provision, and so-
called “Blue Dog” Democrats — a name given to a group of conservative Democrats in the House — have been strongly
opposed to the measure, as well.

Fiscal Discipline is guaranteed until 2009


Miami Herald, 7/12/2008, “Wasserman Schultz defends her budget earmarks”,
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/broward/story/602272.html, BB
That's because in an election year marked by partisan bickering, congressional observers question whether any of the
spending bills will pass before the November election. If that doesn't happen, the bills would be revisited only after
Congress reconvenes in 2009. The federal government would keep operating under a stop-gap measure that would keep
spending at the same level.

McCain’s stance on fiscal d spills over


John Milne, veteran New Hampshire political reporter and analyst, 7/19/2008John Milne: Stephen hopes spendthrift Congress will
spark voter anger, http://www.newburyportnews.com/puopinion/local_story_200215855.html?keyword=topstory, BB
Stephen echoed the probable GOP presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, when he attacked earmarks,
those special giveaways inserted slyly by members of Congress into appropriations bills. "I want to say 'no' to wasteful
earmark spending," he said. "We're going to go from business as usual to real change."

[Republican congressional hopeful John Stephen]

Election pressure leads to fiscal discipline


CBS News, July 8, 2008, “Starting Gate: Feeling The Pain”,
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/07/08/politics/horserace/entry4240277.shtml, BB
Look at yesterday’s debate over taxes for example. Trying to return his party to the champion of smaller government and
spending discipline, John McCain pledged to slash federal spending and balance the budget by the end of his first term
in office (a questionable prospect at best) while keeping taxes low. “The choice in this election is stark and simple,” McCain
said at a town hall meeting in Denver. “Senator Obama will raise your taxes, I won’t.”

88
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Fiscal D is High Now

Bush is holding the line on spending now


Kimberley Strassel, member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, 9-21-2007, Real Clear Politics, “Can Bush Hold the line
on spending?” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/can_bush_hold_the_line_on_spen.html, BB
Yet it's precisely the position Mr. Bush is going to have to put his own Republicans in if he hopes to remain relevant in the
ensuing spending fights. The big spenders on both sides of the aisle are sniffing for any sign of White House weakness,
and will rightly view any slipping or sliding as license to break the piggy bank. If the president rolls on Schip, he'll be
rolled on every spending question from now until he packs the china. Mr. Bush seems to understand the bigger stakes, and
only yesterday gave a feisty speech outlining yet again why he intends to veto the current Schip legislation, and warning
yet again that he won't back down. Congressional Republicans would be wise to take him at his latest word, for their
own sake. The recent GOP campaign over earmark disclosure is good politics and a start to recognizing voter anger
over Washington's spending ways. But it's also a one-trick pony. Conservatives voters will see the bigger test of re-found
fiscal responsibility in whether its Washington representatives are willing to say no to big new government spending.
That begins with Schip.

McCain pressuring GOP on Fiscal D


Xinhua Net, 7/8/08, “McCain, Obama clash over economic issue”, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-
07/08/content_8508975.htm,BB
Clarifying his economic credentials in a speech in Denver, McCain pledged to balance the federal budget, impose fiscal
discipline on Washington and modernize how the government does business in order to save billions of dollars. He
promised to veto "every single bill with wasteful spending."

Re-election is pushing GOP to maintain fiscal discipline


Las Vegas Sun, Jul 18, 2008, “GOP abuzz after Heller stirs nest”, http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jul/18/gop-abuzz-
after-heller-stirs-nest, BB
Heller’s comments were consistent with those he made when he was first elected to Congress in 2006. He spoke about
the lasting power of the Reagan-era philosophy of small government and fiscal restraint — popular themes in his mostly
rural Northern Nevada district. One of just 13 Republicans newly elected in 2006 as voters put Democrats in control of
Congress, Heller said his party needed to return to its fiscally conservative roots. Heller is seeking reelection this fall in
a rematch of the 2006 contest against Derby. Conventional wisdom says Democrats missed their best chance at winning the
seat two years ago, during the 2006 Democratic wave and before Heller had the power of incumbency. Democrats have never
held the seat since it was created in the 1980s. Derby lost by 5 percentage points.

89
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link- Emergency Spending


Emergency spending is routinely loaded with pork barrel spending
Brian M. Riedl, Senior Policy Analyst and Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation,
and Alison Acosta Fraser, Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation,
4/17/06, “The Senate’s Deadly Sin: Larding Up Emergency Appropriations”
Unfortunately, many of the spending items that wind up in supplemental are all too foreseeable. Because emergency
supplemental bills do not count against budget caps, they are routinely loaded with additional spending that is unrelated to the
original purpose of the legislation. [20] The Senate Appropriations Committee’s current supplemental bill is a perfect example
of this.

90
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Obama Fiscal D
Obama is going to be fiscally responsible, Cooper proves
John Rodgers, City Paper staff writer, July 18, 2008, “Cooper says Obama best choice to reform America”
(http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=61509)

While both are Democrats and Harvard Law graduates, Jim Cooper and Barack Obama don’t share many similarities.
Cooper is a fiscally conservative congressman representing Nashville and Obama, by Cooper’s own admission, has “sterling
liberal credentials” hailing from Chicago, serving as Illinois senator and heading the Democratic ticket. Stylistically, Obama
packs arenas with his soaring oratory, inspiring millions. Conversely, Cooper employs a quick wit while training his spectacles on line
items in the federal budget in his ongoing quest to trim wasteful spending. Policy-wise, the gulf between the two is almost as wide,
especially on fiscal issues. For example, unlike Obama, Cooper thinks the likely Democratic presidential nominee’s Social Security
plan is “way too specific” and “way too premature,” his trade policies too “protectionist” and Obama’s opposition to expanded
offshore drilling “mistaken.” Yet, for all of their differences, the conservative fiscal hawk Cooper thinks a President Obama is the
only one who could fix Washington and its spendthrift ways. “Opposites attract in politics, like only Nixon could go to China,”
Cooper said this week, recalling the strident anti-communist president’s trip to China. “Well probably only a liberal and an African-
American could reform runaway entitlement program spending. Now there’s no guarantee of that, but I don’t see a Republican doing
it.” Cooper’s fiscal reputation and fervent support for Obama has even spurred some speculation that Cooper would be considered for
a position in an Obama administration, possibly as budget director — something Cooper for now is downplaying. Cooper thinks
Obama is the man to change a Washington and curb the influence of special interests who fervently protect spending
programs benefiting them in the federal budget. The two main entitlement programs Cooper often references — Medicare and
Social Security — need reform, he says, and Obama’s “liberal credentials” are what is needed to get the job done. “I’m pretty darn
conservative,” Cooper said. “But that’s why moderates and conservatives like me can enthusiastically support Barack.”

91
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

LINK - EARMARKS
Earmarks are linked to Pork Barrel Spending
Huffington Post, The internet newspaper, June 18, 2008, “Bipartisanship Thrives -- At Least When it Comes to Earmarks”
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/bipartisanship-thrives_b_107667.html)

Plus, you have to wonder just who Congressman Reyes sees as his "constituency." The U.S. is more than $9 trillion in debt, and
polls show that most Americans don't like earmarking . Americans nationwide are struggling with rising gas and food costs.
Communities across the country are suffering from the mortgage meltdown. Maybe the congressman thinks he should only focus on
Texans, but you really have to ask exactly how many Texans benefit from a nice, new, not-asked-for by the Defense Department
contract for Digital Fusion. Perhaps the best defense of earmarks is that all of them added up together don't make much of a
difference in the country's $3 trillion dollar budget. The best ballpark estimate is that this kind of pork-barrel spending adds
up to about $17 billion in 2008, and many budget hawks think that getting upset about them deflects attention from far more
serious fiscal problems. It is a pretty small piece of the pie, and maybe some of these earmarks do some good. Somewhere.
Unfortunately, every single one of them was paid for with red ink, and the very worst thing about them is the cynicism and pessimism
the practice engenders in the American public. Are elected officials oblivious to that? If they are wondering why public ratings for
Congress are so low, this is a clue. In an era when Congress is too divided to balance the budget , reform the country's broken
immigration system, craft a long-term energy policy, fix our mishmash of a health care system, or protect Social Security, there is still
one area of broad bipartisan agreement -- earmarks will live for yet another day.

“Must pass” bills collapse fiscal discipline


Istook et Al., a Visiting Fellow in Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation, served 14 years in the U.S. House of
Representatives and was chairman of a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, Ernest Istook, Nicola Moore, Baker
Spring and Alison Acosta Fraser, May 2, 2007, “Post-Veto War Supplemental Must Eliminate Pork and Support Troops”,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1440.cfm, BB
A series of short-term supplemental bills would also destroy any hope of Members' exercising the fiscal discipline that this
Congress has promised to provide. In the vetoed supplemental, Congress stuffed in an extra $20 billion of non-emergency
spending, much of which likely would not survive outside of "must pass" legislation. Although some special-interest
spending was taken out in the conference committee, there was still plenty to beef about: $1.4 billion to the livestock
industry, hundreds of millions for dairy producers, $60 million for salmon fisheries, a $650 million SCHIP bailout to
states that irresponsibly expanded their programs,[3] plus billions more for programs whose value could be debated--all
told, $21 billion more than President's original request. As Charlie Rangel openly admitted on Meet the Press, most of that
pork added to the supplemental was used to buy votes. Increasing the number of short-term supplemental
appropriations will only serve to increase the extent to which the leadership will need to grease the skids with more
pork projects in order to buy more votes to pass the series of supplementals. This two-month strategy would make it all the
more vital for the President to require fiscal responsibility by eliminating special-interest projects and parochial spending.

92
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

LINK - EARMARKS

Congressional attempts at alternative energy are inevitably earmarked


Newt Gringrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Winning the Future", 06/03/2008 , “Stop the
Green Pig: Defeat the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman Green Pork Bill Capping American Jobs and Trading America's Future”,
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26808, BB
Of these two approaches, the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman bill is definitely of the old school. The Wall Street Journal calls it
"the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s." The bill aims to reduce carbon
emissions into the atmosphere by 66% in 2050. To do this, it would have government set a limit on overall carbon emissions
and issue "allowances" to businesses that specify how much carbon they produce. Like Pork Barrel Politics? Wait Until You
See Energy Pork Barrel Politics And here's where we get into the Washington-style pork barrel politics. Half of these
"allowances" will be auctioned off to businesses - a massive, up front tax that is expected to cost $3.32 trillion. Businesses will
be forced to pass these indirect taxes along to consumers, of course, while Washington politicians decide which special
interests will get a piece of the new $3.32 trillion revenue out of the politicians' gigantic new Green Piggybank. Boxer-
Warner-Lieberman is riddled with earmarks, both to redistribute new tax revenues to politically favored groups (for
example, there is $136 billion earmarked for energy efficiency block grants to local governments) and for buying off
industries that might otherwise put their armies of lobbyists to work to defeat the bill. Bottom line: If you liked the
pork and political-favor-ridden Farm Bill and Transportation bills, you're going to love the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman
green pork bill.

93
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Snowball Link

Emergency bills quickly snowball as money is continually added to it.- carbon


tax link
Capital Briefs,5/8/2006 [ “Snowball Downhill”. < http://findarticles.com/p/articles /mi_qa3827/is_200605/ai_n17182049>]
SNOWBALL DOWNHILL: This "emergency" bill demonstrates how such measures can grow like a snowball rolling downhill
-even in a Republican Congress. After Bush presented his $92.2-billion request, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R.-Tex.), a leading
member of conservative House Republican Study Committee (RSC), prepared an amendment that would have offset all $92.2
billion by cutting unobligated funds from fiscal 2006 appropriations. But the House Rules Committee, chaired by Rep. David
Dreier (R.-Calif.), refused to allow Hensarling to offer that amendment on the floor.Twenty-nine members of the RSC, led by
Rep. Mike Pence (R.-lnd.), then voted on the floor against Dreier's rule. It passed anyway, however, when 22 Democrats
crossed party lines to join with most Republicans to ensure passage of a bill without offsets. The Senate Appropriations
Committee, chaired by Sen. Thad Cochran (R.-Miss.), voted 27 to 1 to add more than $14 billion to the bill, sending the full
Senate a $106.5-billion version. (Sen. Judd Gregg (R.-N.H.) was the only committee member to dissent.) On the Senate floor,
the bill grew by another $3.5 billion, despite efforts by Sen. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.) to force embarrassing rollcall votes on
pork-barrel earmarks.

Earmark snowball kills Fiscal Responsibility.


David Doerr, Tribune-Herald Staff Writer, 7/8/07 [“Congressman stresses not all earmarks are 'evil'”. WacoTrib.com]

In 1994 -- the last year Democrats controlled the appropriations process -- there were 4,126 earmarks totaling $26.6
billion. That dropped to 3,000 earmarks when the Republicans became the majority. Pledges of fiscal responsibility
became overshadowed by more and more earmarks, until the 2006 budget contained 15,500 earmarks totaling $64
billion.
As Malmstrom's Comptroller, I am required to align recommended spending with "military utility" as I provide
financial advice and decisions on where to use our scarce dollars in an effort to eke out the greatest return in
accomplishing the mission. Military utility means that if an item is capable of fulfilling its purpose for the military
mission, it doesn't need replacing. Instead, there are many other competing expenditures where we can use our
money to further advance our mission effectiveness and efficiency. No longer do we have the luxury of replacing or
upgrading based on color, scratches and faded material. In these times of leaner budgets, health, safety and mission
must drive our decisions.

Emergency bills quickly snowball as money is continually added to it.

Capital Briefs,5/8/2006 [ “Snowball Downhill”. < http://findarticles.com/p/articles


/mi_qa3827/is_200605/ai_n17182049>]

SNOWBALL DOWNHILL: This "emergency" bill demonstrates how such measures can grow like a snowball rolling downhill
-even in a Republican Congress. After Bush presented his $92.2-billion request, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R.-Tex.), a leading
member of conservative House Republican Study Committee (RSC), prepared an amendment that would have offset all $92.2
billion by cutting unobligated funds from fiscal 2006 appropriations. But the House Rules Committee, chaired by Rep. David
Dreier (R.-Calif.), refused to allow Hensarling to offer that amendment on the floor.Twenty-nine members of the RSC, led by
Rep. Mike Pence (R.-lnd.), then voted on the floor against Dreier's rule. It passed anyway, however, when 22 Democrats
crossed party lines to join with most Republicans to ensure passage of a bill without offsets. The Senate Appropriations
Committee, chaired by Sen. Thad Cochran (R.-Miss.), voted 27 to 1 to add more than $14 billion to the bill, sending the full
Senate a $106.5-billion version. (Sen. Judd Gregg (R.-N.H.) was the only committee member to dissent.) On the Senate floor,
the bill grew by another $3.5 billion, despite efforts by Sen. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.) to force embarrassing rollcall votes on
pork-barrel earmarks.

94
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Snowball Link
Plan Increases funding opening the floodgates to an earmark strategy that
funds everyone.

Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy
Studies at The Heritage Foundation, November 10, 2004 [
“Is Pork Barrel Spending Ready to Explode? The Anatomy of an Earmark”, Heritage Foundation]

The article also noted that “The cost of hiring Alcalde and Fay would be $5,000 per month, with an 18-
month recommended contract.” While the average American family might consider this a steep price, the
prospective arrangement’s payoff reveals what a bargain it is for the county. With their fees totaling $90,000
for a prospective federal grant of $3.5 million, Alcalde and Fay are, for all intents and purposes, selling
federal taxpayer money for just 2.6 cents on the dollar. Anyone who has suspected that Washington
places little value on taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars now has an idea of just how diminished that value is—
somewhat less than the market price for defaulted Argentine debt. How the Culpeper transaction unfolds
bears watching for several reasons. From the perspective of federal fiscal integrity, this new earmark strategy
could open the floodgates to me-too projects across the country that would otherwise be funded with local
resources. Just thirty miles down the road from Culpeper is the town of Fredericksburg, which is now in the
process of committing itself, and its budgetary resources, to a $6 million recreation complex with indoor and
outdoor swimming pools. Now apprised of Culpeper’s prospective earmark, could the elected officials in
Fredericksburg be faulted for ringing up a lobbyist of their own?

And in the not-too-distant future it is quite likely that the federal budget process will no longer take place in
the halls of Congress, as the Constitution requires, but in the dozens of offices of Washington’s top lobbyists
—largely driven by generous contracts between the firms and their clients.

Pork creates a culture of fiscal irresponsibility that expands the deficit


Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy, August 2005, Cato Institute, “Pork: A Microcosm of the Overspending Problem”,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-24.pdf,
Pork Erodes Fiscal Responsibility Republican leaders have allowed an “every man for himself” ethos to permeate Congress.
Rather than focusing on national concerns such as security, members have become preoccupied with grabbing money for
hometown projects. While politicians express concern about the deficit, their staffers spend most of their time trying to
secure pork, and rarely look to find savings in the budget. The problem starts at the top: Republican leaders have
shown no personal restraint on the budget. House Speaker Dennis Hastert is a champion at bringing pork home to Illinois.
The Washington Post noted that Hastert “makes a habit of helping Illinois-based corporations,” such as Boeing, Caterpillar, and
United Airlines.9 Hastert’s giveaways have included trying to get United a $1.6 billion loan guarantee and adding $250,000 to
a defense bill for a candy company in his hometown to study chewing gum. The lack of principled GOP leadership has a
corrosive effect on members who may be willing to support restraint, but who will not put their necks on the line
without sacrifice at the top. Why should rank-and-file Republicans restrain themselves when their leader is the porker-
inchief? The problem with pork is not just the particular money wasted, but also “the hidden cost of perpetuating a
culture of fiscal irresponsibility. When politicians fund pork projects they sacrifice the authority to seek cuts in any
other program,” noted Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).10

95
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link-Wind
Wind costs at least $15 Billion a year
Smart Money, 7/8, 2008, Igor Greenwald, Staff Writer, “Foreign Oil Cheaper Than Pickens Plan”,
http://www.smartmoney.com/invisiblehand/index.cfm?story=20080708-foreign-oil, BB
He proposes generating wind power to save the natural gas burned in our power plants and redirecting that gas into
compressed vehicle fuel. This looks simple in PowerPoint or Flash. In reality, a wholesale transition is so cumbersome that
$150-a-barrel oil has hardly budged it off the demonstration-project stage. Remote wind farms need expensive
transmission lines linking to cities — which are liable to cost some $200 billion, according to the self-described "Man with
the Plan." Compressed natural gas requires its own fuelling station network, as well as specially fitted and significantly more
expensive vehicles. Neither seems likely to spread without substantial federal tax breaks. The Pickens Plan says nothing of
the subsidy costs, but Dow Jones Newswires estimates $15 billion a year for the wind component of the project alone.

96
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link- Pork Barrel Spending


Emergency funding operations like the plan increase pork barrel spending, disregarding fiscal responsibilities.

Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in, and Alison Acosta Fraser is Director of, the Thomas
A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 4/17/2006 [ “The Senate's Deadly Sin: Larding Up
Emergency Appropriations” Heritage Online]

President George W. Bush requested an emergency appropriation of $92 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and
another round of hurricane recovery. The House approved the request, but the Senate Appropriations Committee has loaded
the measure with $14 billion in new spending, most unrelated to national security or hurricane recovery. Still not satisfied,
Senators are now readying floor amendments to add as much as $10 billion more in spending, which would push the price tag
to $24 billion above the President’s request.[1] This new spending is tremendously irresponsible considering the state of the
budget. Congress has already boosted spending by 45 percent since 2001 to a post-war record of $23,760 per household.[2]
On top of that, the Senate started this year by adding $16 billion to the President’s discretionary budget request.[3] This is at a
time where the new Medicare prescription drug benefit is projected to cost over $1 trillion through 2016. Entitlement
programs’ liabilities, public debt, and other liabilities such as veterans’ and federal employee retirement costs already total
$375,000 for every full time worker in America. [4] The Senate’s actions show a clear disregard for this huge fiscal burden
Americans already face. The Senate should reject all additional spending proposals, strip all items not part of the President’s
request, and go one step further by identifying offsets to pay for the bill’s new spending. The President should draw a line in
the sand by promising to veto any supplemental that is either beyond the scope of his request or above its total level of
funding.

97
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – Perception

Failure to veto the plan will collapse Bush’s perception of fiscal restraint
Christian Science Monitor, Gail Russell Chaddock, staff writer, 10/4/2007, “GOP looks to reclaim fiscal responsibility
mantle”, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1004/p02s01-uspo.html, BB
Washington - With the new fiscal year under way and no spending bills completed, President Bush and Congress are heading
into a fight over fiscal responsibility that is likely to dominate politics on Capitol Hill until the end of the year. President
Bush's veto of a popular bill to provide health insurance for poor children, the S-CHIP program, on Wednesday marked a first
volley. The White House says the proposed bill is $30 billion more than what America can afford. Democrats say that the veto
is a sign that Mr. Bush and Republican lawmakers who refuse to back a veto override have the wrong priorities. "Today the
president showed the nation his true priorities: $700 billion for a war in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids," said
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D) of Illinois, in a statement. But the 12 pending appropriations bills
for fiscal year 2008 – and a new war-funding request expected this fall – will test the credibility of both sides of the aisle.
For Republicans, battered by Bush's low approval ratings, the fall budget battles are a chance to show angry conservatives
that the GOP is getting back to a concern over a restraint in spending. "This marks the president's last chance to
reassert control over the budget process that's been allowed to flail along wildly for six years now," says Pete Sepp, a vice
president at the National Taxpayers Union in Alexandria, Va. "If this is an effort to reestablish credentials [with fiscal
conservatives], there is a lot more reestablishment to do beyond S-CHIP. The sincerity of this effort will be judged by
the number of vetoes."

Plan will cause a break in fiscal discipline


Concord Coalition, May 17, 2007, “CONCORD COALITION APPLAUDS PAYGO IN BUDGET RESOLUTION BUT
WARNS THAT PROJECTED SURPLUS REQUIRES HARD CHOICES”,
http://www.concordcoalition.org/press/2007/070517release-budgetconference.htm)
WASHINGTON -- The Concord Coalition said today that the Congressional Budget Resolution to be voted on in the House
and Senate this week would help restore fiscal discipline by applying a deficit neutral "pay-as-you-go" (paygo) standard to all
entitlement expansion and tax cut legislation and by creating a "trigger" in the House to protect projected surpluses. Concord
expressed concern, however, that the revenue numbers in the budget plan assume a waiver of paygo for certain tax cut
extensions. This presumed waiver, along with the absence of cost cutting entitlement reform and an assumed slowing of
discretionary spending growth in the outyears, makes the goal of a $41 billion surplus in 2012 seem optimistic. "Budget rules
are only as strong as the political will to apply them. A close look at the pent-up spending and tax cut demands in the
budget resolution's 23 reserve funds shows how important strict adherence to paygo will be for the desired surplus to
result. In this budget, paygo acts as a fiscal levee against a flood of red ink. If that levee breaks, there is little chance of
reducing the deficit, let alone of producing a surplus," said Concord Coalition executive director Robert L. Bixby.

98
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – Ag
Agriculture policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven
Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)

As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified by
CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money.
<<Every year appropriators and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) perform their little dance: USDA
requests very little funding for special research grants through the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service (CSREES) and appropriators add millions of dollars for their own pet projects. The fiscal 2005 budget is no different.
This tango with our tax dollars continued as USDA requested only $3 million while appropriators added $121 million for CSREES
projects, or 3,933 percent more than the budget request. As a result, the fiscal 2005 Agriculture Appropriations Act has something old,
something new, something borrowed, and something blue. Total agriculture pork in fiscal 2005 was $526.1 million, or 44 percent
more than the fiscal 2004 total of $365 million. The number of projects decreased by 1 percent, from 512 to 505.>>

99
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – Hydrogen
Hydrogen is expensive-requires $55 billion in subsidies
Environmental News Service, J.R. Pegg, Staff Writer, 7/18/08, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2008/2008-07-18-10.asp
WASHINGTON, DC, July 18, 2008 (ENS) - It will take massive subsidies from the U.S. government to make hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles a significant part of the nation's transportation future, according to a National Research Council report
released Thursday. The study finds that even under a best-case scenario only about two million hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles will be on American roads by 2020, less than one percent of the nation's estimated total number of cars and
trucks. Achieving that goal would require the government to pump at least $55 billion in subsidies over the next 15
years to make hydrogen vehicles cost competitive with conventional cars and trucks, the report concluded. Current
government spending has equaled some $879 million since 2004.

100
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – Taxes
Pork Barrel projects are placed in Tax Bills
Hon. Paul Ryan, a representative in congress from the state of Wisconsin, June 8, 2006, HEARING
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION, (Serial No. 109–19)
The amount of pork-barrel spending included in the Federal budget continues to increase every year. According to Citizens
Against Government Waste (CAGW), the Federal Government spent $29 billion on 9,963 pork-barrel projects in Fiscal Year
2006 (FY 2006), an increase of 6.3% from 2005, and an increase of over 900% since 1991. Overall, the Federal Government
has spent $241 billion on pork-barrel projects between 1991 and 2005, an amount greater than two-thirds of our entire deficit
in FY 2005. This includes irresponsible spending on items such as the $50 million Rain Forest Museum in Iowa; $13.5 million to pay
for a program that helped finance the World Toilet Summit; and $1 million for the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative. To make
matters worse, this total does not include earmarks placed in authorization bills or special-interest tax pork placed in tax
legislation. As an example, last year’s highway authorization bill contained approximately 6,371 earmarks, with a total cost of $25
billion. Many of these pork-barrel spending projects are quietly inserted into the conference reports of appropriations,
authorizing, and tax bills at the end of the process where there is little transparency and accountability. Not only do most
Members not have the ability to scrutinize these provisions at all, but even if wasteful spending items are identified at this stage,
Congress is unable to eliminate them using the amendment process. In fact, the only time that Members actually vote on these items is
during an up-or-down vote on the entire conference report, which includes spending for many essential government programs in
addition to the pork-barrel earmarks. In this situation, it is very difficult for any Member to vote against a bill that, as an overall
package may be quite meritorious, despite the inclusion of wasteful spending items. Unfortunately, the current tools at the President’s
disposal do not enable him to easily combat these wasteful spending items either. Even if the President identifies numerous pork-barrel
projects in an appropriations or authorizing bill, he is unlikely to use his veto power because it must be applied to the bill as a whole
and cannot be used to target individual items. This places the President in the same dilemma as Members of Congress. Does he veto an
entire spending bill because of a few items of pork when this action may jeopardize funding for our troops, for our homeland security
or for the education of our children? The President’s ability to propose the rescission of wasteful spending items under the
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 has been equally ineffective at eliminating wasteful spending items. The problem with the current
authority is that it does not include any mechanism to guarantee congressional consideration of a rescission request, and many
Presidential rescissions are simply ignored by the Congress. In fact, during the 1980’s, Congress routinely ignored President Reagan’s
rescission requests, failing to act on over $25 billion in requests that were made by the Administration. The historic ineffectiveness of
this tool has deterred Presidents from using it with any regularity

101
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link-Nuclear
Nuclear power is expensive
Wall Street Journal, Rebecca Smith, Staff Writer, 5/12/08, “New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs”,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055252677483933.html?mod=googlenews_wsj, BB
A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some
sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Nuclear power is regaining
favor as an alternative to other sources of power generation, such as coal-fired plants, which have fallen out of favor because
they are major polluters. But the high cost could lead to sharply higher electricity bills for consumers and inevitably
reignite debate about the nuclear industry's suitability to meet growing energy needs.

102
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link-Alternative Energy
Spending on Alternative Energy Incentives will be perceived as wasteful
Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor, Editor of Regulation Magazine, Senior Fellow @ CATO Institute, 2/3/2006, “Stuck on
Empty”, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5438)
President Bush began his energy riff by noting that since 2001, the federal government has spent nearly $10 billion on
"cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources." Perhaps, but what do we have to show for it? Nothing. The
market share for non-hydro renewable energy (presumably what the president is referring to when he talks about "reliable
alternative energy sources") has languished between 1 and 3 percent for decades, depending upon how you define your
terms. Still, past spending was offered as a rationale for a 22-percent increase in funding for "zero-emission" coal-fired
plants, solar and wind technologies, and nuclear energy. Fuel from corn, weeds, grass, mulch, trees, and whatever else the
combines can harvest were also given a tip of the president’s budgetary hat. For the most part, everybody who’s already
getting a federal energy handout will get a little larger sack of taxpayer loot if the president has his way.

Alternative Energy is perceived as wasteful


Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor, Editor of Regulation Magazine, Senior Fellow @ CATO Institute, 2/3/2006, “Stuck on
Empty”, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5438)
Still, past spending was offered as a rationale for a 22-percent increase in funding for "zero-emission" coal-fired plants,
solar and wind technologies, and nuclear energy. Fuel from corn, weeds, grass, mulch, trees, and whatever else the combines
can harvest were also given a tip of the president’s budgetary hat. For the most part, everybody who’s already getting a federal
energy handout will get a little larger sack of taxpayer loot if the president has his way. Most annoying was the president's
contention that "we must also change how we power our automobiles." Who exactly is "we"? Automobile engineers employed
by automobile companies — not politicians employed by government — are the parties responsible for designing automobiles,
and it should stay that way. Government funded R&D projects to redesign the power train are nothing new. Success in
any one of them, however, would be.The worst aspect of those programs isn't just that they waste taxpayer dollars or
that they subsidize research that should be paid for by auto companies themselves. Rather, it's that they divert
investment from more productive paths. For instance, while the Clinton administration was engaged in a similar
undertaking called "The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles" and producing nothing of consequence,
Japanese auto companies — without significant government help — were busy designing the hybrid powered engines that are
now all the rage within the auto industry. Had Detroit not gone down the road paved by a government subsidy, it might be in a
better position today to produce the kind of cars the president now hopes to subsidize.

103
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link-Alternative Energy

Alternative Energy funding is riddled with earmarks


Jacqueline Ruttiman and Emma Marris, Writer for Nature, Contributing Correspondent for Nature 2 March 2006, Nature 440,
12 , “Alternative energy plan criticized”, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7080/full/440012a.html, BB
Bush's 'advanced energy initiative' made its debut in his State of the Union address on 31 January, when he called for a 22%
funding increase for research into alternative energy technology. But budget analysts looking at the president's 2007
budget request say the proposed increase is more cautious, with funds moved into some research areas and removed from
others. For instance, there is more money for research on solar energy, with a rise of 79% to $148 million, and biomass, up
65% to $150 million. But funding for energy conservation is down 6.3% to $289 million, and the geothermal programme is
axed altogether. "The wider your view, the less glamorous it looks," says Kei Koizumi, a budget analyst at the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. "If you look just at biomass, it looks great. If you look at all renewables, it looks
less great." Energy research, including work on fossil fuels, would decline overall under the president's budget, says Koizumi.
He adds that there is no money set aside for later years for the energy initiative. Reaction elsewhere has been mixed. Solar
enthusiasts are pleased with a budget increase for work on photovoltaic cells. Noah Kaye, spokesman for the Solar Energy
Industries Association, called it "a key victory for a growing high-tech industry in the United States", but went on to call for
production incentives such as tax breaks. Proponents of wind energy sang the same tune, only with less enthusiasm. Their
research boost is just 13% to $44 million. The president's call for increased funding got a mixed reception from
environmentalists. The funds just aren't enough, they say, and are too focused on research. "We need other policies including
technology incentives, or caps on emissions," says Andrew Aulisi, a senior associate at the Washington-based World Resources
Institute. "You need lots of different policies to get a handle on the climate and energy crisis. Even within R&D, the numbers
are not that good." To make matters worse, analysts point out that a large part of the increased money is likely to be taken
up by earmarks, in which legislators appoint money to projects in their home states. For example, the NREL has blamed
the lay-offs on the large number of earmarks in the 2006 budget, which it says left it with a $28-million deficit in operating
costs. Earmarks are rare at agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. But
they made up 21% of the energy research and development budget last year, which is the highest ever, according to
Koizumi. "The energy department has earmarks that they have no choice but to fund," adds George Douglas, a
spokesman for the NREL. "It is taking away money that could be used in this type of research."

Alternative Energy is expensive


Michael Kanellos, Staff Writer for CNET, 1/24/2007, “Why it's not easy being green”, http://news.cnet.com/Why-its-not-easy-
being-green/2100-11395_3-6152851.html BB
Second, installing an alternative-energy infrastructure isn't cheap, despite the influx of venture money into the field and
the strong demand for technologies such as solar. If oil drops below $55 a barrel, most biofuel concepts will be unprofitable,
Arvizu projected. Even if oil doesn't drop that low, it will cost a lot to get an ethanol-solar-wind society off the ground. To
meet the Department of Energy's goal of making ethanol 30 percent of the U.S. transportation fuel budget, fuel manufacturers
will have to invest $100 billion in refineries. To make wind power 20 percent of the source of the electricity in the U.S., it
will take $500 billion in infrastructure investments.

104
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link-Alternative Energy
Alternative Energy Incentives cost $3-4 Billion a year
Michael Vickerman, director of RENEW Wisconsin, a nonprofit organization headquartered in Madison that promotes clean energy
strategies for powering the state's economy in an environmentally responsible manner, 7/16/2008, “Michael Vickerman: It's crucial
for Congress to extend renewable energy incentives”, The Capital Times, http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/296318, BB
Extending the renewable energy tax credits would cost U.S. taxpayers somewhere between $3 billion and $4 billion a
year, most of it going to wind generation. Some members of Congress consider that an unacceptably large expense. But
these are not permanent incentives. In the case of wind power installations, which have a book life between 20 and 30 years,
federal tax credits cover no more than 10 years of operation.

Environmental agencies do pork barrel spending, empirically proven


Mike Lynch, Reason staff writer, July, 2002 “Reason” (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_3_34/ai_87425667)

THE ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency (EPA) is legendary for tangling up businesses in red tape. Yet when it comes to
passing out millions in taxpayer money, it exhibits a casual, devil may-care attitude. In 1999 the agency passed out $1.3 billion of
its $7.5 billion budget in grants and contracts, often in complete disregard of the federal government's competitive bidding process. A
May 2001 report from the EPA'S Office of the Inspector General (QIG) discovered that the "EPA often awards non-competitive
assistance agreements to recipients based on the unsupported belief that those recipients were the only entities capable of
performing the work." That's bureaucratese for, "It gave the money to friends." To justify the awards, the envirocrats retreat to
the boilerplate retort that recipients were "uniquely qualified." In March 2002 the QIG returned to find that sweetheart deals accounted
for "1 out of every 5 dollars of the $1 billion" the EPA awarded in 1999 and 2000. Suspicious that the agency was using taxpayer
money to fund groups that were "uniquely qualified" to lobby for more money for the EPA, the Landmark Legal Foundation
took the agency to court in September 2000 to force it to disclose grant recipients. Some highlights of the $2 billion awarded
noncompetitively since 1993 included $47,000 to help the Seattle Mariners start a recycling program at their new $500 million
ballpark, $1,500 for academics to design a solid waste board game called the "Can Man Game," and $379 million to senior citizen
groups to recruit and pay senior citizens to work for the EPA. The agency even funds its ostensible enemies, providing $2 million in
grants to the National Association of Homebuilders and $4.9 million to the Natural Resources Defense Council, both of which have
sued the agency in the past.

105
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link-Alternative Energy

(Alternative) Energy policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven


Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)

As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461
per capita ($257 million) and Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its
privileges: your money. <<The fiscal 2005 Energy and Water Appropriations Act overflowed with pork projects. Appropriators
funded nearly every creek, bay, and inlet from the coast of California to the shores of Florida. This year, the number of
projects swelled to 1,417, an increase of 130 percent from 617 in fiscal 2004. The total cost rose by 163 percent, from $714
million last year to $1.88 billion this year.>><<$51,132,000 for projects in the state of Senate Appropriations subcommittee member
Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and the district of House appropriator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), including: $36,693,000 for Yazoo River and
Basin projects; $3,750,000 for the Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure Program; $3,000,000 for the Mississippi Technology
Alliance Alternative Energy Enterprises Program; $1,500,000 for the Mississippi State University Biodiesel from Feedstock
Project; $1,060,000 for Pascagoula Harbor ($550,000 for operation and maintenance, and $510,000 for construction); and $100,000
for Okatibbee Lake. $43,813,000 for projects in the state of Senate appropriator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and the district of House
appropriator David Vitter (R-La.), including: $11,450,000 for the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway ($9,000,000 for construction and
$2,450,000 for operation and maintenance. A January 9, 2000 Washington Post article stated that the waterway "still carries less than
0.1 percent of the commercial traffic on America's government-run river transport system — even though it receives a remarkable 3.4
percent of the system's federal funds." In 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said the $2 billion worth of construction costs
won’t be justified until 2046); $2,000,000 for a sugar-based ethanol biorefinery at Louisiana State University; and $500,000 for
Livingston Parish alternative fuel plant construction.>>

106
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link-Alternative Energy

Renewable energy policies are economically and politically implausible


Climate Progress, An insider’s view of climate science, politics and solution, February 15th, 2008 “The Subsidy Tease — Part
III” (http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/15/the-subsidy-tease-part-iii/”
A recent issue of Scientific American featured a “Solar Grand Plan.” Its authors described a way for the United States to obtain
nearly 100% of its electricity and 90% of its total energy, including transportation, from solar, wind, biomass and geothermal
resources by the century’s end. Electricity would cost a comfortable 5 cents per kilowatt hour. U.S. carbon emissions would be
reduced 62% from their 2005 levels. Some 600 coal and gas-fired power plants would be displaced. The federal investment
would be $400 billion over the next 40 years ($10 billion a year) to deploy renewable technologies and suitable transmission
infrastructure. If that future seems too good to be true, then look at two other studies during the past 13 months that have
reached similar conclusions, one sponsored by the American Solar Energy Society, the other by the Nuclear Policy Research
Institute and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. All three concur that energy efficiency and renewable
energy technologies can satisfy the nation’s demand for power without additional nuclear or fossil-fueled power plants.
If $400 billion seems unaffordable, consider: It’s less money than the federal government already has spent on the Iraq
war, only a third of the $1.2 trillion that some experts now predict the war will cost, and only a sixth of the federal
government’s current annual subsidies for fossil and nuclear energy. And if a Solar Grand Plan seems politically
implausible, read the newspaper. Last November, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said we have until
2020 to make major changes in greenhouse gas emissions. Two weeks ago the chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell told
his staff that world oil demand will outpace supply within seven years. That means rapidly rising oil prices, more
recession (the last five recessions in the U.S. were preceded by high oil prices), more power for oil-producing nations
like Iran and Russia, and more likelihood of international conflicts.

107
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – Foreign Aid


Foreign aid policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven
Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)

As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money. <<As
the world continues to cope with the devastation caused by the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, Americans and their government
are generously providing hundreds of millions of dollars in relief. The dark side of foreign aid is the tidal wave of pork projects
that has been added to appropriations bills, money that could have been used to save lives instead of protecting the
incumbency of members of Congress. The number of projects decreased by 10 percent, from 20 in fiscal 2004 to 18 in fiscal
2005. But the cost of the pork increased by 5.4 percent, from $449.8 million to $473.9 million.>>

108
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – Military
Military policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven
Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)

As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money.
<<Defending the United States is the top priority of the federal government. With a deficit of $427 billion and the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan costing more than $200 billion to date, congressional appropriators should be extremely careful with every
defense dollar. Unfortunately, appropriators have ignored the national interest and used the Defense Appropriations Act as
their own personal pork barrel. In fact, the number of projects jumped 25 percent from 2,077 in fiscal 2004 to 2,606 in fiscal
2005 while the total cost jumped 10.5 percent from $11.5 billion to $12.7 billion.>>

109
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – Military

Homeland Security policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven


Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)

As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money.
<<$104,000,000 added for the Port Security Grant Program. The grants are provided "for projects to improve dockside and
perimeter security that is vital to securing our critical national seaports. These awards will contribute to important security
upgrades such as surveillance equipment, access controls to restricted areas, communications equipment, and the construction of new
command and control facilities." The department requested $46,000,000 for the program, but both the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees added funds. Despite appropriating more money, the House Appropriations Committee was "concerned
that port security grants made to independent terminal operators are not coordinated at the State, local port authority, or Captain of the
Port levels. Therefore, the Committee directs that…the coordination of all port security grants with the State, local port authority, and
the Captain of the Port, to ensure all vested parties are aware and that the limited resources are maximized." On September 13, 2004,
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the recipients of the fourth round of port security grants. Premier
Yachts, Inc., a private for-profit company with revenues of $40 million in 2003, was awarded three port security grants totaling
$208,100. Premier offers "fine dining and entertainment cruises" through its Odyssey, Mystic Blue, and Seadog Cruises in
Boston, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. Nothing like wining and dining at the taxpayers’ expense.>>

110
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – Military
Military Construction policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven
Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)

As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your
money.<<Appropriators paid a little more attention to the Pentagon’s priorities than their parochial pork in the fiscal 2005
Military Construction Appropriations Act, but taxpayers still paid for too many wasteful projects. Total earmarks decreased
by 28 percent, from 199 to 143, and the total amount of pork decreased by 5 percent, from $1 billion in fiscal 2004 to $974
million in fiscal 2005.>>

111
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link education/health/science

Education/Health/Science policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven


Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)

As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money. Rep.
Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) got it right in a November 20, 2004 press release: "[E]very year, it’s the same thing — Congress passes
spending bills loaded with pork projects." The fiscal 2005 Labor/HHS Appropriations Act is the poster child for the appropriators’
excess. Of the 3,071 projects, 98 percent were added in conference; the total is a 57.4 percent increase over the 1,951 projects in fiscal
2004. The projects cost $1.69 billion, an increase of 79.6 percent over fiscal 2004’s $943 million<<$48,854,000 added in conference
in the state of Senate Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Tom Harkin (Diowa) and the district of House
appropriator Tom Latham (Riowa), including: $15,000,000 for the Iowa Department of Education to continue the Harkin Grant
Program (according to a September 4, 2004 press release, "Since 1998, Iowa schools have received a total of $101 million in
Harkin Grants, the only federal program of its kind"); $3,000,000 for the Iowa Department of Public Health to initiate the Harkin
Wellness Grant Program; $1,000,000 for the State Historical Society of Iowa in Des Moines, for the development of exhibits for the
World Food Prize; $235,000 for the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls to support youth fitness and obesity efforts for rural
preschool children; $200,000 for the Iowa Games to continue the Lighten Up Iowa Program (the games are held by the Iowa Sports
Foundation [ISF], which claims on its website that "the ISF receives no state or government financial support."); and $100,000 for
National History Day for a history competition in Iowa.<<$17,140,000 added in conference for projects in the district of House
Labor/HHS Appropriations subcommittee member Anne Northup (R-Ky.), including: $14,500,000 for the University of Louisville
($10,250,000 for the Baxter III Research Building;>> $1,500,000 for Eckerd College in St. Petersburg in the district of House
Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young (R-Fla.): $1,000,000 to upgrade educational computing and technology and
$500,000 for leadership training programs. The programs are part of the college’s Leadership Development Institute and its
network associate, the Center for Creative Leadership. The institute has a long list of corporate participants (including JP Morgan,
Citibank, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Pentagon, and Tropicana), and the center "has delivered internationally acclaimed
programs to thousands of local, national, and international clients."<<$450,000 added in conference for the National Baseball Hall of
Fame and Museum in Cooperstown for educational outreach using baseball to teach students through distance learning technology in
the district of Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.). Its website states that "baseball has connections to a variety of academic disciplines,
including mathematics, history, geography, technology, sociology, cultural diversity, character education, economics, women's
history." The hall of fame has received $1,569,000 since fiscal 2001 for educational outreach programs. The Baseball Hall of
Fame; a commission to examine steroid use among professional baseball players — looks like Congress put fiscal conservatism
on the bench and is throwing the taxpayers a bunch of junk.>>

112
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – development
Development policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven
Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)

As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money<<The
amount of money appropriators can waste through the VA/HUD Appropriations Act is as vast as their imaginations. Even
though the Department of Housing and Urban Development did not request any funding for specific projects in the Economic
Development Initiative Program, appropriators added 1,039 projects totaling $264 million. The pork list includes a swank
hotel in Coral Gables, Fla. and the Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville, Tenn. After the bill had been greased, the total
number of projects increased by 16 percent over fiscal 2004, from 1,774 to 2,113. Total pork decreased by 11.9 percent, from $1.1
billion to $1 billion.>>

113
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – Interior Policies


Interior policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven
Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)

As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money.<<
Following the trend of ever-growing appropriations bills, the fiscal 2005 Interior Appropriations Act was bursting with pork,
totaling $680 million, a 52 percent increase over last year’s $446 million. Total projects increased by 17.5 percent, from 473 in
fiscal 2004 to 556 in fiscal 2005.>>

114
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – Terrorism
Terrorism policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven
Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional
pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the
juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book)

As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to
a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into
something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire
need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many
members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let
themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest
installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes
$3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the
Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed
13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total
number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than
last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified
by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland
Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent);
and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or
30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and
Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money.<<The
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State execute key objectives in the war on terror — they hold together diplomatic
coalitions, monitor intelligence for future threats, guard borders, and bring terrorists to justice. But this appropriation also
funds agencies such as the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Such widespread options are
always tempting to appropriators. Even though the total number of projects increased by 30 percent, from 896 in fiscal 2004 to
1,168 in fiscal 2005, the amount of pork decreased by 3 percent, from $1.38 billion to $1.34 billion.>>

115
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – Farm Bills


Farm Bills empirically come in pork barrels
Taxpayer for Common Sense, making government work, Feb 18, 2005 “A Litmus Test on Spending”
(http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_tag.php?action=view&proj_id=608&tag=subsidies&type=Project)
When it comes to congressional pork barrel spending, there has been no holier sacred cow than farm subsidies. So when
President Bush announced a modest proposal to reduce individual farm payments to $250,000 per farm, he put his
administration on a collision course with one of Congress's fastest moving trains. Time and again, no matter how much lip
service is paid to reining in these outdated, depression-era farm programs, Congress buckles under the pressure and continues
its blank check farm policy. The 1996 farm bill was supposed to reduce this spending and return the farm sector to the free-market.
Instead, total farm spending more than doubled. In 2002, riding a wave of false budget surpluses, Congress reversed gears, re-wrote
the farm bill, and threw in everything but the kitchen sink. Instead of fixing the failures of the previous bill, Congress ended up
passing the most expensive farm legislation in history. Since 1998, average annual farm payments have gone from $7 billion to $18
billion. The FY 2006 budget estimates 2005 farm subsidy spending will top $24 billion. Worse, farm payments have become
increasingly concentrated, flowing to fewer and fewer individual farmers. According to the USDA, only 8 percent of producers
receive 78 percent of subsidies. At the top of the subsidy food chain, huge corporate operations receive payments in the millions, while
the average for 80 percent of farmers is under $1,000. Instead of keeping farmers on the land, these huge government payments to
only the largest, most productive farms are forcing many small farmers out of business. Farm payments are based on production
levels, so the bigger the farm, the bigger the government check. Large corporate operations are able to plant more crops, so they get
the biggest slice of the subsidy pie. These large farms then turn around and use their outsized government checks to buy up even more
farm land. Unable to compete, small farmers are left with no choice but to sell their land to the very operations that are putting them
out of business.

116
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – emergency spending

Emergency Spending kills social security and surplus budgets


Peter Sperry, former Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy
Studies at The Heritage Foundation, September 3, 1999 “Executive Memorandum #621-( http://www.heritage.org/rese arch
/budget/EM621.cfm)

Prior to leaving for its August 1999 recess, the Senate approved a $7.6 billion "emergency" agricultural spending package that
will consume about half of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected on-budget surplus for fiscal year (FY) 1999.
Although emergency appropriations do not count against budget caps, increased spending, regardless of how its classified,
eliminates the possibility of Congress keeping its other commitments, like protecting Social Security and passing tax cuts.
During the floor debate, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, noted that
federal assistance payments for crop year 1999 will total $16.6 billion, excluding the "emergency" spending package. According to the
1997 Census of Agriculture, there are 1,911,824 farms, of which 685,029 receive federal monies, yielding an average subsidy of
$24,233 per farm. Nevertheless, the Senate voted to increase the agricultural assistance payments for this crop year by almost $8
billion, which will increase total payments to $24.2 billion, or $35,327 per farm. The Senate's generous allocation of taxpayer funds
was prompted by concern that the East Coast drought and falling commodity prices would lead to unacceptably low net farm incomes.
Confirmation came from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which reported that unless emergency measures were
enacted, net farm income in 1999 would be $300 million lower than in 1998. If correct, it would mean that over half a million farms
subsidized by the federal government might earn an average of $438 less in 1999 than they had in 1998. Apparently, this "emergency"
justifies rescinding recent commitments to dedicate the first federal surplus in 30 years to saving Social Security, reducing taxes, and
paying down the national debt. Conclusion. The level of "emergency" spending approved by the Senate makes a mockery of its
recent passage of tax cuts for working Americans and threatens to do the same to congressional commitments to protect 100
percent of the surplus for Social Security. Although the CBO projected a $14 billion on-budget surplus available for allocation for
FY 2000, many Members of Congress have already indicated that all or most of an on-budget surplus will be used to fund the 13
regular appropriations bills. Consequently, any "emergency" spending will exhaust the on-budget surplus and eat into the Social
Security surplus. Americans are a generous people willing to assist their neighbors when necessary. Nonetheless, Congress should
not abuse taxpayers' generosity by extending "emergency" assistance to those who do not need it. Farm households with an
unsubsidized net taxable income of more that $50,000 per year do not need tax subsidies. Likewise, Americans who derive less than
25 percent of their household income from agriculture do not need federal subsidies to sustain their hobbies. Congress should restrict
emergency agricultural assistance to only those farmers who demonstrate a loss of income that threatens the survival of their family or
business. Middle-income taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize someone else's "lifestyle" choices or six-figure incomes.

117
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – elections cause snowball


Congress will use any opportunity to earmark to appeal to their constituents
Jim DeMint, Jim DeMint represents South Carolina in the U.S. Senate., Herald Journal, July 13, 2008 , “We must reform the
Washington status quo”,
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20080713/NEWS/807130303/1132/OPINION&title=We_must_reform_the_Washington_status_quo,
BB
The earmark process is actually pretty simple. Powerful appropriations committees in the House and Senate give each
member of Congress a slush fund to spend on their favorite projects. The politician simply creates a list of top projects,
and they usually get funded, no questions asked. Members of the committee get more to spend than others, and chairmen get
even more. This is why Alaska and West Virginia continually get millions more in earmarks than states like South Carolina and
Georgia. Politicians facing tough re-elections get extra taxpayer dollars to give to their states so that they can be seen as
"effective legislators." This means that funding goes to universities based not on the quality of the schools but whether they
are represented by a senior member on the right committee. It is also important to remember that there is another downside
to the earmarking practice. The billions of dollars that we waste on congressional pet projects is borrowed money. We
are borrowing from Social Security, from our grandchildren, from China even - and for what? We borrow so we can secure
our next election rather than the future for the next generation.

Blue Dogs are able to maintain pay go


Denise Ross, covered South Dakota politics since 1999. She now publishes Hoghouse Blog and can be heard weekly as a political
junkie guest on South Dakota Public Radio. , 7/17/2008, Black Hills Pioneer, “‘Blue Dog’ Herseth Sandlin at center of House fiscal
watchdog group”, http://www.bhpioneer.com/articles/2008/07/17/opinion/doc487fb5450094f111315432.txt, BB
“With Democrats potentially controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in 2009, House leaders must not ignore the Blue
Dogs’ concerns if they want to keep the majority,” reports a recent National Journal cover story titled “Dog Days.” Herseth
Sandlin was one of four of the 49 Blue Dogs chosen for the National Journal interview and cover photo. South Dakota’s
congresswoman seems to have found growing power within a group that is itself growing in power. The Blue Dogs have grown
from 23 members when they first formed in 1994 after the GOP’s historic takeover of Congress, and they have expanded from
mostly Southern representatives to include members from the Midwest and West. They even have six members from the
Northeast. More importantly, recent heretofore unimaginable Democratic victories in red districts have been won by
candidates endorsed by and funded by the Blue Dogs. And, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco ponders her party’s
majority in the House, she knows much of the credit must go to the Blue Dogs, according to the National Journal. “She and
other House Democratic leaders are well aware that if just 19 Blue Dogs oppose them on party-line votes, the majority
can’t pass legislation,” reported the magazine. The Blue Dogs have unified around what’s called “pay-go” in Capitol Hill
shorthand, or a “pay as you go” budget rule that requires Congress to pay for new spending with either a tax increase
or other spending cuts. That rule has been waived a handful of times but only cautiously due to the Blue Dogs’ collective
swing-vote status.

118
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Dollar Key to econ


Continuing to lower the dollar leads to global economic collapse
Scott Champion, analyst with the Centre for Global Negotiations, “Will a US dollar collapse end American Hegmenony?”, Share
International, 6/2003,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:c7OliQOGgIEJ:shareno.net/dollarcollapse.htm+economic+collapse+and+hegemony&hl=en,
BB
For many years the US has been the economic engine for the world, standing in as purchaser of last resort for the
world’s supply of goods in times of global economic distress. Now the US itself is in trouble. If the US attempts to fight
the rapidly gaining forces of deflation by encouraging a depreciating dollar, it will export deflation to the rest of the
world because foreign currencies will rise relative to the dollar. This will damage foreign economies and inhibit their
ability to buy goods and services, including those from the US. Since the short-term benefit of a weak dollar to US
corporations’ earnings will show up quickly, while the long-term damage to the global economy will become apparent only
with the passage of time, it is a fair assumption that the US will take the easy route and worry about the global fallout later. The
problem with this approach for the Bush administration is that there are great risks to a weak dollar policy. The world
economy is awash in dollars, and when there is too much of something the price or value usually drops, sometimes
precipitously. If confidence in the dollar or dollar assets, such as Treasury bonds, declines, the world may, at some point,
reconsider its involvement with US assets. The results of such a reappraisal could be anything from mildly damaging to
catastrophic. Seventy-five per cent of the world’s central-bank assets are held in US dollars (as Treasury bonds). These
bankers do not want their primary asset to suffer a significant decline.

A Dollar Free-fall would collapse the economy


Dr. C. Fred Bergsten, Director Peterson Institute for International Economics, December 5, 2007, CQ Congressional Testimony,
“BUDGET IMPLICATION OF STATE OF U.S. ECONOMY”, lexis, BB
A further decline of the dollar, if gradual and orderly as has been the case since 2002, is a desirable and
indeed necessary component of completing the adjustment of the unsustainable US and international imbalances.
However, markets frequently overreact and a free fall of the dollar could trigger sharp and sudden increases in US
inflation and thus interest rates (especially if energy prices were to rise further at the same time). This would push the
economy in the direction of the stagflation of the 1970s (albeit presumably with less intensity on either the "stag" or "flation"
sides of the equation that occurred at that time). Such a scenario could, at a minimum, limit the ability of the Federal
Reserve to reduce interest rates to counter the economic slowdown (and provide additional liquidity to the financial
markets). It might even force the Fed to raise rates to halt the currency depreciation. I believe this is in fact the greatest risk
to the "modest slowdown" prospect posited above as the most likely course for the US economy over the next year or so.
Hence the United States might have to pay dearly now, in the teeth of a financial crisis and possible recession (in an election
year), for living so far beyond its means for so long and thus becoming dependent on large continuing inflows of capital from
the rest of the world. There are of course steps that the United States can take to minimize these risks. For this Committee and
the Congress as a whole, the most important is by assuring continued reductions in the structural budget deficit with the goal of
restoring the modest surpluses of 1998-2001 when economic growth returns to trend levels of 21/2-3 per cent.

119
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Fiscal D Key to Econ


Perception of fiscal discipline is key to avoid economic collapse
David Dapice, Associate Professor of Economics at Tufts University and the economist of the Vietnam Program at Harvard
University's Kennedy School of Government, “Dealing with a Declining Dollar – Part II”, YaleGlobal, 9 February 2005,
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5254, BB
If US domestic politics make serious deficit reduction unlikely, the uneasy international bond buyers may ultimately
force the administration's hand. If the Republicans wish to avoid wearing a "Herbert Hoover necklace" (President Hoover's
policies brought about the crash of 1929.) around their necks for a generation, they may decide that preventing a dollar collapse
is even more important than expanding spending and extending tax cuts. Or they might gamble that others have more to lose,
and continue to run both federal and current account deficits that push the limits of foreign asset buyers' acceptance. The
willingness of foreign central banks to accumulate dollar assets for mercantilist purposes makes this bet seem safer in the short
term, but also makes it riskier over time. The whole world has a stake in the outcome of this debate, but few can vote – except
with their money. Investors might cast the deciding votes; though if it comes to that, there could be more losers than winners.
For those who wish to glimpse the "tipping point" – if indeed there is one – the pace of Federal Reserve short-term interest rate
hikes might provide a clue. If foreigners begin to sell Treasury bills, which still yield little more than inflation, the Fed
would have little choice but to raise interest rates more quickly than it has indicated. These increases would transmit
themselves to longer-term interest rates as well, and would drive up mortgage and other borrowing costs. Corporate
investment, construction, and durable goods purchases (cars, furniture) would all diminish. Exports would benefit, but
the net impact would be negative. If the rate hikes were steep enough, a recession would likely ensue.

Lack of Fiscal Discipline leads to Economic Collapse


Gerald J. Swanson, Professor; Thomas R. Brown Chair in Economic Education @ Eller College, America the Broke, 2004, pg. 13,
BB
Because foreign investors view the dollar as nothing more than another asset they buy in hopes of making a return,
increasing economic turmoil in the United States would probably provoke them to sell some, if not all, of their dollar
assets, causing the currency’s value to drop farther. As this vicious cycle gathered speed, foreign investors might quit
buying Treasury securities altogether. They might even start cashing in the bonds they already held. That would force
the government to print the money it couldn’t borrow—a surefire trigger for inflation and another blow to the value of
the dollar. What would happen then? We can only guess, because such a debacle has never occurred in modern times. At the
very least, the United States—and because of our wide-ranging influence the rest of the world, too—would be plunged
into economic chaos, all because of our unwillingness to reign in our reckless spending.

120
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Fiscal D Key to Econ


The lack of fiscal discipline is killing the economy now
The Huffington Post, Paul Abrams, Staff Writer, 7/16/08, “How to Get the Economy from its Vicious to a Virtuous Cycle -- But
Radical Righties Won't Let it Happen”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/how-to-get-the-economy-fr_b_113067.html
The economy has deteriorated, and will continue to spiral downward, but the reasons for the vicious cycle have been
ignored, and thus the cures not even discussed. That represents a victory for the radical rightwing ideologues and a major
defeat for the people of the United States. The major reason for the downward spiral is the upward spiral in the US
deficits and debt. Remember, our dear leader inherited a projected surplus of $5 Trillion, and succeeded in
transforming that into a debt of an additional $4 Trillion, the most spectacular case of fiscal mismanagement in world
history.

Pay-go key to avoiding economic collapse


The Huffington Post, Paul Abrams, Staff Writer, 7/16/08, “How to Get the Economy from its Vicious to a Virtuous Cycle -- But
Radical Righties Won't Let it Happen”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/how-to-get-the-economy-fr_b_113067.html
But, we know what works.... because we did it in the early '90s. We were coming out of the Savings & Loan Crisis, the
economy was doing poorly, George H.W. Bush kept proclaiming we were not in recession. But HW acted, and did so against
his "read-my-lips" pledge, earning him the undying enmity of the radical righties, but taking the major first step that righted the
economy. He raised revenues by raising taxes. Bill Clinton then upped the ante again, and, in the midst of an economic
downturn, the myths of the radical righties exploded -- the economy actually reversed itself and grew despite the slightly
increased tax rates. Here's how. The major problem at the time was that the deficits were reflected by high interest rates.
That kept investment low, and the interest on the debt high, becoming a major component of government spending that
accomplished nothing. By restraining spending via pay-as-you-go (aka, "pay-go"), and taking in more revenues through
higher taxes on the wealthy, interest rates came down, and the economy took off.

121
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Fiscal D Key to Econ

Lack of Fiscal Discipline Collapses the economy—Interests Rates rise leading to


a financial train wreck
David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the US, 3-10-2008, USA Today, “How the US can avoid a fiscal wreck,”, Pg. 11A, lexis,
BB
In my view, we have a five- to 10-year window of opportunity to act. If policymakers don't, it is only a matter of time before
interest rates begin to skyrocket and the U.S. debt is reduced to "junk bond" status. Higher interest rates will have an
adverse effect on the federal budget, on the economy, on the finances of American households and potentially on the
relative standard of living for most Americans. It is time for an open and honest national dialogue with Americans on what
they can realistically expect from the federal government and how they are going to pay for it. The plain and simple truth is
that we are in a deep fiscal hole, and we are still digging. The U.S. government's total liabilities and unfunded
commitments for future Social Security and Medicare benefits and other items are estimated at $53 trillion, up from about
$20 trillion at the start of this decade, and are rising at a rate of $2 trillion to $3 trillion a year. This fiscal gap translates
into an IOU of about $455,000 for every American household. In other words, our government has made a whole lot of
promises that it will be hard-pressed to keep without increasing taxes to levels far beyond what the American people
have tolerated historically. By refusing to make tough choices and by charging up the nation's credit card, we are mortgaging
the future of our children and grandchildren. If we continue as we have, policymakers will eventually have two options: raise
taxes dramatically or slash government programs and services. To avoid this fiscal train wreck, we need to make three
changes as soon as possible: *First, we need to impose strong budget controls, written into law, to constrain federal
spending as well as the many tax preferences that reduce revenue and represent a type of back door spending.

Fiscal Discipline is key to avoid economic collapse


Journal Star 7/14/2006, “Billions of reasons not to celebrate”,
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2006/07/14/editorial_main/doc44b6dee6efb90992919704.txt
But at this point, only the naïve and gullible still cling to the hope that tax cuts alone are enough to restore fiscal sanity.
The real need is for fiscal discipline. Spending and taxes must be brought into balance. In defense of current fiscal policy,
the White House and some economists say the deficit should be measured against the size of the economy. By that yardstick,
the 2006 deficit is 2.3 percent of the gross domestic product, better than 17 of the past 25 years. But in today’s strong
economy, the United States ought to be preparing for the retirement of the baby-boom generation by getting its financial
house in order. The nation ought to be paying down its debt. Instead, Bush is maxing out the national credit card.
Interest paid on the national debt is the fifth largest item in the federal budget. Last year, the “debt tax” was equivalent
to $1,190 per American. Almost half that money was sent out of the country to foreign investors. Some of the nation’s top
think tanks, representing both conservative and liberal sides of the spectrum, have joined with U.S. Comptroller David Walker
in a national “Fiscal Wake-Up Tour” to draw attention to the federal government’s poor financial health. “What we have going
are the elements of a perfect storm — a potent mix of ignorance, apathy and inaction in all sectors of American society,”
Walker wrote recently. “If we continue on our present course, a fiscal crisis is not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when.’”

122
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Fiscal D Key to Econ

Loss of Fiscal Discipline leads to runaway inflation


The Daily Observer, 3/14/2008, “Gambia; The Big Read - Saihou Sanyang On the Tenets of Good Governance (Part 2)”, lexis,
BB
Fiscal discipline is mainly concerned with the stabilizing function of macroeconomic fundamentals wherein the capable state
seeks to pursue policies that underpin balanced growth and allow for free enterprise to flourish (perfect competition as opposed
to monopoly) alongside a consumer society whose welfare is maximized. In order to ensure stability, government budgets
should adhere to high fiscal discipline which requires that government spending is planned and implemented in such a
way that spending and taxing levels are affordable. Of the three items of the budget, fiscal discipline mostly refers to the
deficit and it's financing. High levels of borrowing to finance the budget deficit means higher debt service in future
years and less spending on priority areas like poverty reduction (alleviation). High deficits may lead to spiralling (run
away) inflation and therefore, comprise price level stability.

The perceived loss of fiscal discipline cripples the US economy


Bergsten 04 (C. Fred, director of the Institute for International Economics, "The Risks Ahead for the World Economy," Economist,
9/9, http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3172404)

Robert Rubin, former secretary of the Treasury, also stresses the psychological importance for financial markets of expectations
concerning the American budget position. If that deficit is viewed as likely to rise substantially, without any correction in sight,
confidence in America's financial instruments and currency could crack. The dollar could fall sharply as it did in 1971-73, 1978-79,
1985-87 and 1994-95. Market interest rates would rise substantially and the Federal Reserve would probably have to push them still higher to limit the
acceleration of inflation. These risks could be intensified by the change in leadership that will presumably take place at the Federal Reserve Board
in less than two years, inevitably creating new uncertainties after 25 years of superb stewardship by Mr Volcker and Alan Greenspan. A very hard landing is not
inevitable but neither is it unlikely.

123
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Fiscal D Key to check Russia


Decline in fiscal discipline leads to Russian Resurgence
The International Herald Tribune, August 18, 2007, “A debt culture gone awry; America's handicap”, Hamid Varzi, an
economist and banker based in Tehran, Pg. 5, lexis, BB
U.S. debt affects all nations, but in surprisingly different ways: Third world farmers suffer from the effects of gigantic U.S.
farm subsidies aimed at reducing the trade deficit, while Russia has actually profited from America's lack of discipline.
Flush with funds generated from a decade of trade and account surpluses, Russia views U.S. sensitivity to its
expansionist energy policy as a response to America's own failure to reduce energy waste and exploit alternative energy
sources when it had the opportunity to do so. In sum, American economic decadence has become a source of Russian
strength.

124
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Fiscal D K deficit
A loss of fiscal discipline balloons the deficit
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, June 8, 2008, “How to impose fiscal discipline”, The Washington
Times, lexis, BB
Fiscal responsibility is about more than balancing the nation's checkbook; it is about keeping our promises to our seniors and
our young people and promoting job creation and prosperity. Without fiscal discipline, America will pass on a legacy of
debt, fail to meet the demands the baby-boom generation will place on Social Security and Medicare, and undermine access to
capital, the lifeblood of new and growing businesses. In 2007, the new Democratic Congress began to restore our nation's
fiscal health while inheriting a fiscal challenge of historic proportions. President Bush and the Republican Congress turned
a $5.6 trillion, 10-year surplus inherited from the Clinton administration into a $3 trillion deficit. Thanks largely to the
cost of the war in Iraq and the Republican penchant for tax cuts for the wealthy, the deficit ballooned to $248 billion in
2006.

125
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Fiscal D K Biz Con

Fiscal Discipline Key to business Confidence// Deficit spending is the greatest


risk to the economy
USA Today 3/21/2005, “Economists: Federal deficit a bigger risk than terrorism”,
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/survey/2005-03-21-deficit-threat-nabe_x.htm_
WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The budget deficit has overtaken terrorism as the greatest short-term risk to the U.S.
economy, and concern about the current gap is rising, a survey of U.S. businesses shows. In a survey of 172 members of
the National Association for Business Economics, 27% said the deficit or government spending is the largest short-term
threat to the economy, up from 23% who thought so in August. (Related: Top economic forecasters.) Terrorism dropped to
second on the list, with 24% saying it is the biggest threat, down from 40%. Those most concerned about the deficit in the
current account — the largest measure of U.S. trade with other nations — tripled, to 15% from 5% in August. "Longer term,
the costs related to the aging of the population dominate the challenges to sustaining economic growth. However, the panel is
doubtful that this Congress will pass needed Social Security reforms," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's,
who conducted the analysis for the report.

126
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Fiscal D K Heg

Fiscal Discipline is key to Heg


The International Herald Tribune, August 18, 2007, “A debt culture gone awry; America's handicap”, Hamid Varzi, an
economist and banker based in Tehran, Pg. 5, lexis, BB
Supply-siders ignore the crucial distinction between, on the one hand, debt employed as an investment vehicle to enhance
competitiveness and, on the other, debt used to pay off current expenses and to create even more debt. The bottom line is that
America is awash in red ink and seeks the wrong solutions to its debt problems. A return to fiscal responsibility would
make America far stronger, both domestically and internationally, than would a continuation of current policies that
falsely project strength through idle protectionist threats and failed military aggression. Current tensions between the
United States and the rest of the world will continue as long as America's military bark is louder than its economic bite.
A solution to the U.S. debt problem requires radical measures, including: the elimination of corporate tax loopholes, a
reversal of tax breaks for the ultra-rich, a bipartisan campaign to eliminate budget ''pork,'' imposition of stringent limits on
corporate debt and speculative lending, a vast reduction in military expenditure and, finally, an additional 50 cent per gallon
gasoline tax that would slash the federal deficit, curtail energy waste and spur technological breakthroughs . Let us hope
America heeds the warnings , dispenses with junk-food economics and embraces a crucial diet of fiscal discipline. It
remains to be seen, however, whether America's political leaders have the courage to instigate such reforms, and whether
Congress is finally willing to do something for the future of ordinary, hard-working Americans.

127
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Debt -> Recession

Deficits Cause a recesision


Melanie Colburn, Mother Jones Staff Writer, June 5, 2006 (Mother Jones is an independent nonprofit whose roots lie in a
commitment to social justice implemented through first rate investigative reporting-“Why Deficits Matter”-
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/06/deficit_worries.html)

Although the ramifications of persistent and growing federal deficits are not often well-understood by the public, they will
become increasingly relevant in the future. Eventually, all those debts will have to be paid off, in the form of higher taxes or
spending cuts (unless, of course, the United States inflates its way out of debt or defaults—both unnerving, if far-fetched,
possibilities). The country may also face higher borrowing costs in the future, in the form of hikes in interest rates, which could
hamper the American economy and even induce a recession. If that's not bad enough, in just a few years, budget deficits will
grow even bigger as the government faces increasing costs associated with the retirement of the baby boomer generation. By
not preparing for this inevitability, the federal government is essentially doing what an individual in debt might do—that is, paying off
current obligations by taking out additional loans—but instead of mortgaging a house, the government is borrowing from future
economic growth. "By borrowing from abroad to finance U.S. investment, we our shortchanging our future standard of living," says
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "From a generational perspective, throwing a fiscal
party and passing along the bill is extremely unfair."

Deficits undermine economic growth


Gramlich, FRB member, governor, 2/24/04 “the federal reserve board” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/ boarddocs/ speeches/20
04/2 0040624/default.htm)
Fiscal policy can have important long-run effects on the health of the economy, particularly through its impact on national
saving and the growth of productivity. National savings can be generated privately, by households and business, or publicly, by
government. Although fiscal policy can, in theory, help boost private saving, this has proven difficult, in practice. Instead, the most
important effect of fiscal policy on national saving has been through the direct government budget. When the government runs
deficits, it siphons off private savings (reducing national saving), leaving less available for capital investment. With less capital
investment, less new equipment is provided to workers, and, all else being equal, future productivity growth rates and levels are
lower. Productivity growth is the principal source of improvement in economic well-being. The faster productivity increases over
time, the more rapidly living standards increase. Maintaining a rapid rate of trend productivity growth is particularly important in light
of the coming budgetary pressures associated with the retirement of the baby boom generation. A more productive economy will ease
the financing of Social Security and Medicare benefits for tomorrow's retirees without placing an undue burden on tomorrow's
workers. In contrast, if we allow debt to build now and in coming years, we will have both lower output to meet future
obligations as well as the added burden of financing a growing amount of debt. Indeed, under numerous scenarios, our current
debt path is unsustainable: Without changes to taxes or spending, we may reach a point where ever-larger amounts of debt
must be issued to pay ever-larger interest charges.

Deficit spending leads to economic downturn


Missourian, ROSEANN MORING AND CATHERINE MCCOMB, Staff Writers, 7/19/2008 , “Ninth District congressional
candidates comment on economy”,
State Rep. Judy Baker also said the government’s expenditures in Iraq are out of control. “When you start paying private
companies’ employees more than our troops, there’s a problem,” she said. But Baker said the government’s deficit spending
is what has caused the economy’s downturn. “We need to take a look at government spending on all levels. There is still
a lot of discretionary spending that is probably irrational and unnecessary,” she said.

128
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Debt -> Recession

Debt kills US competitiveness and retards economic growth


J. Randy Forbes, US Rep, The Progress-Index,, 7/20/2008 “Cutting the budget excess”, http://www.progress-
index.com/articles/2008/07/20/editorial/pi_progindex.20080720.a.pg5.pi0720forbes_s1.1763623_edi.txt
Right now, our federal government is in debt over $9 trillion dollars. This means that every man, woman, and child in the
U.S. owes the federal government $30,903.41 for expenses the government paid using borrowed dollars, and that number
continues to rise. Growth in federal debt has a significant impact on our economic output and threatens our economic
stability - because the government needs to borrow money, and when a big borrower like the government enters the
credit market, dollars become scarce. The lack of available dollars in the credit market leads to higher interest rates,
and costly loans make it more difficult for businesses to earn a profit. Our federal debt impacts employment growth and
our ability to advance technologically and compete globally. For families already facing a slowing economy, a struggling
housing market, and skyrocketing gas prices, a growing deficit that they have little control over creates a financial pit in their
stomach of the worst kind.

129
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Debt -> military aggression


High debt levels leads to anti-american military aggression
The International Herald Tribune, August 18, 2007, “A debt culture gone awry; America's handicap”, Hamid Varzi, an
economist and banker based in Tehran, Pg. 5, lexis, BB
The U.S. economy, once the envy of the world, is now viewed across the globe with suspicion. America has become
shackled by an immovable mountain of debt that endangers its prosperity and threatens to bring the rest of the world
economy crashing down with it. The ongoing sub-prime mortgage crisis, a result of irresponsible lending policies designed
to generate commissions for unscrupulous brokers, presages far deeper problems in a U.S. economy that is beginning to
resemble a giant smoke-and-mirrors Ponzi scheme. And this has not been lost on the rest of the world. This new reality has
had unfortunate side effects that go beyond economics. As a banker working in the heart of the Muslim world, I have been
amazed by the depth and breadth of anti-Americanism, even among U.S. allies, manifested in reactions ranging from
fierce anger to stoic fatalism. Muslims outside the United States interpret America's policies in the Middle East not as an
effort to spread democracy but as a blatant neocolonialist attempt to solve its economic problems by force. Arabs and
Persians alike argue that America's fiscal irresponsibility has forced the nation to seek solutions through military
aggression.

130
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

US Deficit -> global econ collapse


An Increase in the deficit threatens global economic collapse
The Guardian, Jeremey Rifkin, Staff Writer, 25 March, 2004 “A Perfect Storm About To Hit”,
http://www.countercurrents.org/eco-rifkin250304.htm, BB
An ever-weaker dollar makes foreign investors less interested in financing the mushrooming US debt. The US could raise
interest rates, making it more attractive for foreign investors, but that would mean higher interest rates for US companies and
consumers, which could dampen the already weak recovery and send us back into a recession in the US and around the world.
So we have all the conditions coming together to create the perfect economic storm: record oil prices triggering a restriction in
US economic growth and an increase in the federal budget deficit, accompanied by further erosion in the value of the
dollar - with increased budget deficits and the diminished value of the dollar leading in turn to higher interest rates to
convince foreign investors to lend the US additional money, followed by a further retraction of the US economy as rising
interest rates lead to a drop in domestic investment and consumption. The cascade of events touches off a tsunami that
engulfs the rest of the global economy, submerging the world in deep recession.

A rising deficit is the greatest threat to the world economy


C. Fred Bergsten, Director Peterson Institute for International Economics, February 1, 2007, CQ Congressional Testimony,
“CURRENT ACCOUNT DEFICIT AND FOREIGN DEBT OF THE U.S.”,
The huge and growing international trade and current account imbalances, centered on the US external deficits and net
debtor position, represent the single greatest threat to the continued prosperity and stability of the United States and
world economies. They could at any time trigger a large and rapid decline in the exchange rate of the dollar that would
initiate sharp increases in US inflation and interest rates, bringing on stagflation at a minimum and quite possibly a
deep recession. Even in the absence of such a crisis, continued failure to address the imbalances constructively will
inevitably lead to a costly and perhaps wrenching adjustment of the US and world economies. They could also lead to a
disruption of US trade policy, threatening the openness of the global trading system.

131
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

****Fiscal D Answers

132
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

2AC (1/2)
1. Congress is overriding defenders of fiscal discipline
Belville News-Democrat, James Rosen, staff writer for McClatchy Newspapers 7/19/2008,“Senator who opposed expanding
global AIDS program vows to keep up pressure”,
Before voting 80-16 to pass the AIDS bill, the Senate defeated DeMint's amendments to cut its cost to $35 billion over
five years and to prohibit funds from being used for alleged "coercive abortion and forced sterilization" in China or
other countries.

2. No Evidence indicating an increase in earmarks collapses fiscal discipline

3. No Link—Spending Trades-off Pay-go rules are in effect


Increasing Alternative Energy incentives trades-off
John Stephen, Republican candidate for Congress, Union Leader, 7/18/08, “John Stephen: On energy costs, Washington offers no
real answers”,
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Stephen%3A+On+energy+costs%2C+Washington+offers+no+real+answers
&articleId=58250a2c-89b0-4696-925a-977411675a71
You see, extending the tax credits would mean that individuals and businesses would keep $19 billion more of their
money, instead of sending it to Washington. Under the House rules, that money "loss" would have to be offset by new
taxes or spending cuts. Now, no Congress in its right mind would hike taxes in an election year, so that means that to
keep these incentives for renewable energy in place, Washington would have to do what the rest of America is doing to
meet the rising costs of energy prices -- roll up its sleeves and make the tough decisions on spending.

4. No Link- Alternative Energy can be funded without an increase


States New Service 6/23/2008, “KIRK/BIGGERT: U.S. "MOON SHOT" PROGRAM TO GET OFF FOREIGN OIL "APOLLO
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ACT" ON SCALE OF NASA'S MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM TO LOWER GAS PRICES,
BOOST ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES AND IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY”, lexis
With Chicagoland leading the nation in gas prices, U.S. Representatives Mark Kirk and Judy Biggert joined with
environmental, business and research leaders today to announce new legislation dramatically boosting the federal
government's commitment to energy independence. With the backdrop of Chicago's premier space museum, the Adler
Planetarium, the legislation is modeled on NASA's $20 billion effort to land an American on the moon. The "Apollo Energy
Independence Act" establishes long-term market incentives to spur breakthroughs for the development and deployment
of alternative energies, vehicles and fuel. Increases in support for alternative energy are offset by spending reductions in
earmark and subsidy programs to ensure the bill does not require additional borrowing or taxes.

5. Environmental Spending saves the economy


Mark Lynas, a climate change writer and activist, author of the acclaimed book 'High Tide' and fortnightly columnist for the New
Statesman. He was selected by National Geographic as an 'Emerging Explorer' for 2006, 7/17/2008, “A Green New Deal”,
http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/07/lynas-towards-economy-climate,BB
The Green New Deal Group is not talking about incremental changes, however. It is calling for nothing less than a
return to pre-war Keynesianism - complete with big increases in public investment spending and much tighter controls
on international finance - with a "war economy" social mobilisation harnessed, this time not towards fighting fascism,
but towards heading off ecological crisis. What is novel is that this call is directed not just at stabilising the climate, but
also at stabilising the economy - lower interest rates and higher government spending are aimed at ending the credit
crunch as much as tackling the oil and climate crunches.

6. No Threshold- Don’t say how much spending collapses fiscal discipline

133
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

2AC (2/2)
7. Earmarks Happening now, there’s bipartisan love for it.
Huffington Post, The internet newspaper, June 18, 2008, “Bipartisanship Thrives -- At Least When it Comes to Earmarks”
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/bipartisanship-thrives_b_107667.html)
Earmarks -- the Rasputin of Congressional budget politics - are back on the scene. If you don't remember your late tsarist
Russian history, Rasputin was the "mad monk" with scary eyes, decadent tastes and way too much influence over Tsarina
Alexandra. Eventually he was poisoned, shot, beaten, and finally drowned by a group of dissident Russian nobles. He drank
enough poison to kill multiple humans and had three bullets in his back, but he still led his killers on a chase through St.
Petersburg before they finally caught up with him, clubbed him and threw him in the Neva River. There were even rumors that
he sat up during his cremation. The Congressional earmark industry is proving equally hardy despite repeated attempts
to kill or at least weaken it, according to the Washington Post. The current House defense authorization bill contains
almost $10 billion dollars of earmarks according to figures compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. The Senate bill
hasn't been approved yet, but Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) Carl Levin
(D-MI), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Mel Martinez (R-FL) are among those
listed as requesting earmarks. Okay, so we have members from the House and the Senate, from the liberal northeast
and the conservative south, men and the women, Democrats, Republicans, an Independent, and what can they finally
agree on - the ritual of slipping those tasty little earmarks into the defense budget. And they've agreed to do this when
the country is at war and faces a budget deficit approaching half a trillion dollars for this fiscal year.

8. The United States Economy is really resilient


William B. Bonvillian is Legislative Director and Chief Counsel to Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Issues in Science and
Technology, fall 2004-Meeting the New Challenge to U.S. Economic Competitiveness
In the 1980s, when the United States faced significant competitive challenges from Japan and Germany, U.S. industry,
labor, and government worked out a series of competitiveness policies and approaches that helped pave the way for the
nation’s revitalized economic leadership in the 1990s. In the mid-1980s President Reagan appointed Hewlett Packard
president John Young to head a bipartisan competitiveness commission, which recommended a practical policy approach
designed to defuse ideological squabbling. Although many of its recommendations were enacted slowly or not at all, the
commission created a new focus on public-private partnerships, on R&D investments (especially in IT), and on successful
competition in trade rather than protectionism. This became the generally accepted response and provided the building blocks
for the 1990s boom. The Young Commission was followed by Congress’s Competitiveness Policy Council through 1997.
These efforts were successful in redefining the economic debate in part because they built on the experiences, well-
remembered at the time, of industry and government collaboration that was so successful in World War II and in
responding to Sputnik. Those are much more distant memories in this new century, but we should revisit the Young
Commission model. The private sector Council on Competitiveness, originally led by Young, has assembled a group of leading
industry, labor, and academic leaders to prepare a National Innovation Initiative, which could provide a blueprint for action.
Legislation has been introduced in the Senate to establish a new bipartisan competitiveness commission that would have the
prestige and leverage to stimulate government action. The U.S. economy is the most flexible and resilient in the world. The
country possesses a highly talented workforce, powerful and efficient capital markets, the strongest R&D system, and
the energy of entrepreneurs and many dynamic companies. That by itself will not guarantee success in a changing
economy, but it gives the country the wherewithal to adapt to an evolving world. Challenges to U.S. dominance are
visible everywhere. Strong economic growth is vital to the U.S. national mission, and innovation is the key to that
growth. The United States needs to fashion a new competitiveness agenda designed to speed the velocity of innovation to meet
the great challenges of the new century. Once that agenda has been crafted, the nation must find the political will to implement
it.

134
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

FISCAL D Low

No Fiscal Discipline—Mortage Giant Bailouts


Sharon Schmickle, Writer for MinnPost, 7/14/2008, “Mortgage giants in crisis -- yet the public seems locked in 'whatever' mode”,
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/07/14/2554/mortgage_giants_in_crisis_--_yet_the_public_seems_locked_in_whatever_mode,
BB
Even the toughest critics are saying the government had no choice at this point but to rescue Fannie and Freddie. The fallout
from their failure would have been catastrophic. The anti-serenity piece for this picture is in the background. The government
already is in debt to the tune of nearly $10 trillion, a level that would have been seen as a crisis in itself when President
Bush's father occupied the Oval Office in the early 1990s. Now the White House plans to ask Congress to raise the debt
ceiling for the Fannie-Freddie bailout. It is so '90s, but I'll ask anyway: Where are the deficit hawks? If they had squawked
as loudly during this decade, we would not be suffering such a profound sense of insecurity over the government's ability to
handle the Fannie-Freddie debacle. The deficit-spending issue surfaced last week at a town-hall meeting the presumed GOP
nominee, Sen. John McCain, staged in Denver. "We must also get government's fiscal house in order," McCain said.
"American workers and families pay their bills and balance their budgets, and I will demand the same of the government. A
government that spends wisely and balances its budget is a catalyst for economic growth and the creation of good and
secure jobs."

Federal Spending exceeds Federal Revenue


Steve Chapman, Writer for the Chicago Tribune, 7/10/08, “Obama, McCain and the coming fiscal disaster”, Chicago Tribune,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0710chapmanjul10,0,7110404.column BB
Federal budget policy is a dry subject with far too many numbers and charts, which makes it uninviting to most Americans.
But the theme of the current budget story is one that could have come from a blockbuster summer movie: We are
doomed. There is a fiscal asteroid on course to pulverize us, and no one is coming to the rescue. The problem is simple
and depressingly familiar. This year, federal spending will exceed federal revenue by more than $400 billion. Given the
weak state of the economy, the deficit will get worse before it gets better.

No Fiscal Discipline—Congress is unwilling to cut programs


Gregory Bresiger, managing editor of Traders Magazine and a writer for the Mises Institute, the Free Market and the New York
Post, 7/04/08, “The non-issue that should be an issue”, SmallGovTimes, http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/08jul04.non.issues/)
Indeed, Democrats say little or nothing in the federal budget can be cut. The government must expand its
responsibilities. It must provide health care and financial security for all. Also, there must be more spending for national
security. Still, there is little serious discussion about what all this would cost, though sometimes, even in the heat of partisan
battles, some truth emerges. "Our country is in a sinkhole of debt, and it is almost as if we have adopted a philosophy of
'all you can spend' around here. Spending is out of control," says Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo) in criticizing the Democrats'
recently proposed federal budget. Nevertheless, despite making an effective case that red ink is endless, Enzi should look at his
own party. Republicans, who controlled Congress for 12 years until the end of 2006, haven't been much better than
Democrats. Republicans used to talk about reducing the welfare state. I remember when candidate Ronald Reagan in 1980
promised to end the Energy and Education departments. Some Republicans, who themselves have caught the entitlement-
spending/social-engineering bug, now propose the creation of a federal department of families. Indeed many Republicans,
who once said they were against the welfare state, now brag they are better at running the welfare state than the
Democrats. I remember a speech on this theme given by George Will to the Security Traders Association some two years ago.
("Wonderful speech," I told Will as he walked out and started to gloat at what he thought was another compliment. "Yes, sir.
Now I know why I'm a libertarian!" Deflated, the Republican welfare statist growled and hurried away.)

135
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

FISCAL D Low
Congress has spent billions on Veteran Entitlement, Emergency Relief, and
Unemployment
Gail Russell Chaddock, Staff Writer of the Christian Science Monitor, 6/30/08, “Congress's spending goes unchecked, with more
likely”, Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0630/p25s01-uspo.html , BB
Washington - Before leaving town last week, Congress wrapped up a $162 billion war-funding bill and expanded
America's entitlement system by giving veterans the biggest boost in college benefits since the World War II GI bill.
Lawmakers also added a 13-week extension to unemployment benefits and approved $2.7 billion in emergency relief for
the storm-lashed Midwest. Despite commitments to fiscal discipline on both sides of the aisle, none of it is paid for – at
least not by today's taxpayers. "There is absolutely no appetite to make hard choices," says Robert Bixby, executive
director of the Concord Coalition, citing the war-funding bill. "There's never been any attempt to pay for the war, and now
that's being used to expand a major entitlement program for veterans, which might be a good idea, but we ought to pay
for it."

Earmarking is great problem in status quo


Dr. James Dobson, Ph.D. Founder and Chairman of Focus on the Family, April 29, 2008 “The Asteroid That is Our Economy That
is to Come” (http://undcr.com/?p=217)
It’s not that the government doesn’t have enough money–it’s that it’s mishandling money and spending the lion’s share
of it in the wrong places. Of prime concern is the issue of “earmarking,” which refers to provisions in legislation that
direct federal funds to be spent on the politician’s pet projects, often in his or her home district. It is called “bringing
home the bacon” and is one of the ways they stay in office. Republicans and Democrats alike have been guilty of abusing
this practice for years now. At the 11th hour, earmarks are quietly slipped into massive spending bills by members of Congress.
Do you remember the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” fiasco? Congress tried to fund a $230 million bridge that led to an
Alaskan town of 50 people.10 The funding was ultimately axed–but only after public outrage demanded it.
A few of the saner voices in Congress have called for a serious reform of the earmark system, or even for the elimination of
earmarks altogether. But alas, during its budget proceedings, the Senate failed to implement even a temporary ban on this
wasteful and irresponsible practice. It’s worth noting that the three front-running presidential contenders did, in fact, vote for
the temporary ban, perhaps because they are in the spotlight and know how unpopular pork-barrel spending is with the
American public. Nevertheless, for the majority of Senators in both parties, earmarks are a sacred cow. Or is that a cash
cow? Whatever the case, the effort to end earmarks went down in flames in a 29-to-71 vote.11 Alas, the asteroid is heading our
way!

136
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

FISCAL D Low
Bush is irresponsible, low fiscal discipline and is corrupt. Pork barrels
everything?
Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative figure head and writer in American politics. He is the current chairman of conservativehq.com,
August 9, 2006, “Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative
Cause- pages 6,7)

<continues next page>

137
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

FISCAL D Low
CARD CONTINUED FROM
Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative figure head and writer in American politics. He is the current chairman of conservativehq.com,
August 9, 2006, “Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative
Cause- pages 6,7)

138
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

NO SPILLOVER – EARMARKS

Earmarks Happening now, there’s bipartisan love for it.


Huffington Post, The internet newspaper, June 18, 2008, “Bipartisanship Thrives -- At Least When it Comes to Earmarks”
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/bipartisanship-thrives_b_107667.html)

Earmarks -- the Rasputin of Congressional budget politics - are back on the scene. If you don't remember your late tsarist Russian
history, Rasputin was the "mad monk" with scary eyes, decadent tastes and way too much influence over Tsarina Alexandra.
Eventually he was poisoned, shot, beaten, and finally drowned by a group of dissident Russian nobles. He drank enough poison to kill
multiple humans and had three bullets in his back, but he still led his killers on a chase through St. Petersburg before they finally
caught up with him, clubbed him and threw him in the Neva River. There were even rumors that he sat up during his cremation. The
Congressional earmark industry is proving equally hardy despite repeated attempts to kill or at least weaken it, according to
the Washington Post. The current House defense authorization bill contains almost $10 billion dollars of earmarks according
to figures compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. The Senate bill hasn't been approved yet, but Senators Saxby Chambliss
(R-GA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor
(D-AR), and Mel Martinez (R-FL) are among those listed as requesting earmarks. Okay, so we have members from the House
and the Senate, from the liberal northeast and the conservative south, men and the women, Democrats, Republicans, an
Independent, and what can they finally agree on - the ritual of slipping those tasty little earmarks into the defense budget. And
they've agreed to do this when the country is at war and faces a budget deficit approaching half a trillion dollars for this fiscal
year.

139
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

No increase in money
Alternative Energy can funded without an increase
States New Service 6/23/2008, “KIRK/BIGGERT: U.S. "MOON SHOT" PROGRAM TO GET OFF FOREIGN OIL "APOLLO
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ACT" ON SCALE OF NASA'S MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM TO LOWER GAS PRICES,
BOOST ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES AND IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY”, lexis
With Chicagoland leading the nation in gas prices, U.S. Representatives Mark Kirk and Judy Biggert joined with
environmental, business and research leaders today to announce new legislation dramatically boosting the federal
government's commitment to energy independence. With the backdrop of Chicago's premier space museum, the Adler
Planetarium, the legislation is modeled on NASA's $20 billion effort to land an American on the moon. The "Apollo Energy
Independence Act" establishes long-term market incentives to spur breakthroughs for the development and deployment
of alternative energies, vehicles and fuel. Increases in support for alternative energy are offset by spending reductions in
earmark and subsidy programs to ensure the bill does not require additional borrowing or taxes.

140
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

McCain & Obama Fiscal D low


Obama and Mccain will both be fiscally irresponsible.
Steve Chapman, He attended Harvard University, where he was on the staff of The Harvard Crimson, and graduated with honors in
1976. He has been a fellow at the American Academy in Berlin and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, July 10, 2008,
“Obama, McCain and the coming fiscal disaster” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-
oped0710chapmanjul10,0,7110404.column

The problem is simple and depressingly familiar. This year, federal spending will exceed federal revenue by more than
$400 billion. Given the weak state of the economy, the deficit will get worse before it gets better. Actually, it may never
get better, because the current shortfall coincides with the start of the most dreaded fiscal event of all time: the
retirement of the Baby Boomers, who will soon consume eye-popping amounts in Social Security and Medicare. The
latest proof came when McCain unveiled his economic plan, in which he vows to eliminate the deficit in four years. His
plan to balance the budget is simple: He plans to balance the budget. Exactly which programs he will trim to reach that
goal are anyone's guess. For someone with a reputation as a fearless foe of congressional earmarks and pork-barrel waste,
McCain is amazingly timid in taking on the rest of the budget. About his only specific proposal is a one-year freeze in those
discretionary programs that don't involve defense or veterans. McCain doesn't say how much that would save, but it
wouldn't be a lot. Those expenditures amount to only 17 percent of all federal outlays. Eighty-three percent of the
budget would keep on growing. After a year, so would the other 17 percent. He vows to follow up with "comprehensive
spending controls." But promising to control spending in general means promising to control nothing in particular.
Just because voters will go along with a vague limit on total outlays doesn't mean they are willing to surrender funds
going to them or their favorite causes. It's one thing to inform a toddler that he shouldn't eat too much candy. It's
another to take the Tootsie Roll Pop out of his hand. The Republican standard-bearer, however, acts as though the task will
be easy. Among the methods offered in this plan: "Eliminate broken programs. The federal government itself admits that one in
five programs do not perform." How about naming one? How about promising to pound a stake through its heart? When it
comes to spending, though, Obama is even worse. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation added up all the promises
made by the two candidates and found that McCain's would cost taxpayers an extra $68 billion a year. Obama's add up
to $344 billion a year. The Illinois senator's pledge to get tough on unnecessary expenditures is as solid as cotton candy.
Among his vows is to "slash earmarks to no greater than what they were in 2001," but earmarks make up less than 2
percent of the budget. Trying to restore fiscal discipline by cutting earmarks is like trying to lose weight by adopting an
exercise program for your left index finger. Obama claims he'll pay for all his new spending with new revenues and
spending cuts. But like McCain, he has been hazy on the details. And it will be far easier for him to get Congress to approve
new spending than to enact the measures needed to pay for it. Unless Obama is willing to take on his own party with the veto
pen, we should expect four more years of irresponsible budgeting. His only defense is that he would not have to make up
as much lost revenue as his rival. The Tax Policy Center says his tax plan would cut federal receipts by $2.7 trillion over the
next decade, compared with $3.6 trillion for McCain. The details differ, but the basic picture is the same regardless of who
wins: Washington will spend more, red ink will roll down like a mighty river, and we as a nation will continue to dodge the
critical choices we face.

Obama will have low fiscal discipline, calculations prove


Washington Times, a full-service, general interest daily newspaper in the nation's capital, September 30, 2007
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/30/obamas-flawed-fiscal-plan/)

After spending his first two and a half years in the Senate blasting the Bush administration for its irresponsible budget policies, Sen.
Barack Obama has been busy devising his own fiscal train wreck. First came the low-ball estimate for his universal health-
insurance proposal, the annual cost he calculated to be between $50 billion and $65 billion. Mr. Obama said he could pay for
his plan by reinstating Clinton-era income-tax rates (20 percent on capital gains and 39.6 percent on salary and dividend income)
on those earning more than $250,000 a year. Mr. Obama's middle-class tax proposal offers no relief for the alternative
minimum tax, which threatens to cost taxpayers (most of whom are in the middle- and upper-middle-class ranges) more than $1
trillion over the next 10 years. Yet he clearly intends to cancel those pending tax increases, although his plan fails to provide a
dime toward that end. Mr. Obama's fiscal policy doesn't add up.

141
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Spending -> boost econ


Environmental Spending is key to saving the economy
Mark Lynas, a climate change writer and activist, author of the acclaimed book 'High Tide' and fortnightly columnist for the New
Statesman. He was selected by National Geographic as an 'Emerging Explorer' for 2006, 7/17/2008, “A Green New Deal”,
http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/07/lynas-towards-economy-climate,BB
The Green New Deal Group is not talking about incremental changes, however. It is calling for nothing less than a
return to pre-war Keynesianism - complete with big increases in public investment spending and much tighter controls
on international finance - with a "war economy" social mobilisation harnessed, this time not towards fighting fascism,
but towards heading off ecological crisis. What is novel is that this call is directed not just at stabilising the climate, but
also at stabilising the economy - lower interest rates and higher government spending are aimed at ending the credit
crunch as much as tackling the oil and climate crunches.

Increasing Environmental spending solves the economic crisis


Andrew Simms, policy director of nef (the new economics foundation) the award-winning UK think-and-do tank, and head of nef's
Climate Change Programme, The Guardian, 7/4/08,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/04/greenpolitics.climatechange
For all their bluster, the architects of environmental backlash seem utterly bereft of their own ideas about what to do differently.
The green movement, on the other hand, overflows with proposals. One initiative, soon to be launched, is the call for a
"Green New Deal". Organised by a group of environmentalists and experts in finance, it proposes joined-up policies to
tackle the triple crunch. At its heart is an acknowledgement of the profoundly distorting role of footloose and feckless
finance. The Green New Deal will call for the re-regulation of finance and taxation, linked to a transformational
economic programme to substantially reduce fossil fuel use. In the process, it will create countless green-collar jobs to
tackle the unemployment and decline in demand caused by the credit crunch. The Green New Deal is a modern translation
of the politics of hope and pragmatism employed by Roosevelt in the 1930s. Then, as now, someone needed to pick up the
pieces of a system failed by short-termism and unenlightened self-interest.

142
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

*** Congressional Trade Off

143
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

CongTrade-Off – 1NC F-22

Military spending is on the chopping block; the plan will trade off with nuclear
subs, F-22s, and space weapons.
Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor at the Kiplinger Business Resource Center 6/24/08
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/No_More_Big_Spending_Hikes_080624.html
While either McCain or Obama will look for savings, their priorities are different. The missile defense program would be
trimmed if Obama wins, less so under McCain, although he, too, would give it more scrutiny than has been the case with the
Bush administration. Roughly $8 billion is allocated each year for research and development. Initial construction and
installation of antimissile silos and radars has started, but the project is rife with engineering complexities and also political
considerations about where segments ultimately will be placed, especially in Europe. The missile defense budget will be a
prime target for freeing up some funds for other purposes.
Also on the chopping block, although neither McCain nor Obama has gone into specifics, are nuclear subs, next-generation
Navy surface ships, plus the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter jet programs. They'll be trimmed in scope and multiyear
acquisition levels. Another area that will come under review is research into potential space-based defense weapons,
such as space-based lasers.

We must control our spending in order to prevent cuts on the military, which
would be devastating and embolden terrorists.
Jim Saxton, Representative from New Jersey. 7/14/08 Shortchanging our defenses over budget problems
creates more problems. http://thehill.com/op-eds/shortchanging-our-defenses-over-budget-problems-
creates-more-problems-2008-07-14.html
Finally, we must continue to find ways to control mandatory spending. Increases in mandatory spending, as well as our
necessary commitments to Medicare and Social Security, are squeezing our discretionary accounts, including defense. The
projections are staggering. Between 2008 and 2018, mandatory spending is projected to jump from $1.6 trillion to $2.7 trillion,
or 68.8 percent.
Hormats is right. Like generations before us, we must face the fiscal challenges of today. We must dismiss the false belief
that raising taxes and cutting military spending will solve problems. In the long term, they weaken the nation. Our
enemies are highly motivated and capable; we must continue to invest in a strong military to meet their threat.
We must find ways to increase the international partnership in the war on terror. Most importantly Congress must
control mandatory spending. If we have the courage and conviction to follow this path, our nation will stay strong and
continue to prosper.

144
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

CongTrade-Off – 1NC F-22

F-22s are unprecedented at establishing air dominance, and have the


capabilities to deal with new threats.
Todd Lopez, Staff Writer at Air Force Print News. 6/23/06 “F-22 excels at establishing air dominance”
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371
"Even without stealth, this is the world's best fighter," General Lewis said. "The F-22, its ability with speed and
maneuverability, is unprecedented. The problem with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in establishing air dominance is that you
have to buy two or three to replace the F-22, because it only has half the weapons load, and it doesn't have the speed. You can't
replace (the F-22) one-for-one with an F-35 or any other legacy fighter such as the F-15E."

During Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June, the F-22 proved its mettle against as many as 40 "enemy
aircraft" during simulated battles. The Raptor achieved a 108-to-zero kill ratio at that exercise. But the capabilities of the
F-22 go beyond what it can do. It is also able to help other aircraft do better.

"When you are outnumbered on the battlefield -- the F-22 helps the F-18 and the F-15s increase their performance,"
General Lewis said. "It gives them more situational awareness, and allows them to get their expenditures because you can't
kill all these airplanes with just the weapons aboard the F-22. It takes the F-15's and F-18's weapons. It was very successful, (in
its) ability to get everybody to integrate."

One role the F-22 is particularly good at, General Lewis said, is establishing air dominance. This means making airspace
above an area safe for other aircraft to come in do their mission. The F-22 is superb at performing air-to-air combat and
eliminating surface-to-air missiles. In fact, the F-22 is capable of dealing with both of those threats at the same time.

"Because of its stealth and its speed, it is unique in that category, in that it allows us to establish air dominance," General
Lewis said. "It goes after the aircraft, the SAMs, and the cruise missiles. And it can do it all at the same time. The legacy
(aircraft) can do any one of those, kind of okay, but they can't survive in contested airspace. They can first try to take care of
the aircraft, then they can work on the SAMs. But the F-22 has demonstrated, last year in (final operational testing and
evaluation), that we can do that simultaneously."

Of particular interest to the Air Force is the F-22's ability to deal with "double digit SAMs." A double digit SAM, Air
Force parlance for Russian-designed mobile surface-to-air missiles, is so named for the two digit designator in their NATO
reporting name. The Russian-designed S-300P Angara, for instance, is designated "SA-10" by NATO countries. The "S-
300PMU Favorit" is designated the "SA-20." Both Russia and China manufacture these weapons systems, and they are
readily available on the market. These weapons are highly mobile and pose a threat to Air Force legacy aircraft such as the F-
15 and F-16.

145
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

CongTrade-Off – 1NC NMD

Military spending is on the chopping block; the plan will trade off with nuclear
subs, F-22s, and space weapons.
Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor at the Kiplinger Business Resource Center 6/24/08
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/No_More_Big_Spending_Hikes_080624.html
While either McCain or Obama will look for savings, their priorities are different. The missile defense program would be
trimmed if Obama wins, less so under McCain, although he, too, would give it more scrutiny than has been the case with the
Bush administration. Roughly $8 billion is allocated each year for research and development. Initial construction and
installation of antimissile silos and radars has started, but the project is rife with engineering complexities and also political
considerations about where segments ultimately will be placed, especially in Europe. The missile defense budget will be a
prime target for freeing up some funds for other purposes.
Also on the chopping block, although neither McCain nor Obama has gone into specifics, are nuclear subs, next-generation
Navy surface ships, plus the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter jet programs. They'll be trimmed in scope and multiyear
acquisition levels. Another area that will come under review is research into potential space-based defense weapons,
such as space-based lasers.

We must control our spending in order to prevent cuts on the military, which
would be devastating and embolden terrorists.
Jim Saxton, Representative from New Jersey. 7/14/08 Shortchanging our defenses over budget problems
creates more problems. http://thehill.com/op-eds/shortchanging-our-defenses-over-budget-problems-
creates-more-problems-2008-07-14.html
Finally, we must continue to find ways to control mandatory spending. Increases in mandatory spending, as well as our
necessary commitments to Medicare and Social Security, are squeezing our discretionary accounts, including defense. The
projections are staggering. Between 2008 and 2018, mandatory spending is projected to jump from $1.6 trillion to $2.7 trillion,
or 68.8 percent.
Hormats is right. Like generations before us, we must face the fiscal challenges of today. We must dismiss the false belief
that raising taxes and cutting military spending will solve problems. In the long term, they weaken the nation. Our
enemies are highly motivated and capable; we must continue to invest in a strong military to meet their threat.
We must find ways to increase the international partnership in the war on terror. Most importantly Congress must
control mandatory spending. If we have the courage and conviction to follow this path, our nation will stay strong and
continue to prosper.

146
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

CongTrade-Off – 1NC NMD

The missile defense system is key to prevent a war with Iran and promote
stability in the Middle East.
Riki Ellison, President and Founder of Missile Defense Advocacy Allience. 7/10/08 “Clear and Present
Danger” http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/news.aspx?news_id=1242
Iran's firing of 9 ballistic missiles yesterday and more missiles today as an escalatory response to military exercises and
political rhetoric is unequivocally a Clear and Present Danger to the United States of America and its allies in the
Middle East. Our nation and the international community need real options to forgo preemptive military action and or
direct escalatory military action by the United States and its allies that would most likely lead to war with Iran.
Currently, the U.S. has fully operational, deployed missile defense systems that can stabilize the region, whereby
strengthening the deterrent and decreasing the threat by non-lethal means without escalating an already dynamic
situation. Missile defense in this situation can stabilize and offer valuable positioning for diplomatic efforts to ease down
the intensity and work for a solution.
Currently to bring to bear in the Middle East region, the United States Army has multiple PAC -3 battalions and the United
States Navy has 15 missile defense equipped Aegis Ships, equipped with tracking radars and missile defense interceptors of
Standard Missile-3 and Standard Missile-2s. The country of Israel has deployed Arrow and PAC-3 missile defense systems.
Though some of these systems are already in the region and more should follow, the inventory of interceptors is very limited.
Having these systems in the Middle East region cannot guarantee full protection from Iran's missiles but it can offer more
deterrence and some limited protection to our American and Allied citizens as well as armed forces in the region.
This demonstrated use of multiple launches on the world stage coupled with Iran's nuclear intentions and their stated political
intent amplifies and validates the reasoning of why our nation through 11 Congresses and 4 United States Presidents have fully
supported and funded the development, deployment and continued evolution of missile defense. It is the reason why the 26
countries of NATO have fully endorsed missile defense and the third site in Europe. It is the reason why the country of Israel
has developed and deployed missile defense systems and other countries in the Middle East region have reached out to the
United States for missile defense. It validates the Czech Republic agreement on missile defense earlier this week, and it adds to
the necessity of protecting Europe from ballistic missiles.
It is of vital importance to global peace and security for the United States and the international community to continue
to develop and deploy future missile defenses for the threat our world faces today and in the future.

147
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

CongTrade-Off – 1NC NMD

Increased instability in the Middle East will quickly break down to chaos and
plunge the world into war.
Cetron, Marvin J.; Davies, Owen. Writers for The Futurist. 9/1/07 “Worst-case scenario: the Middle East:
current trends indicate that a Middle Eastern war might last for decades. Here is an overview of the most critical
potential impacts”
There is more to come. After all, this is the most volatile region in the world. Sunnis and Shi'ites have carried on an
intermittent religious and ethnic power struggle there for some 1,400 years. Worse, after World War I the victors
deliberately broke the Middle East into artificial states that could never be stable, and thus could not easily be united
under the banner of Pan Arabism. As Sesh Velamoor of the Foundation For the Future points out, if the West is unhappy with
conditions in the Middle East, it has itself largely to blame. But the important point is that mere instability soon could
break down into general chaos.
Here is one possible course of events: Hezbollah's current protests in Lebanon and the government's reactive crackdown may
result in a larger war. Saudi Arabia could intervene here, too, as it has been actively supporting the government of Prime
Minister Fouad Siniora. At the same time, Hezbollah and Hamas, in the Occupied Territories, will be encouraged to expand
their struggle against Israel. In Egypt, the banned but still powerful Muslim Brotherhood would be encouraged to resume
the battle for a fundamentalist Islamic state, endangering Western access to the Suez Canal. Extremists from distant
reaches of the Muslim world will flood into the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, a land of Sunni Arabs, and Iran, the home of
Persian Shi'ites, already on opposite sides in Iraq, might expand their conflict to do battle across the Persian Gulf, with fallout
in Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. One way or another, it all spins out of control. Everyone in the Middle
East fights everyone else for decades.

148
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Trade off with F22


Military spending is on the chopping block; the plan will trade off with nuclear
subs, F-22s, and space weapons.
Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor at the Kiplinger Business Resource Center 6/24/08
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/No_More_Big_Spending_Hikes_080624.html
While either McCain or Obama will look for savings, their priorities are different. The missile defense program would be
trimmed if Obama wins, less so under McCain, although he, too, would give it more scrutiny than has been the case with the
Bush administration. Roughly $8 billion is allocated each year for research and development. Initial construction and
installation of antimissile silos and radars has started, but the project is rife with engineering complexities and also political
considerations about where segments ultimately will be placed, especially in Europe. The missile defense budget will be a
prime target for freeing up some funds for other purposes.
Also on the chopping block, although neither McCain nor Obama has gone into specifics, are nuclear subs, next-generation
Navy surface ships, plus the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter jet programs. They'll be trimmed in scope and multiyear
acquisition levels. Another area that will come under review is research into potential space-based defense weapons,
such as space-based lasers.

We must control our spending in order to prevent cuts on the military, which
would be devastating and embolden terrorists.
Jim Saxton, Representative from New Jersey. 7/14/08 Shortchanging our defenses over budget problems
creates more problems. http://thehill.com/op-eds/shortchanging-our-defenses-over-budget-problems-
creates-more-problems-2008-07-14.html
Finally, we must continue to find ways to control mandatory spending. Increases in mandatory spending, as well as our
necessary commitments to Medicare and Social Security, are squeezing our discretionary accounts, including defense. The
projections are staggering. Between 2008 and 2018, mandatory spending is projected to jump from $1.6 trillion to $2.7 trillion,
or 68.8 percent.
Hormats is right. Like generations before us, we must face the fiscal challenges of today. We must dismiss the false belief
that raising taxes and cutting military spending will solve problems. In the long term, they weaken the nation. Our
enemies are highly motivated and capable; we must continue to invest in a strong military to meet their threat.
We must find ways to increase the international partnership in the war on terror. Most importantly Congress must
control mandatory spending. If we have the courage and conviction to follow this path, our nation will stay strong and
continue to prosper.

149
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Chopping block
Funding for F-22s will be reallocated towards funding for new renewable
technology companies
Donald E. Vandergriff, US Army Major, 6/18/08, “Chuck Spinney on Obama’s Politics of Change”,
http://donvandergriff.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/chuck-spinney-on-obamas-politics-of-change-afghanistan-gores-transformative-
vision/
Meanwhile, to make matters even worse, Obama just knee-jerked and endorsed Gore’s absurd call to end US
dependency on carbon for electrical power (i.e., coal, oil, gas) in 10 years by throwing money at the renewable energy
programs in a crash program patterned after John F. Kennedy’s Apollo program in the so-called Moon race — which,
by the way, is a ridiculous analogy. Going to the moon was a far simpler, far more narrow, engineering problem which
involved only a comparatively miniscule investment in production/infrastructure facilities. Repoweringall the carbon-fired
power plants withsolar, wind, and water generators in the United States would be a gargantuan effort requiring development of
new technologies, particularly energy storage technologies, and massive investments in all sorts of infrastructure. The only
near term energy technology that could be used on such a massive scale is nuclear power, and even that would be impossible to
do in ten years, particularly given the problems of storing radioactive waste, location, and safety. Bear in mindthat Gore’s
colossal feat would take place in a country that can not muster the political will to solve the comparatively simple problem of
rebuilding New Orleans.
Of course, Gore packaged his transformative vision under the umbrella of national security (the politics of fear, again)
Gore’s proposal, if it ever gets traction, will result in a colossal boondoggle for same hi-tech companies that now take
20+ years to move an airplane like F-22 or a weapon system that doesn’t work like missile defense from R&D to
anything like operational status.
Now I am all for developing solar and wind technologies, etc, but a transformation of the nation’s entire electrical
production capabilities in 10 years is preposterous on its face.
Gore’s top-down (I know what is best) proposal, which Obama (who claims to be a bottom-up politician) endorsed, is really a
formula for looting the taxpayer, particularly when you consider that the techno-defense giants, like Boeing & Lockheed, are
certain cash in on the Gore’s golden cornucopia, should it occur. The horrors of the ethanol scam will be welcome by
comparison.
Surely, high speed rail, mandating better fuel economy in cars, subsidizing more insulation in houses and office buildings,
wearing sweaters, subsidizing population movements from suburbs to cities, and other proven technologies would yield far
larger energy benefits in the short term.

150
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Chopping block

The purchase of more F-22 jets are questioned in congress


Mark Thompson, staff writer, 2/22/08, TIME, “The Air Force reaches for the Sky”,
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1715482,00.html
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have worn down the nation's ground forces, stretching those serving in the Army and Marines
and wearing out their gear at an unprecedented rate. So, it's no surprise that the nation's ground-pounders would be seeking the
most from the ever-cooperative members of the House Armed Services Committee. For years, that Pentagon-pleasing panel has
asked the services to send it a wish list — lawmakers prefer to call it an "unfunded requirements list" — of budget items they
desire but which have not been approved by their penny-pinching civilian overseers, i.e. the Defense Secretary and the
President.

Earlier this month, the Army stepped up to the plate and asked for $4 billion more than the $141 billion it is slated to receive in
2009. The Marines asked for $3 billion more than their proposed ration of $25 billion. The Navy asked for $5 billion to be
added to its bottom line of $124 billion. But all those sums added together don't equal the — hold your breath, dear
taxpayer — $19 billion that the Air Force wants over and above its $144 billion request.

A quick flip through the 11-page list turns up a $13 million "requirement" for dorm furniture — an item that may justify the
other services dubbing it the "Chair Force" because so many of its people are behind desks. In response to questions from
TIME on the list's contents and cost, the Air Force issued a statement Thursday saying the list contains only its "most
critical needs." Lieutenant General Dave Deptula, the Air Force's top intel officer, says his service's needs "are severe
and getting worse," and that the list reflects the gap "between where we are and where we need to be."

Highlighting the huge request is a proposal by the Air Force to trump its civilian leaders and buy twice as many F-22
jets as now planned, while hyping the threats to justify the buy. China and India are, in the Air Force's eyes, the 21st
century equivalent of the Soviet Union, requiring billions in new aircraft that even a hawkish Republican President doesn't
think are needed. More critically, every dollar spent on supersonic aircraft is a dollar that isn't spent on the kind of troops and
materiel needed to wage the two irregular wars the nation is now fighting, and which many experts predict will be the kinds of
wars fought for the next generation or two.

The military is hardly starving. The Pentagon's proposed 2009 Defense Budget is twice the size of the budget President Bush
inherited from Bill Clinton. Even without the nearly $200 billion for the wars, the $515 billion tab is on par with the defense
budgets of World War II. "Today, free-flowing funding has fundamentally undermined all budget discipline in the Pentagon,"
says Gordon Adams, who oversaw military spending from a senior post in the Clinton White House.

Take the fight over the F-22. The Pentagon has declared it wants to cap procurement at 183 planes, for $65 billion. But
the Air Force wants 380 of them. "We think that [183] is the wrong number," General Bruce Carlson, the Air Force's
top weapons buyer, told reporters at a Feb. 13 industry gathering. "We're committed to funding 380," he added. "We're
building a program right now to do that." Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne after
reading Carlson's comments in Aerospace Daily, a trade paper, and told him to remind Carlson who's the boss. (Wynne did, and
issued a statement saying the Air Force "wholeheartedly supports" the Administration's proposal.)

Days earlier, Carlson said that today's U.S. Air Force "simply cannot fight and win against the fleet of airplanes that
have been developed and are flying in India, China, and so forth," a claim questioned by many experts. But his view has
been reinforced by the companies employing 25,000 workers in 44 states building the F-22 — the prime contractor is
aerospace giant Lockheed Martin — and their allies in Congress. That is what is so insidious about these lists: once
Congress gets a hold of them, they're used as pile drivers to pound extra billions into the Pentagon budget, generally by
lawmakers seeking to fund jobs in their districts.

151
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Chopping block
Sales of F-22 Jets have become political spending issues
Leslie Wayne, staff writer, 9/12/06, International Herald Tribune, “Washington Battles over costly F-22 Jet”,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/11/business/plane.php?page=1
The F-22 fighter jet, now being delivered to Air Force bases around the country, is the Maserati of the skies. Intended to take
on a military opponent that no longer exists - the Soviet Union - it has a cruising speed of Mach 2, twice the speed of sound; its
top speed is a Pentagon secret. And with radar-evading stealth technology, it can attack its enemies almost invisibly.
But the F-22's only real battles these days are taking place in the corridors of power in Washington. F-22 supporters
have been taking on the Bush administration and Washington budget-cutters who want to limit production to 183
planes because the cost to taxpayers has risen to $350 million per plane.
But the Air Force and Lockheed Martin, the plane's maker, arguing that the plane provides global aerial dominance, say they
need to build more F-22s, potentially hundreds more. And that is why they have gone around their ostensible bosses in the
Pentagon and White House to push Congress to open the door so they can sell more of them.
One measure, passed by the House in July on a voice vote after only 11 minutes of discussion, would end a ban on F-22 sales
abroad.
The ban was put in place to prevent sensitive F-22 technology from leaking to other countries. But F-22 backers are hoping to
make the program's $65 billion overall cost more palatable by spreading its costs over more planes and more countries.
The other legislation, passed by the Senate 70 to 28 over the strong objections of the Armed Services Committee,
directed the Pentagon to enter into a multiyear contract to extend the F-22's production run beyond its current 2011
termination date and reduce annual congressional oversight. Negotiating committees will take up the two measures
later this month.
"Congress is firmly in the Air Force corner on this one," said Loren Thompson, a military expert at the Lexington
Institute. "My best judgment is, the Air Force will get all the F-22s it wants. You are talking about an Air Force
dominated by fighter pilots, and past experience shows that if a military service really wants a weapon, it gets it."
Both measures provide a bird's eye view of what Washington calls "the Iron Triangle" - a politically powerful combination of
military contractors and their allies inside the Pentagon and in Congress. The Senate language in the multiyear contract
measure, for instance, is word-for-word identical to a proposal drafted by the lobbyist for Lockheed.
"Please vote 'yes' on the proposed Chambliss Amendment," said an e-mail circulated by Lockheed to Senate members before
the measure had even been introduced by Senator Saxby Chambliss, the Georgia Republican whose district includes an F-22
assembly plant.
The House effort to lift the ban on foreign sales was offered by Representative Kay Granger, the Texas Republican whose
district includes the Lockheed factory that makes the F-22's midsection and employs 2,640 people.
The Air Force, which has made the F- 22 its top priority, has taken possession of 74 F-22s, with six others now in production.
Lockheed plans to make 20 to 25 a year.
The F-22 was conceived two decades ago to take on the Soviets. Even though that threat disappeared, the F-22 program
dragged on for years as the plane's design was altered to take advantage of the latest technologies. As result, the number of
planes the Pentagon could afford dropped and the price tag rose.
The F-22 has also suffered from a number of embarrassing glitches. Earlier this year, an F-22 pilot got trapped in the jet and
had to be rescued from his cockpit with chainsaws. Landing gear failed in another instance, causing the aircraft to fall on its
nose. Structural cracks have also been reported.
Originally, the Air Force wanted 750 F-22s. But while the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense
Secretary, say that cost constraints have limited the program to 183 planes, the Air Force has said it needs 381, or more.

152
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Airpower Impact
F-22s are crucial for the US to maintain control over the airways
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D, 7/16/08, Heritage Foundation, Lexington Institute Issue Brief, “Further F-22 Production is crucial to
winning Future Wars”, http://blog.nationalsecurity.org/2008/07/further-f-22-pr.html#52768886
Today, the Pentagon doesn't have a coherent plan for how it will sustain global air dominance over the next 30 years
without a sufficient number of F-22s, because it has convinced itself that unconventional warfare is the wave of the
future. In other words, it doesn't think U.S. air dominance will be challenged. Not surprisingly, some potential
adversaries like Russia see this as an invitation to begin competing again for command of the skies. The next
administration needs to step back from all the trendy ideas of the past eight years and focus on some basic facts about military
preparedness...
1. Air dominance -- the ability to control airspace -- is the most important capability U.S. forces have. Without it, soldiers and
sailors on the surface are constantly in danger from hostile aircraft, and friendly aircraft cannot safely accomplish missions like
bombing and airlift.
2. U.S. air dominance is at risk today around the world from new surface-to-air missiles that can shoot down any plane
that is not stealthy or shielded from detection by electronic jamming. Additional danger comes from new foreign
fighters that match or surpass the F-15.
3. Even without these new threats, the current fleet of cold-war fighters is so old that it cannot be counted on to provide
air dominance in the future. Many Air Force fighters operate on flight restriction due to metal fatigue, corrosion and
other age-related maladies.
4. The F-22 is the only fighter the U.S. is building that was designed mainly as an air dominance aircraft rather than as
a tradeoff of competing roles. It can conduct bombing, intelligence gathering and information warfare, but these do not
detract from the air dominance mission.
5. Most of the money required to build 381 F-22s has already been spent, and cannot be recovered -- including $24 billion
spent by five administrations to develop the plane. So the real question today is whether warfighters will get a good return on
that investment by buying enough planes.

F-22s are critical in fighting in future wars


John Gapper, journalist, 7/16/08, Financial Times, “America’s air force misses the Target”,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d7d3b01c-535f-11dd-8dd2-000077b07658.html
What impresses the US air force, however, is not what pleases the US government. The F-22 has become a symbol of what
Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has dubbed " 'next-war-itis' - the propensity of much of the defence establishment to be in
favour of what might be needed in a future conflict".
Mr Gates wants the US military instead to focus on the "war on terror" and asymmetric conflicts in which it has to work with
allies to combat suicide bombers and insurgents in hot, dusty countries. The kind of air support that such campaigns require is
helicopters and cargo aircraft, not a 21st-century stealth fighter jet.
As a result, he has stood firm against the USAF's wish to have 381 F-22s to replace its ageing fleet of F-15s, a Vietnam-
era fighter that has been repeatedly patched and upgraded. The US will buy only 183 and intends to make do instead
with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a forthcoming stealth aircraft that is cheaper and more versatile.
Mr Gates may be right that the F-22 will prove an unnecessary precaution in the world as we know it and that five
squadrons is "a reasonable buy". But there are two difficulties with his obstinate position, one military and the second
financial.
The military problem is that air superiority is something the US takes for granted but is not inevitable. Mr Gates clearly
believes the USAF is stuck in the past but he could equally be accused of being stuck in the present. While terrorism is
the immediate threat, China's military rise and Russia's military resurgence are worries for the future.
If it came to a "peer" battle with another military power, the US would have sheer numbers on its side. But Russian-
built Sukhoi Su-27s, which have been acquired by countries including China, could match the US's "fourth generation"
aircraft - F-15s and the like - in a fight.
It would require a "fifth generation" stealth fighter - either an F-22 or an F-35 - to see them off. The US should have
plenty of Joint Strike Fighters: it has ordered about 2,400 for its air force, marines and navy, which are due to enter service in
2011.

153
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Airpower Impact
F-22s are unprecedented at establishing air dominance, and have the
capabilities to deal with new threats.
Todd Lopez, Staff Writer at Air Force Print News. 6/23/06 “F-22 excels at establishing air dominance”
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371
"Even without stealth, this is the world's best fighter," General Lewis said. "The F-22, its ability with speed and
maneuverability, is unprecedented. The problem with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in establishing air dominance is that you
have to buy two or three to replace the F-22, because it only has half the weapons load, and it doesn't have the speed. You can't
replace (the F-22) one-for-one with an F-35 or any other legacy fighter such as the F-15E."

During Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June, the F-22 proved its mettle against as many as 40 "enemy
aircraft" during simulated battles. The Raptor achieved a 108-to-zero kill ratio at that exercise. But the capabilities of the
F-22 go beyond what it can do. It is also able to help other aircraft do better.

"When you are outnumbered on the battlefield -- the F-22 helps the F-18 and the F-15s increase their performance,"
General Lewis said. "It gives them more situational awareness, and allows them to get their expenditures because you can't
kill all these airplanes with just the weapons aboard the F-22. It takes the F-15's and F-18's weapons. It was very successful, (in
its) ability to get everybody to integrate."

One role the F-22 is particularly good at, General Lewis said, is establishing air dominance. This means making airspace
above an area safe for other aircraft to come in do their mission. The F-22 is superb at performing air-to-air combat and
eliminating surface-to-air missiles. In fact, the F-22 is capable of dealing with both of those threats at the same time.

"Because of its stealth and its speed, it is unique in that category, in that it allows us to establish air dominance," General
Lewis said. "It goes after the aircraft, the SAMs, and the cruise missiles. And it can do it all at the same time. The legacy
(aircraft) can do any one of those, kind of okay, but they can't survive in contested airspace. They can first try to take care of
the aircraft, then they can work on the SAMs. But the F-22 has demonstrated, last year in (final operational testing and
evaluation), that we can do that simultaneously."

Of particular interest to the Air Force is the F-22's ability to deal with "double digit SAMs." A double digit SAM, Air
Force parlance for Russian-designed mobile surface-to-air missiles, is so named for the two digit designator in their NATO
reporting name. The Russian-designed S-300P Angara, for instance, is designated "SA-10" by NATO countries. The "S-
300PMU Favorit" is designated the "SA-20." Both Russia and China manufacture these weapons systems, and they are
readily available on the market. These weapons are highly mobile and pose a threat to Air Force legacy aircraft such as the F-
15 and F-16.

154
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Airpower Impact
F-22 Jets face funding woes at Washington despite its necessity to US security
August Cole, staff writer, 7/14/08, Wall Street Journal, “Fate of Lockeheed’s F-22 Raptor in Air”,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121599581309149673.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The F-22 Raptor, capable of aerobatic feats unimaginable for earlier-generation jets, is expected to be the star attraction
Monday when it flies at the prestigious Farnborough International Airshow in England. But Lockheed Martin Corp. is set to
end production of the fighter when it delivers its final F-22 to the Air Force in 2011. It is a Catch-22 of military
contracting: The fighter is so advanced that, under law, not even U.S. allies are allowed to buy it. At the same time, the
Defense Department does not want to order any more because senior leaders believe it is not the right weapon for
current missions, which command a growing slice of the Pentagon budget.
That is a blow for Lockheed, which stands to miss out on revenue from its premier fighter. The plane, with a $143 million
price tag, is rolling off the assembly line problem-free, and last year the Air Force declared it combat-ready. Australia
and Japan have expressed interest in buying it, and many in the industry consider it the best fighter ever made. But
currently, Lockheed has orders for only 183 of them.
"The F-22 is clearly an icon of American power projection," says Tom Ehrhard, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments and a former Air Force officer.
One of the plane's biggest vulnerabilities has been not in the air, but in Washington. The F-22 fighter program has been
in development since before the end of the Cold War. The Air Force wanted to buy 381 of the aircraft, arguing that any
less would leave gaps in their capabilities. But the current defense secretary, Robert Gates, has said the plane is not relevant
to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. He neither funded more fighters nor funded a line shutdown.
The curtailing of the F-22 has come to symbolize the tension in the Defense Department between future threats and today's
fights. Mr. Gates wants the Pentagon to focus on weaponry that serves ground forces, like those in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he
does not believe the F-22, which is geared more toward fighting a conventional foe, is needed.
The Air Force is concerned that even if the U.S. does not face any real rivals in battle today, China or Russia could still
emerge as adversaries. In addition, it argues that nations with small defense budgets can assemble dangerous air-
defense systems using an increasingly sophisticated and accessible array of antiaircraft weapons that can shoot down
lesser fighters.
Late last year, several lawmakers and the chief executives of the big defense companies involved in F-22 production
wrote Mr. Gates, arguing for funding for 20 more jets in the 2009 budget. That failed. It will be up to the next White
House whether the F-22 will be included in future defense budgets.
Despite the high stakes for Lockheed, based in Bethesda, Md., the company must be careful about lobbying for more sales. It
cannot afford to get publicly dragged into a feud between the Pentagon and the Air Force over the jet.
Lockheed said it supports the Pentagon's decision to let the next White House weigh in on the plane's fate. "We don't expect
this administration to make a particular judgment ... whether there will be more F-22s or not," Lockheed Chairman Robert
Stevens told reporters in London. Mr. Stevens said Lockheed later this year must tell some suppliers whether there will be any
follow-on orders.
Lockheed is developing a new fighter that is not caught in the same crossfire. Called the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter,
it will cost almost $300 billion to develop and buy. Eight U.S. allies, including the U.K. and Australia, are involved in
producing the plane and plan to order it, as well. Other countries, such as Israel, may also sign up. But the F-35, which costs
less than half the price of the F-22, is not ready yet, and Air Force officials think the F-22 is a superior jet.
The single-seat F-22 can cruise at faster than the speed of sound, a feat other fighters cannot pull off, and it carries an
assortment of cutting-edge weapons. The plane's stealth and electronic warfare systems make it ideally suited to leading
missions into heavily defended areas.
At Farnborough, the 15-minute demonstration will likely include a highly anticipated back flip made possible by the plane's
unique ability to angle the thrust from its engines. "Anybody can drive a fighter aircraft fast, but to see it go slowly and just
hang in the air is really something," said Vic Johnston, a spokesman for 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia.
Showing the fighter at a high-profile venue like Farnborough will allow the Air Force to parade one of its most advanced
fighters before an audience that includes defense officials from around the globe

Airpower Impact
F-22 Jets are necessary for preparation against future enemies

155
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Daniel Collins and Trish Choate, staff writers, 7/13/08, Times Record News Washington Bureau, “Signs of Things to Come”,
http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2008/jul/13/sign-things-come/
If Iran’s missile tests are a sign of things to come, short-range fighting capabilities nurtured at Sheppard Air Force Base
should be among priorities for U.S. national defense.
But the base’s mission to train fighter pilots shouldn’t be the only priority, as far as Wichita Falls’ congressman is concerned.
“If this missile test reminds us of anything, it’s that we can’t afford to neglect any part of our capability,” Mac Thornberry, R-
Clarendon, of the 13th Congressional District said.
Iran conducted its second day of long-range weapon tests Wednesday in the Persian Gulf. The country’s military has fired at
least one rocket capable of reaching Israel. The tests raise the possibility of armed conflict.
Thornberry, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, said Iran’s missile tests show the need for a full range
of defense.
Long-range bombers and unmanned aerial vehicles, short-range fighter jets, missile defense and intelligence are key, he said.
The Department of Defense has emphasized investing in short-range fighter planes such as the F-35 and the F-22,
another new fighter jet. Sheppard might someday become home to an F-35 mission — not for pilot training but for
maintenance training. The base already has a mission to educate maintainers for the F-22.
But some argue long-range strike capabilities will be more important in future wars.
“There’s concern, even in the case of Iran, that getting short-range aviation in is not so easy and you might actually be better
off investing in long-range aviation,” Steve Kosiak, a military and budget analyst in Washington, said. “If you’re spending
$300 billion on the F-35 program, what does that say about your potential for investing in modernizing your long-range
aviation capabilities?”
Bombers such as the 36 B-1Bs assigned to Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene have become workhorses in wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. They’ve won commanders over for their long-range strike capacity, ability to loiter in airspace, high payload
space and maneuverability.
Some question how relevant short-range fighters such as the F-35 and the F-22 will be in future wars similar to the one in Iraq
or in conflict with worrisome nations like China or Russia, said Kosiak of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Air Force had about one-third less short-range aircraft than a decade before in Desert
Storm, he said.
“There’s no right or wrong answer,” Kosiak said. “If you think the future threats are in the Pacific theater where distances are
so great that short-range aircraft are of very limited value then you might not think (short-range planes) are that relevant.”
The Government Accountability Office has found fault with how the Pentagon prioritizes weapons development.
A GAO report released this month said the Department of Defense will need about $1.6 trillion to complete major weapons
systems already in development.
“The funding process doesn’t properly prioritize what gets started and what doesn’t, so you get too many programs going,”
Michael Sullivan, a GAO analyst, said.
The report said the DOD does not fully commit funding to develop programs, despite a department mandate.
The department accepts unrealistic cost estimates for projects. When the tab becomes much larger than expected — many times
doubling or tripling — officials scale back considerably.

156
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

*** CONGTRADE OFF AFF ANSWERS

157
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

CongTrade-Off – 2AC F-22

1.) A trade-off with military spending is overdue; the F-22 is ineffective and
expensive.
Ethan Heitner, Staff writer for Tom Paine Common Sense. 7/27/06 “The Other F-22 Problem”
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/27/the_f22s_other_problem.php
What do you do when you've got the world's most expensive fighter jet and its canopy won't open correctly so you have
to chainsaw free the hapless pilot?
If you're the U.S. government, you sign up for an extended three-year contract to ensure you get even more of them
than you originally wanted
Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan elucidates the cost of the Pentagon's outdated thinking about defense spending today in an
article on TomPaine.com about the bloated and unloved F-22 Raptor fighter jet:
Political leaders in Washington are so scared of being labeled “weak on defense” that they rarely object at all to
defense expenditures, even ones like the F-22 that are widely regarded as wasteful. In fact, it’s an open secret in
Washington that tens of billions of dollars are going down the drain at the Pentagon.
At the same time, it’s also an open secret that millions of American kids lack health insurance, public schools around the
country are falling down, and our nation continues to rely on petroleum—a national vulnerability that could set us up for a
serious economic collapse.
And how much is the federal government spending on renewable energy research? About as much as we’re spending
on the F-22 fighter jet. And less than a third as much as we spend on national missile defense.

2.) No Impact – Current fighter planes would be able to make up for the lack of
F-22s.

3.) Investing in alternative energy is a more effective way to promote security.


The neg authors don’t assume the new type of war being fought.
Frida Berrigan, s a senior research associate at the World Policy Institute’s Arms Trade Resource Center.
5/18/06 “Smart Defense” http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/18/smart_defense.php
The U.S. should align its spending with approaches that have real promise for achieving security. The task force
suggests a $10 billion increase in spending for overseas economic development; a $1 billion increase in U.S. contributions to
international organizations, $1.8 billion in additional funds for diplomatic operations; tripling what is allocated for proven
nonproliferation programs like those designed to lock down or destroy excess nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials
around the world; $8.8 billion more for alternative energy sources; and a $10 billion increase in spending on the nation’s
basic public health infrastructure.
They assert that this diversification can be accomplished by reallocating money already in the Pentagon budget. Among
the systems they propose trimming or eliminating are: the F-22 combat aircraft, the Virginia-class submarine, the DD(X)
destroyer, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. These Cold War-era systems eat up billions in the Pentagon budget and are
irrelevant to the threats posed in the 21st century. Additionally, the task force proposes cutting the unnecessary and
unworkable Star Wars program from $10.4 to $2.4 billion per year, and reducing nuclear weapons spending from $18 billion
per year to $5 billion per year.
In an era of war that pits the $3 million Bradley fighting vehicle against a $3 improvised-explosive device, the project to
expand the definition of security (and increase number of tools we have to build it) could not be more timely. At a time when
the Democratic leadership is too timid to propose cuts in our bloated military budget, the USB report—which humbly suggests
that reallocating some of that funding will be a more judicious use of taxpayer money and a more effective defense of the
homeland—deserves as large an audience as possible.

158
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

CongTrade-Off – 2AC F-22

4.) Turn –

a.) Fermilab, a key particle lab, is on the edge; the plan will trade off.
Scientific American 7/7/08 “Fermilab Saved from Chopping Block--For Now”
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fermilab-saved-from-chopp
A spending package signed into law last week by President Bush will provide enough cash to stave off the sacking of 90
employees at financially strapped Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Batavia, Ill., the nation's leading
particle physics lab.
Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy Jeffrey Kupfer told Fermilab it will receive a $29.5-million infusion, including $9.5 million
for a key neutrino experiment planned to be completed in 2014.
But it remains to be seen whether Congress will dole out enough funds to keep the lab operating at its current capacity
in fiscal year 2009.
The emergency spending measure was passed after Fermilab offered employee buyouts to ease a nearly six-month
budget crunch triggered when lawmakers cut its funding by $20 million from the year before.
Judy Jackson, a lab spokesperson, said that 50 workers took the buyout two weeks ago, even though the Senate had passed the
bill and the president had signaled he would sign it. But she notes that Fermilab would have had to ax another 90 employees
if the new funds, part of $62.5 million forked over to the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science, had not been
approved.
Despite a huge sense of relief, Jackson says there is still concern about next year's budget, although there are promising signs:
The House Appropriations Committee approved a budget of $805 million for particle physics in FY 2009, nearly $117 million
more than this year's allocation. "This is the most encouraging thing, because this is where we came to grief last year, in the
House appropriations process," Jackson said.
The proposal may yet fizzle, however, as it did in December when Congress cut physics funding to meet a spending cap
imposed by the president.
Fermilab became more vulnerable when its most vocal congressional booster, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.–Ill.),
who represented Fermilab's Congressional district, stepped down in November.
Jackson said the lab is "very encouraged" by support from Illinois congressional Democrats, Sen. Richard Durbin and Rep. Bill
Foster, a former Fermilab physicist who won Hastert's seat in a special election in March.
Another positive sign, she says: the appropriations committee used language in its budget proposal from a May report by the
Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5), which laid out a strategy for the coming decade to ensure the U.S.
"maintain[s] a leadership role in worldwide particle physics."
"We don't feel our challenges are over," Jackson said. "But we feel our challenges have fundamentally shifted."

159
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

CongTrade-Off – 2AC F-22


b.) Particle accelerators will create strange matter; which will consume the
entire earth into a mass of strange matter killing everybody.
Richard J. Wagner, Ph. D. in Engineering and Science. 3/8/2000 “The Strange Matter of Planetary Destruction”
http://chess.captain.at/strangelets-matter.html
Scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) have started to operate the new Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in order to investigate the deepest
nature of matter. The RHIC, in colliding gold ions with gold ions, will generate temperatures not seen in the universe anywhere since the expansion of the
initial singularity (the "Big Bang") except in supernovas. These temperatures occur neither in thermal-nuclear explosions nor in the interior of a normal star.
BNL scientists project that a sufficiently energetic gold-gold collision will produce a quark-gluon plasma. Matter is composed of hadrons (protons and
neutrons) which in turn are composed of quarks. Quarks come in several varieties, including up, down, top, bottom, charm, and strange. The
quark-gluon plasma created in the collision will recondense, with the material composition somewhat randomized, with
the possible creation of "strange-matter" (particles of which are called strangelets) which has an excess of strange quarks.
Strange matter was probably also created along with normal matter at the time of the expansion of the initial
singularity, but because small strangelets (the kind that would have been created then, and now here at the RHIC) are unstable,
they would have rapidly decayed (radioactively) into hadrons (normal matter), so that's why they are not normally found in
nature. Hadron nuclei have a narrow regime of stability, with iron nuclei being the most stable. Energy can be obtained by
fusing smaller nuclei (nuclear fusion) or by splitting heavier nuclei (nuclear fission). Strange matter, however, becomes more
stable the bigger it gets, with small strangelets (the kind that would be produced in the RHIC) having a short half-life on the
order of microseconds to milliseconds. Because it gets more stable as it grows (becoming fully stable at a mass of about 1000
protons), it will generate more energy as it fuses with normal matter. The normal matter will be absorbed by the strangelet
and become part of the strange mass.
Safety Review
The BNL commissioned a Review of the strangelet issue. The BNL Review uses several failing arguments in attempting to assert the safety of the RHIC. The
first is that the only kind of strangelet that could fuse with ordinary matter would be a negatively charged strangelet and that they are very unlikely to be
produced. No number was assigned to that probability in the BNL Review, but it is not zero. It has been shown that because strangelet-hadron fusion is more
exothermic (releases more energy) than hadron-hadron fusion, even positively charged strangelets can fuse with low mass hadronic matter (such as the helium
in the cooling jacket of the superconducting magnets of the RHIC).
This possible disaster scenario was actually described in the BNL Review: a negatively charged strangelet condenses out of the quark-gluon plasma with a
half-life more than a nano-second (10-9 second). That's enough time for the strangelet to traverse the vacuum in the RHIC, penetrate the iron wall (being
slowed to thermal velocity in the process) and mingle with the helium atoms in the super-conducting magnet cooling jacket.
Spontaneous fusion would take place and the strangelet would grow as it consumed helium nuclei, giving off large
amounts of radiation. At some point it would grow so large that it would fall through the helium containment-wall
(consuming every atom it encounters on the way), fall out of the device, and penetrate the concrete floor, tunneling down
to the center of the Earth. The result will be the eventual (a period of days or months) conversion of every atom in the
Earth to become part of one massive hot strange-matter nucleus. The Moon and a set of artificial satellites will orbit a
white-hot strange Earth only about 100 meters in diameter but with approximately the original mass of the Earth (some mass
will be lost to radiated heat). Once the strangelet is created, no power on Earth can stop it. Let me repeat: the above
disaster scenario is well-described in the BNL Review.
Recognizing that it is insufficient (in the face of the potential devastation that could result) to have as their argument that dangerous strangelet production is
unlikely (but possible), the Review authors turn to cosmic ray arguments. The first of two arguments is that the Moon has been bombarded by cosmic rays for
millions of years and it still exists as normal matter. The second argument is that cosmic rays collide head on in deep space and have not caused any problems.
Both arguments fail so obviously it invites belief that the Review authors are either incompetent or subject to a strong pre-existing bias.
First, let's examine the lunar argument: some cosmic rays have the mass and equivalent energy of a gold atom flying around in the RHIC. However, the Moon
is a stationary target, so the center-of-mass (COM) energy is far below that of a collision in the RHIC. Fully acknowledging that this argument fails, the
Review authors turn (in apparent desperation) to the head-on cosmic ray collision argument.
Deep space cosmic ray head-on collisions could generate small strangelets. If the strangelets are stable, (long-lived) they could
be swept up in the course of years in new star development. If so, they would cause supernovas at a much higher rate than
observed; hence stable strangelets are not being created. However, that argument does not speak to the RHIC disaster scenario,
which only requires metastable strangelets (not stable ones), so it also fails.

160
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

CongTrade-Off – 2AC NMD


1.) Russia is prepared to respond militarily to increased US military presence
in Eastern Europe.
Julian Borger, Staff writer for Mail and Guardian. 4/16/07 Moscow: The era of US hegemony is now
over. http://www.mg.co.za/article/2007-04-16-moscow-the-era-of-us-hegemony-is-now-over
Russia is preparing its own military response to the United States's controversial plans to build a new missile defence
system in Eastern Europe, according to Kremlin officials, in a move likely to increase fears of a Cold War-style arms race,
writes Luke Harding.
The Kremlin is considering active counter-measures in response to Washington's decision to base interceptor missiles
and radar installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move Russia says will change "the world's strategic
stability".
The Kremlin has not publicly spelt out its plans. But defence experts said its response is likely to include upgrading its
nuclear missile arsenal so that it is harder to shoot down, putting more missiles on mobile launchers, and moving its fleet
of nuclear submarines to the North Pole, where they are virtually undetectable.
Russia could also bring the new US silos within the range of its Iskander missiles, launched potentially from the nearby
Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, they add.
According to the Kremlin's chief spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, Moscow felt betrayed by the Pentagon's move. "We were
never informed in advance about these plans ... We feel ourselves deceived."

2.) The missile defense program is unrealistic and will waste billions of dollars.
International Herald Tribune 4/17/08 Scientists, “critics say projected US missile defense system
cannot work” http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/16/america/NA-GEN-US-Missile-Defense.php
A group of prominent scientists who have been critical of missile defense plans told lawmakers Wednesday that a system
being built by the United States cannot protect the country.
They also questioned whether the U.S. Defense Department has misled the public and European allies about the
system's capabilities.
"The (global missile defense) program offers no prospect of defending the United States from a real-world missile attack
and undermines efforts to eliminate the real nuclear threats to the United States," Lisbeth Gronlund, a senior scientist at
the Union of Concerned Scientists, told lawmakers at a House of Representatives oversight hearing on the missile defense
program, according to prepared testimony. Gronlund's group has long expressed skepticism about missile defense.
The hearing was called by the panel's chairman, Democratic Rep. John Tierney, who has sought to step up oversight of the
missile defense program since the Democrats took control of the House last year. Missile defense traditionally has drawn more
support from Republicans.
Tierney said the testimony from the witnesses raises questions about current missile defense spending levels. He pointed
to congressional projections of $213-$277 billion (€133.7-€173.9 billion) for the program between now and 2025.

161
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

CongTrade-Off – 2AC NMD

3.) Turn –

a.) Fermilab, a key particle lab, is on the edge; the plan will trade off.
Scientific American 7/7/08 “Fermilab Saved from Chopping Block--For Now”
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fermilab-saved-from-chopp
A spending package signed into law last week by President Bush will provide enough cash to stave off the sacking of 90
employees at financially strapped Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Batavia, Ill., the nation's leading
particle physics lab.
Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy Jeffrey Kupfer told Fermilab it will receive a $29.5-million infusion, including $9.5 million
for a key neutrino experiment planned to be completed in 2014.
But it remains to be seen whether Congress will dole out enough funds to keep the lab operating at its current capacity
in fiscal year 2009.
The emergency spending measure was passed after Fermilab offered employee buyouts to ease a nearly six-month
budget crunch triggered when lawmakers cut its funding by $20 million from the year before.
Judy Jackson, a lab spokesperson, said that 50 workers took the buyout two weeks ago, even though the Senate had passed the
bill and the president had signaled he would sign it. But she notes that Fermilab would have had to ax another 90 employees
if the new funds, part of $62.5 million forked over to the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science, had not been
approved.
Despite a huge sense of relief, Jackson says there is still concern about next year's budget, although there are promising signs:
The House Appropriations Committee approved a budget of $805 million for particle physics in FY 2009, nearly $117 million
more than this year's allocation. "This is the most encouraging thing, because this is where we came to grief last year, in the
House appropriations process," Jackson said.
The proposal may yet fizzle, however, as it did in December when Congress cut physics funding to meet a spending cap
imposed by the president.
Fermilab became more vulnerable when its most vocal congressional booster, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.–Ill.),
who represented Fermilab's Congressional district, stepped down in November.
Jackson said the lab is "very encouraged" by support from Illinois congressional Democrats, Sen. Richard Durbin and Rep. Bill
Foster, a former Fermilab physicist who won Hastert's seat in a special election in March.
Another positive sign, she says: the appropriations committee used language in its budget proposal from a May report by the
Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5), which laid out a strategy for the coming decade to ensure the U.S.
"maintain[s] a leadership role in worldwide particle physics."
"We don't feel our challenges are over," Jackson said. "But we feel our challenges have fundamentally shifted."

162
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

CongTrade-Off – 2AC NMD


b.) Particle accelerators will create strange matter; which will consume the
entire earth into a mass of strange matter killing everybody.
Richard J. Wagner, Ph. D. in Engineering and Science. 3/8/2000 “The Strange Matter of Planetary Destruction”
http://chess.captain.at/strangelets-matter.html
Scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) have started to operate the new Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in order to investigate the deepest
nature of matter. The RHIC, in colliding gold ions with gold ions, will generate temperatures not seen in the universe anywhere since the expansion of the
initial singularity (the "Big Bang") except in supernovas. These temperatures occur neither in thermal-nuclear explosions nor in the interior of a normal star.
BNL scientists project that a sufficiently energetic gold-gold collision will produce a quark-gluon plasma. Matter is composed of hadrons (protons
and neutrons) which in turn are composed of quarks. Quarks come in several varieties, including up, down, top, bottom, charm,
and strange. The quark-gluon plasma created in the collision will recondense, with the material composition somewhat
randomized, with the possible creation of "strange-matter" (particles of which are called strangelets) which has an excess
of strange quarks.
Strange matter was probably also created along with normal matter at the time of the expansion of the initial
singularity, but because small strangelets (the kind that would have been created then, and now here at the RHIC) are unstable,
they would have rapidly decayed (radioactively) into hadrons (normal matter), so that's why they are not normally found in nature.
Hadron nuclei have a narrow regime of stability, with iron nuclei being the most stable. Energy can be obtained by fusing smaller nuclei (nuclear fusion) or by
splitting heavier nuclei (nuclear fission). Strange matter, however, becomes more stable the bigger it gets, with small strangelets
(the kind that would be produced in the RHIC) having a short half-life on the order of microseconds to milliseconds. Because it
gets more stable as it grows (becoming fully stable at a mass of about 1000 protons), it will generate more energy as it fuses
with normal matter. The normal matter will be absorbed by the strangelet and become part of the strange mass.
Safety Review
The BNL commissioned a Review of the strangelet issue. The BNL Review uses several failing arguments in attempting to assert
the safety of the RHIC. The first is that the only kind of strangelet that could fuse with ordinary matter would be a negatively charged strangelet and that they
are very unlikely to be produced. No number was assigned to that probability in the BNL Review, but it is not zero. It has been shown that because strangelet-
hadron fusion is more exothermic (releases more energy) than hadron-hadron fusion, even positively charged strangelets can fuse with low mass hadronic
matter (such as the helium in the cooling jacket of the superconducting magnets of the RHIC).
This possible disaster scenario was actually described in the BNL Review: a negatively charged strangelet condenses out of the quark-gluon plasma with a
half-life more than a nano-second (10-9 second). That's enough time for the strangelet to traverse the vacuum in the RHIC, penetrate the iron wall (being
slowed to thermal velocity in the process) and mingle with the helium atoms in the super-conducting magnet cooling jacket.
Spontaneous fusion would take place and the strangelet would grow as it consumed helium nuclei, giving off large
amounts of radiation. At some point it would grow so large that it would fall through the helium containment-wall
(consuming every atom it encounters on the way), fall out of the device, and penetrate the concrete floor, tunneling down
to the center of the Earth. The result will be the eventual (a period of days or months) conversion of every atom in the
Earth to become part of one massive hot strange-matter nucleus. The Moon and a set of artificial satellites will orbit a
white-hot strange Earth only about 100 meters in diameter but with approximately the original mass of the Earth (some mass
will be lost to radiated heat). Once the strangelet is created, no power on Earth can stop it. Let me repeat: the above
disaster scenario is well-described in the BNL Review.
Recognizing that it is insufficient (in the face of the potential devastation that could result) to have as their argument that
dangerous strangelet production is unlikely (but possible), the Review authors turn to cosmic ray arguments. The first of two arguments is that the Moon has
been bombarded by cosmic rays for millions of years and it still exists as normal matter. The second argument is that cosmic rays collide head on in deep space
and have not caused any problems. Both arguments fail so obviously it invites belief that the Review authors are either incompetent or subject to a strong pre-
existing bias.
First, let's examine the lunar argument: some cosmic rays have the mass and equivalent energy of a gold atom flying around in the RHIC. However, the Moon
is a stationary target, so the center-of-mass (COM) energy is far below that of a collision in the RHIC. Fully acknowledging that this argument fails, the
Review authors turn (in apparent desperation) to the head-on cosmic ray collision argument.
Deep space cosmic ray head-on collisions could generate small strangelets. If the strangelets are stable, (long-lived) they could be swept up in the course of
years in new star development. If so, they would cause supernovas at a much higher rate than observed; hence stable strangelets are not being created.
However, that argument does not speak to the RHIC disaster scenario, which only requires metastable strangelets (not stable ones), so it also fails.

163
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

No forced trade-off

The navy will be able to withstand any cuts, as it is already pushing for them
on the DDG destroyer.
Christopher P. Cavas, Staff Writer at Navy Times. 7/15/08 “DDG Destroyer Facing Major Cuts”
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/07/defense_ddg100_071408/

On the record, Navy officials are mum about their plans. Service support for the DDG 1000 program has been lukewarm at
best, and while publicly supporting the ships, Navy leaders behind the scenes have worked halt further production.
The move still awaits blessing from on high, sources said, including approval from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the
White House.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead “holds his cards real close,” said one Congressional source. “But read the
body language. He knows he’s in trouble with the DDG 1000s. That ship is going to cost anywhere from $1.5 billion to $3
billion more than advertised. And when that happens there’s no slush fund. The only billpayer is Navy shipbuilding.”
The Navy, said the congressional source, needs to protect other programs such as submarine and littoral combat ships
from being cut to pay for potential DDG 1000 cost overruns.
Instead of the big destroyer, the Navy also hopes to protect the CG(X) cruiser, a bigger combatant designed to protect
aircraft carrier battle groups and provide ballistic missile defense.

164
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Trade-off with other things


Fermilab, a key particle lab, is on the edge; the plan will trade off.
Scientific American 7/7/08 “Fermilab Saved from Chopping Block--For Now”
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fermilab-saved-from-chopp

A spending package signed into law last week by President Bush will provide enough cash to stave off the sacking of 90
employees at financially strapped Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Batavia, Ill., the nation's leading
particle physics lab.
Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy Jeffrey Kupfer told Fermilab it will receive a $29.5-million infusion, including $9.5 million
for a key neutrino experiment planned to be completed in 2014.
But it remains to be seen whether Congress will dole out enough funds to keep the lab operating at its current capacity
in fiscal year 2009.
The emergency spending measure was passed after Fermilab offered employee buyouts to ease a nearly six-month
budget crunch triggered when lawmakers cut its funding by $20 million from the year before.
Judy Jackson, a lab spokesperson, said that 50 workers took the buyout two weeks ago, even though the Senate had passed the
bill and the president had signaled he would sign it. But she notes that Fermilab would have had to ax another 90 employees
if the new funds, part of $62.5 million forked over to the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science, had not been
approved.
Despite a huge sense of relief, Jackson says there is still concern about next year's budget, although there are promising signs:
The House Appropriations Committee approved a budget of $805 million for particle physics in FY 2009, nearly $117 million
more than this year's allocation. "This is the most encouraging thing, because this is where we came to grief last year, in the
House appropriations process," Jackson said.
The proposal may yet fizzle, however, as it did in December when Congress cut physics funding to meet a spending cap
imposed by the president.
Fermilab became more vulnerable when its most vocal congressional booster, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.–Ill.),
who represented Fermilab's Congressional district, stepped down in November.
Jackson said the lab is "very encouraged" by support from Illinois congressional Democrats, Sen. Richard Durbin and Rep. Bill
Foster, a former Fermilab physicist who won Hastert's seat in a special election in March.
Another positive sign, she says: the appropriations committee used language in its budget proposal from a May report by the
Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5), which laid out a strategy for the coming decade to ensure the U.S.
"maintain[s] a leadership role in worldwide particle physics."
"We don't feel our challenges are over," Jackson said. "But we feel our challenges have fundamentally shifted."

165
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

F22 Trade Off inevit


Air Force is being forced to scrap its F-22 proposals
Ivan Eland, Director of Center of Peace and Liberty, 6/28/08, The Independent Institute, “Can the Air Force be Reformed?”,
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=13059
During the tenure of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the Army was the military service in the doghouse. Under his
successor, Robert Gates, it appears to be the Air Force. Recently, Secretary Gates took the unprecedented step of firing the top
civilian and military leaders of the service for its snafus with nuclear weapons and components. And then there was also the Air
Force's favoritism in contracting and its failure to be a team player in the counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Despite the Secretary's dramatic actions, vested interests will probably thwart his desire to reform the service.
Since the Vietnam War, the "essence" of the Air Force has been promoting and flying high performance tactical fighter aircraft.
The service's concentration on heavy bombers that could deliver nuclear weapons waned as the Cold War dragged on, and its
attention to nuclear delivery systems fell into oblivion after the Berlin Wall fell. The Air Force's de-emphasis of its nuclear
mission is in part responsible for bomber crews carrying nuclear weapons across the country without knowing it and
mistakenly sending fuses for nuclear weapons to Taiwan. Yet despite the firings, and most likely to compensate the Air Force
for them, Secretary Gates promised to reward failure by increasing the service's budget for nuclear activities.
Also much to Secretary Gates's stated annoyance, the service has been neglecting remotely piloted surveillance drones, which
have proven invaluable in the counterinsurgency wars being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has also shortchanged the
mission of transporting troops, equipment, fuel, and food for ground troops in such theaters, while lobbying to buy more stealth
F-22 stealth fighters to counter future possible adversaries. The drones are neglected because they don't require pilots – the
people who run the Air Force. Resembling giant toy airplanes, they are piloted remotely using a joystick.
The transport mission is shortchanged because cargo planes are much less sexy to fly than new high tech fighter jets. The
problem is that the Air Force, even without having bought any F-22s, has existing aircraft, pilots, and weapons that, when used
together, would vastly dominate any future conventional opponent, including China, India, or and Russia. The F-22 was
originally designed during the Cold War to counter Soviet fighters that were never built.
Another problem is that unmanned surveillance drones don't cost as much as high tech fighters. In addition to pilots being a
powerful interest group within the service, the military-industrial-congressional complex would probably thwart an increased
emphasis on drones even if the pilots didn't. Lucrative contracts on the F-22, which usually go to industrial concerns heavily
dependent on defense business in key congressional districts, have kept the unneeded fighter alive, at the expense of increased
funding for badly needed drones. Members of Congress who have such defense industries in their districts and states usually
become powerful members of congressional committees that authorize and appropriate funds for such projects.
Firing the civilian and military leaders of the service with only 7 months to go in the Bush administration will do virtually
nothing to bust the vested interests that have led to the present state of affairs. Although the new military chief will stay on into
the next administration and is, for once, a military transport person, the fighter mafia, because of its glamour, is still likely to
remain in control of the service. Supporting losing counterinsurgencies on the ground will never be as alluring as dreams of
dogfights with non-existent enemy superfighters.
The one thing that could be done to at least loosen the grip of the military-industrial-congressional complex is to require the Air
Force to drop excessively unique military specifications for components of weapon systems and instead use commercial
components or slight variations thereof. Letting commercial non-defense companies – which are not part of the dedicated
defense industry dependent on government largesse – compete for defense subcontracts would lessen the pressure to buy
unneeded weapon systems. If subcontractors had commercial business to fall back on when defense procurement was slow,
there would be less pressure for the Air Force and Congress to buy unneeded systems to keep the welfare queens of the
dedicated defense subcontracting industry aloft.
However, this reform, even if adopted, would have an effect only over the long-term. Thus, despite the secretary's dramatic
personnel changes, don't expect to see a different Air Force soon.

166
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

NMD stuff

167
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Missile Defense Key to Stability

The missile defense system is key to prevent a war with Iran and promote
stability in the Middle East.
Riki Ellison, President and Founder of Missile Defense Advocacy Allience. 7/10/08 “Clear and Present
Danger” http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/news.aspx?news_id=1242
Iran's firing of 9 ballistic missiles yesterday and more missiles today as an escalatory response to military exercises and
political rhetoric is unequivocally a Clear and Present Danger to the United States of America and its allies in the
Middle East. Our nation and the international community need real options to forgo preemptive military action and or
direct escalatory military action by the United States and its allies that would most likely lead to war with Iran.
Currently, the U.S. has fully operational, deployed missile defense systems that can stabilize the region, whereby
strengthening the deterrent and decreasing the threat by non-lethal means without escalating an already dynamic
situation. Missile defense in this situation can stabilize and offer valuable positioning for diplomatic efforts to ease down
the intensity and work for a solution.
Currently to bring to bear in the Middle East region, the United States Army has multiple PAC -3 battalions and the United
States Navy has 15 missile defense equipped Aegis Ships, equipped with tracking radars and missile defense interceptors of
Standard Missile-3 and Standard Missile-2s. The country of Israel has deployed Arrow and PAC-3 missile defense systems.
Though some of these systems are already in the region and more should follow, the inventory of interceptors is very limited.
Having these systems in the Middle East region cannot guarantee full protection from Iran's missiles but it can offer more
deterrence and some limited protection to our American and Allied citizens as well as armed forces in the region.
This demonstrated use of multiple launches on the world stage coupled with Iran's nuclear intentions and their stated political
intent amplifies and validates the reasoning of why our nation through 11 Congresses and 4 United States Presidents have fully
supported and funded the development, deployment and continued evolution of missile defense. It is the reason why the 26
countries of NATO have fully endorsed missile defense and the third site in Europe. It is the reason why the country of Israel
has developed and deployed missile defense systems and other countries in the Middle East region have reached out to the
United States for missile defense. It validates the Czech Republic agreement on missile defense earlier this week, and it adds to
the necessity of protecting Europe from ballistic missiles.
It is of vital importance to global peace and security for the United States and the international community to continue
to develop and deploy future missile defenses for the threat our world faces today and in the future.

168
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Missile Defense May Get Cut

The missile defense system has proven it’s worth, but is facing cuts.
International Herald Tribune 7/11/08 “Reagan's vision for missile defense shield remains just as contentious
in post-Cold War world” http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/11/business/NA-US-Missile-Defense-
Outlook.php
Washington: The government breathed a sigh of relief in February when the Pentagon used a sea-based missile defense
system to shoot down a dying spy satellite loaded with a tank of toxic fuel hurtling around the globe at 17,000 miles (27,357
kilometers) an hour.
The mission was a critical test of the "hit-to-kill" technology at the heart of the U.S. missile defense program, an idea
born at the height of the Cold War when Ronald Reagan outlined his vision for a network of missiles that could shoot enemy
weapons out of the sky or space. Back then, skeptics dismissed the proposal as pure fantasy, nicknaming it Star Wars.
Twenty-five years later, the satellite operation — which used a Navy cruiser equipped with Lockheed Martin Corp. technology
and Raytheon Co. missiles and radar systems — showed the world it could be done.
But behind the hoopla, a fierce debate rages over the ability of the missile defense system to defend the nation from an
actual attack and the billions of dollars that President Bush has devoted to the program — funding levels that could be
cut in half under the next administration.

169
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Mid-East Impact

Increased instability in the Middle East will quickly break down to chaos and
plunge the world into war.
Cetron, Marvin J.; Davies, Owen. Writers for The Futurist. 9/1/07 “Worst-case scenario: the Middle East:
current trends indicate that a Middle Eastern war might last for decades. Here is an overview of the most critical
potential impacts”
There is more to come. After all, this is the most volatile region in the world. Sunnis and Shi'ites have carried on an
intermittent religious and ethnic power struggle there for some 1,400 years. Worse, after World War I the victors
deliberately broke the Middle East into artificial states that could never be stable, and thus could not easily be united
under the banner of Pan Arabism. As Sesh Velamoor of the Foundation For the Future points out, if the West is unhappy with
conditions in the Middle East, it has itself largely to blame. But the important point is that mere instability soon could
break down into general chaos.
Here is one possible course of events: Hezbollah's current protests in Lebanon and the government's reactive crackdown may
result in a larger war. Saudi Arabia could intervene here, too, as it has been actively supporting the government of Prime
Minister Fouad Siniora. At the same time, Hezbollah and Hamas, in the Occupied Territories, will be encouraged to expand
their struggle against Israel. In Egypt, the banned but still powerful Muslim Brotherhood would be encouraged to resume
the battle for a fundamentalist Islamic state, endangering Western access to the Suez Canal. Extremists from distant
reaches of the Muslim world will flood into the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, a land of Sunni Arabs, and Iran, the home of
Persian Shi'ites, already on opposite sides in Iraq, might expand their conflict to do battle across the Persian Gulf, with fallout
in Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. One way or another, it all spins out of control. Everyone in the Middle
East fights everyone else for decades.

170
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

NMD Good

Missile defense can effectively deter an attack from rogue nations and allow
American soldiers to operate effectively.
John McCain, Senator for Arizona. 2008 “A Strong Military in a Dangerous World”
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-8964-54fcf66a1e68.htm
John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses. Effective missile
defenses are critical to protect America from rogue regimes like North Korea that possess the capability to target
America with intercontinental ballistic missiles, from outlaw states like Iran that threaten American forces and
American allies with ballistic missiles, and to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like
Russia and China. Effective missile defenses are also necessary to allow American military forces to operate overseas
without being deterred by the threat of missile attack from a regional adversary.
John McCain is committed to deploying effective missile defenses to reduce the possibility of strategic blackmail by rogue
regimes and to secure our homeland from the very real prospect of missile attack by present or future adversaries.
America should never again have to live in the shadow of missile and nuclear attack. As President, John McCain will not trust
in the "balance of terror" to protect America, but will work to deploy effective missile defenses to safeguard our people and our
homeland.

171
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

NMD Bad

The missile defense program is unrealistic and will waste billions of dollars.
International Herald Tribune 4/17/08 Scientists, “critics say projected US missile defense system
cannot work” http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/16/america/NA-GEN-US-Missile-Defense.php
A group of prominent scientists who have been critical of missile defense plans told lawmakers Wednesday that a system
being built by the United States cannot protect the country.
They also questioned whether the U.S. Defense Department has misled the public and European allies about the
system's capabilities.
"The (global missile defense) program offers no prospect of defending the United States from a real-world missile attack
and undermines efforts to eliminate the real nuclear threats to the United States," Lisbeth Gronlund, a senior scientist at
the Union of Concerned Scientists, told lawmakers at a House of Representatives oversight hearing on the missile defense
program, according to prepared testimony. Gronlund's group has long expressed skepticism about missile defense.
The hearing was called by the panel's chairman, Democratic Rep. John Tierney, who has sought to step up oversight of the
missile defense program since the Democrats took control of the House last year. Missile defense traditionally has drawn more
support from Republicans.
Tierney said the testimony from the witnesses raises questions about current missile defense spending levels. He pointed
to congressional projections of $213-$277 billion (€133.7-€173.9 billion) for the program between now and 2025.

Russia is prepared to respond militarily to increased US military presence in


Eastern Europe.
Julian Borger, Staff writer for Mail and Guardian. 4/16/07 Moscow: The era of US hegemony is now
over. http://www.mg.co.za/article/2007-04-16-moscow-the-era-of-us-hegemony-is-now-over
Russia is preparing its own military response to the United States's controversial plans to build a new missile defence
system in Eastern Europe, according to Kremlin officials, in a move likely to increase fears of a Cold War-style arms race,
writes Luke Harding.
The Kremlin is considering active counter-measures in response to Washington's decision to base interceptor missiles
and radar installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move Russia says will change "the world's strategic
stability".
The Kremlin has not publicly spelt out its plans. But defence experts said its response is likely to include upgrading its
nuclear missile arsenal so that it is harder to shoot down, putting more missiles on mobile launchers, and moving its fleet
of nuclear submarines to the North Pole, where they are virtually undetectable.
Russia could also bring the new US silos within the range of its Iskander missiles, launched potentially from the nearby
Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, they add.
According to the Kremlin's chief spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, Moscow felt betrayed by the Pentagon's move. "We were
never informed in advance about these plans ... We feel ourselves deceived."

172
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

NMD Bad

The presence of missile defense is leading to a cold war style arms race, the
only way to avoid another cold war is to abandom the NMD program.
Luke Harding, Staff Writer for The Guardian. 4/11/07 “Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/11/usa.topstories3
The Bush administration says the bases are designed to shoot down rogue missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. Its
proposed system would be helpless against Russia's vast nuclear arsenal, it says.
But this claim has been greeted with widespread incredulity, not just in Russia but also among some of the US's nervous
Nato allies. They include Germany, where the Social Democrat leader, Kurt Beck, warned last month that the US and
Russia were on the brink of another arms race "on European soil".
Defence experts say there is little doubt that the real target of the shield is Russia. "The geography of the deployment
doesn't give any doubt the main targets are Russian and Chinese nuclear forces," General Vladimir Belous, Russia's leading
expert on anti-ballistic weaponry, told the Guardian. "The US bases represent a real threat to our strategic nuclear forces."
The threat of a new arms race comes at a time when relations between Russia and the US are at their worst for a
decade. In February Mr Putin accused the Bush administration during a speech in Munich of seeking a "world of one
master, one sovereign". On Friday Russia's duma, or lower house or parliament, warned that the US's plans could ignite a
second cold war. "Such decisions, which are useless in terms of preventing potential or imaginary threats from countries
of the middle and far-east, are already bringing about a new split in Europe and unleashing another arms race," the
declaration - passed unanimously by Russian MPs - said.

173
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

***DOD Trade off

174
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

1NC

Uniqueness: Lockheed’s F-22 Jets have been cut back because of spending
restraints
Elizabeth Becker, staff writer, 7/23/1999, New York Times, “Critics Catch up to a 21st – Century Jet”,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401EFD9153EF930A15754C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
This picture of outsized industrial self-confidence survived years of questioning from Congress about cost overruns and
delays in the $70 billion project intended to build the Air Force's state-of-the-art fighter jet. Throughout those years, the
program enjoyed the powerful protection of Georgia politicians like Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House
whose district included this Lockheed plant, and Sam Nunn, the former head of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Without them, Lockheed finds itself on the defensive with Congress, with the House yesterday approving the deletion of
$1.8 billion earmarked to manufacture the first six jets to be used in combat as it went ahead and overwhelmingly
approved the military spending bill for the next fiscal year.
It was a defeat for the Pentagon and the manufacturer, which rarely had encountered a Congress opposed to a military
program on the verge of production.
Critics in the House have said the F-22 suffers from a number of technical difficulties, including problems with the plane's
wings, brakes, fuselage, fuel lines and engines, and that its computer systems remain untested. According to Government
auditors, the F-22 has passed only 5 percent of its flight tests and its manufacturers are having trouble connecting the plane's
wings to its body and perfecting the cockpit computers that drive its navigation and war-fighting systems.
''Maybe we should have seen it coming but nobody did,'' said Tom Burbage, the president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautical
Systems. ''We thought this would be the first year we wouldn't have a battle and instead we have the biggest we've ever had.''
Lockheed Martin has been lobbying heavily to save this program and remains confident that it can win the battle when the
House and the Senate meet in conference on the measure . It does have the support of several prominent Senators who are
ardent loyalists of the next-generation jet.

175
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

1NC

Link – Plan would cause a trade off with F-22s


Bob Cox, staff writer, 6/17/08, Star-Telegram, “What’s up next for F-35, F-22?”, http://www.star-
telegram.com/business/story/704902.html
Clear air, politically speaking, appears to lie ahead for the F-35 joint strike fighter program in the wake of Lockheed Martin’s
successful flight test last week of the first redesigned version of the aircraft.
The same probably can’t be said for Lockheed’s F-22 jet after its most vocal proponents in the U.S. Air Force leadership
were sacked recently by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The successful test flight of the F-35B Lightning II short takeoff-vertical landing model on Wednesday prompted a vote of
confidence from one senior civilian Pentagon official.
John Young, undersecretary of defense for weapons development and acquisition, said in a statement that the flight “makes a
strong statement” about the progress on the F-35 program despite well publicized delays and technical issues.
Young said “the JSF program is ahead of similar programs in terms of quality, software, testing, and manufacturing readiness.
The JSF program has many more steps ahead, but today’s flight demonstrates the maturity and progress being made on JSF.”
The F-35B is the short takeoff-vertical landing, or “STOVL,” model of the three versions and is the most challenging
technically. In April, Young had approved funds to produce six F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing models, but withheld
funds for six STOVL models until after the first flight.
Young will receive a further briefing by program and Lockheed officials, probably within the next month, including a review of
plans for resolving problems discovered in tests of F-35B engines. But barring any new technical issues with the engine, Young
is expected to release funds for the other six aircraft approved in the 2008 budget.
Politically, “the joint strike fighter is in very good shape,” said Loren Thompson, defense analyst with the Lexington Institute
and a consultant to several aerospace and defense companies, including Lockheed.
The same can’t be said for the F-22. The June 5 firings of Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen.
Michael Moseley, Thompson said, were in large part due to the increasingly angry debate between the Air Force and
senior Pentagon leaders over whether to buy more F-22s.
The tone of the discussions between Moseley and, particularly, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England over the
F-22 had grown increasingly tense.
“The absence of any strong advocates for the F-22, with Moseley and Wynne gone, will be detrimental for the
program,” Thompson said.
Both programs are important to Lockheed’s Fort Worth operation. About 1,800 workers assemble the mid-fuselage of the F-22,
while about 4,000 are working on the F-35 with production work just beginning to have an impact on staffing.
The F-22 still has strong supporters in Congress who will probably maintain some funding for additional planes beyond
the 183 now on order in the 2009 budget, but the likelihood of long-term production is dim.
Both Gates and England are firmly opposed to future orders. And Thompson said it is unlikely, given their past
positions, that either Sen. John McCain or Sen. Barack Obama will be champion of the program if elected president.
In a note sent to investors Monday, analysts for Sanford Bernstein said the F-22 “appears to have sound Democratic support for
extending the line beyond the planned 183 airplanes” and that a final decision on its fate will “be determined by the next
administration and Congress.”

176
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

1NC

Impact Airpower - The F-22 Jets necessary for US security in the skies
Elizabeth Becker, staff writer, 7/23/1999, New York Times, “Critics Catch up to a 21st – Century Jet”,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401EFD9153EF930A15754C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
On the outside, the flat, almost blunt silhouette of the F-22 has little of the futuristic look of the B-2 stealth bomber.
Inside, in the cockpit, however, it has the feel of a video game in which approaching enemy aircraft are tracked on a computer
screen as red triangles, easily distinguishable from the green squares representing the ''friendlies'' and the pale yellow oblongs
indicating planes with unknown loyalties.
''Use the cursor like a mouse and see who he is,'' said C. L. Buzze, a former Air Force pilot and now the F-22 advanced product
representative, as he manipulated the levers of a facsimile of an F-22 cockpit.
The cursor slid over the triangle and immediately identified the enemy plane as a fighter jet from the Russian fleet. When the
plane came in range, the command ''Shoot'' appeared on the screen, and with a flick of a switch, a white tail slithered across the
screen hitting a dot that exploded into a small fiery ball.
But if the plane passes all of its tests during the next three to four years, officials say that the expensive stealth features
built into nearly every part of the plane will insure that the F-22 image on an enemy radar is so reduced that it is
unlikely to be detected before the it attacks. And according to Lockheed officials, the F-22's supersonic cruising speed,
and technical advances will enable the F-22 pilot to take the first shot in an aerial duel.
The aviation electronic system in the cockpit, where data are collected, integrated and instantly compiled on the screen,
is one of fighter jet's biggest selling points. Many modern fighter jets have the F22's capabilities but none compile it and
integrate it on one single screen.
The House Appropriations Committee cited these ''ambitious technical goals of the F-22,'' especially the electronic system in
the cockpit, as the reason for the delays in the fighter jet's development.
And this advanced technology has come at a cost far in excess of the original $70 million budgeted for each plane. Lockheed
Martin officials admit that the average price per plane, when all costs are included, is $172 million -- not far from the $180
million and $200 million figure cited by Congress.
They recognize that Congress is convinced that the Pentagon should drop at least one of the three fighter jet programs under
development. Naturally, Lockheed Martin has a different candidate than its own F-22 jet.
''If Congress feels it needs to remove one of the air weapons programs, I'd pick the F-18,'' said Mr. Rearden, recommending the
Navy's refitted fighter jet

<INSERT KHALIZHAD>

177
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Budget Tight

Military spending is expected to be tight despite the need for funding


Thom Shanker, Staff Writer, 2/4/08, New York Times, “Proposed Military Spending Is Highest Since WWII”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04military.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Pentagon and military officials acknowledge the considerable commitment of money that will be required for
continuing the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as efforts to increase the size of the Army, Marine Corps and
Special Operations forces, to replace weapons worn out in the desert and to assure “quality of life” for those in uniform so they
will remain in the military.

Yet those demands for money do not even include the price of refocusing the military’s attention beyond the current
wars to prepare for other challenges.

Senior Pentagon civilians and the top generals and admirals do not deny the challenge of sustaining military spending,
and they acknowledge that Congress and the American people may turn inward after Iraq.

“I believe that we need to have a broad public discussion about what we should spend on defense,” Adm. Mike Mullen,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Friday.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Admiral Mullen have said military spending should not drop below 4 percent of
the national economy. “I really do believe this 4 percent floor is important,” Admiral Mullen said. “It’s really
important, given the world we’re living in, given the threats that we see out there, the risks that are, in fact, global, not
just in the Middle East.” [continued]
[continued]
Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said Mr. Gates and the senior Pentagon leadership were well aware that the large
emergency spending bills for the war, over and above the Pentagon base budget, would at some point come to an end.

“The secretary believes that whenever we transition away from war supplementals, the Congress should dedicate 4
percent of our G.D.P. to funding national security,” Mr. Morrell said. “That is what he believes to be a reasonable price
to stay free and protect our interests around the world.”

178
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

F-22 Chopping Block


Rifes within the DOD makes F-22’s a vulnerable target for cuts
Bob Cox, staff writer, 6/17/08, Star-Telegram, “What’s up next for F-35, F-22?”, http://www.star-
telegram.com/business/story/704902.html
Clear air, politically speaking, appears to lie ahead for the F-35 joint strike fighter program in the wake of Lockheed Martin’s
successful flight test last week of the first redesigned version of the aircraft.
The same probably can’t be said for Lockheed’s F-22 jet after its most vocal proponents in the U.S. Air Force leadership
were sacked recently by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The successful test flight of the F-35B Lightning II short takeoff-vertical landing model on Wednesday prompted a vote of
confidence from one senior civilian Pentagon official.
John Young, undersecretary of defense for weapons development and acquisition, said in a statement that the flight “makes a
strong statement” about the progress on the F-35 program despite well publicized delays and technical issues.
Young said “the JSF program is ahead of similar programs in terms of quality, software, testing, and manufacturing readiness.
The JSF program has many more steps ahead, but today’s flight demonstrates the maturity and progress being made on JSF.”
The F-35B is the short takeoff-vertical landing, or “STOVL,” model of the three versions and is the most challenging
technically. In April, Young had approved funds to produce six F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing models, but withheld
funds for six STOVL models until after the first flight.
Young will receive a further briefing by program and Lockheed officials, probably within the next month, including a review of
plans for resolving problems discovered in tests of F-35B engines. But barring any new technical issues with the engine, Young
is expected to release funds for the other six aircraft approved in the 2008 budget.
Politically, “the joint strike fighter is in very good shape,” said Loren Thompson, defense analyst with the Lexington Institute
and a consultant to several aerospace and defense companies, including Lockheed.
The same can’t be said for the F-22. The June 5 firings of Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen.
Michael Moseley, Thompson said, were in large part due to the increasingly angry debate between the Air Force and
senior Pentagon leaders over whether to buy more F-22s.
The tone of the discussions between Moseley and, particularly, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England over the
F-22 had grown increasingly tense.
“The absence of any strong advocates for the F-22, with Moseley and Wynne gone, will be detrimental for the
program,” Thompson said.
Both programs are important to Lockheed’s Fort Worth operation. About 1,800 workers assemble the mid-fuselage of the F-22,
while about 4,000 are working on the F-35 with production work just beginning to have an impact on staffing.
The F-22 still has strong supporters in Congress who will probably maintain some funding for additional planes beyond
the 183 now on order in the 2009 budget, but the likelihood of long-term production is dim.
Both Gates and England are firmly opposed to future orders. And Thompson said it is unlikely, given their past
positions, that either Sen. John McCain or Sen. Barack Obama will be champion of the program if elected president.
In a note sent to investors Monday, analysts for Sanford Bernstein said the F-22 “appears to have sound Democratic support for
extending the line beyond the planned 183 airplanes” and that a final decision on its fate will “be determined by the next
administration and Congress.”

179
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

F-22 Chopping Block


Lockheed’s F-22 Jets have been empirically under spending restraints
Elizabeth Becker, staff writer, 7/23/1999, New York Times, “Critics Catch up to a 21st – Century Jet”,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401EFD9153EF930A15754C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
This picture of outsized industrial self-confidence survived years of questioning from Congress about cost overruns and
delays in the $70 billion project intended to build the Air Force's state-of-the-art fighter jet. Throughout those years, the
program enjoyed the powerful protection of Georgia politicians like Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House
whose district included this Lockheed plant, and Sam Nunn, the former head of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Without them, Lockheed finds itself on the defensive with Congress, with the House yesterday approving the deletion of
$1.8 billion earmarked to manufacture the first six jets to be used in combat as it went ahead and overwhelmingly
approved the military spending bill for the next fiscal year.
It was a defeat for the Pentagon and the manufacturer, which rarely had encountered a Congress opposed to a military
program on the verge of production.
Critics in the House have said the F-22 suffers from a number of technical difficulties, including problems with the plane's
wings, brakes, fuselage, fuel lines and engines, and that its computer systems remain untested. According to Government
auditors, the F-22 has passed only 5 percent of its flight tests and its manufacturers are having trouble connecting the plane's
wings to its body and perfecting the cockpit computers that drive its navigation and war-fighting systems.
''Maybe we should have seen it coming but nobody did,'' said Tom Burbage, the president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautical
Systems. ''We thought this would be the first year we wouldn't have a battle and instead we have the biggest we've ever had.''
Lockheed Martin has been lobbying heavily to save this program and remains confident that it can win the battle when the
House and the Senate meet in conference on the measure . It does have the support of several prominent Senators who are
ardent loyalists of the next-generation jet.

180
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

F-22 Chopping Block

Congress has been willing in the past to scrape F-22 funding


Jack Shanahan, journalist, 5/22/2000, Baltimore Sun,
With the budget clamp squeezing hard, will House Republicans determine that the F-22 is indeed justified this year, when last
year it was not?
PERHAPS THE most unexpected - and intelligent - act by last year's Congress was the vote by the House to cut one of the
largest single items in the federal budget: Construction funds for the Pentagon's F-22 fighter jet. The vote was overwhelming,
379 to 45.
After the House vote, a highly unusual scenario unfolded as President Clinton joined Senate Republicans in calling for the full
restoration of F-22 funds. The White House threatened to veto the defense appropriations bill over this issue.
In the end, a House-Senate conference committee restored most of the funds for the F-22, with significant restrictions attached.
But fiscally conservative House leaders, led by Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., continued to express their displeasure with the F-22
program.
Faced with unprecedented budget pressures, what will the House do this year?
The case for funding the F-22 has not improved since last year's vote. The jet was sold to Congress in 1990 as a replacement
for the F-15 fighter because U.S. military experts believed the Soviet Union was designing new, superior fighter jets. But the
Soviet planes never were built. The plans for them collapsed with the Soviet Union.
Thus, the existing 750 active F-15s remain, undeniably, the world's most advanced tactical fighters. And they will remain so,
reports the General Accounting Office, through 2015 or later. With at least a 50-1 advantage in modern fighter aircraft over
Iraq, Iran, China, and other potential adversaries, U.S. air superiority is not in jeopardy.
Yet, the Air Force wants to replace the F-15s (which cost $33 million each) with 339 F-22s at a cost of $63 billion, about $187
million per plane. It would be by far the most expensive fighter plane ever. And, astonishingly, the F-22 is only one of three
new-generation fighter jets that the Pentagon wants to build in the coming decades, costing a total of $350 billion.
In addition to serious questions about the need for the F-22, there is evidence that it will not work as advertised - and anyone in
their right mind would expect Congress to pay close attention to these problems in the wake of the recent tilt-rotor Osprey
crash, which killed 19 Marines. The Osprey was needlessly rushed through Congress by pork-barreling politicians.
Fewer than five percent of planned F-22 flight tests have been completed. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress - which
also objected to the Opsrey - has reported that the F-22 faces design deficiencies, including faulty brakes, leaky fuel lines and
problems connecting the plane's wings to its body. And questions remain about the F-22's ambitious design, such as its ability
to cruise at supersonic speed with unmatched maneuverability.
Despite these problems, lobbying pressure on behalf of the F-22 has been intense, as it was for the Osprey. After the plane's
near-death experience last year, Lockheed Martin - the prime manufacturer of the jet - went on afterburner into a lobbying
frenzy.
Undoubtedly buoyed by the knowledge that parts for the F-22 are made in 46 states, Lockheed lobbyists visited key lawmakers
in their home districts during the congressional recess immediately following the House vote.
Lockheed warned that hundreds of jobs would be lost if Congress did not allocate sufficient tax dollars to build the F-22. In
four key cities, Lockheed set up a dazzling computer simulation of the plane's cockpit. The display - basically a video game -
promised gee-whiz performance
This year, lobbying pressure will continue to be intense, but so will budget pressure. The Clinton administration has raised its
request for the F-22 from the $2.2 billion allocated last year to an eye-popping $4 billion - enough to build more than 250
secondary schools across America.
Th F-22 request comes as congressional Republicans are grappling with how to justify their proposal to increase funding for
the Pentagon and education, legislate a tax cut, and - with inflation added - to cut nearly everything else in the discretionary
portion of the budget. And they must deal with this in an election year.
With the budget clamp squeezing hard, will House Republicans determine that the F-22 is indeed justified this year, when last
year it was not?
Or will we see an encore to last year's act, in which brave House Republicans - joined this time by the Clinton administration
and a Senate concerned about a repeat of the Osprey disaster - withstand the lobbying pressure and recognize that America has
much more pressing budget v priorities than the expensive and unnecessary F-22?

181
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

F-22 Impacts
The F-22 Jets are designed from cutting edge technology necessary for US
security in the skies
Elizabeth Becker, staff writer, 7/23/1999, New York Times, “Critics Catch up to a 21st – Century Jet”,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401EFD9153EF930A15754C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
On the outside, the flat, almost blunt silhouette of the F-22 has little of the futuristic look of the B-2 stealth bomber.
Inside, in the cockpit, however, it has the feel of a video game in which approaching enemy aircraft are tracked on a computer
screen as red triangles, easily distinguishable from the green squares representing the ''friendlies'' and the pale yellow oblongs
indicating planes with unknown loyalties.
''Use the cursor like a mouse and see who he is,'' said C. L. Buzze, a former Air Force pilot and now the F-22 advanced product
representative, as he manipulated the levers of a facsimile of an F-22 cockpit.
The cursor slid over the triangle and immediately identified the enemy plane as a fighter jet from the Russian fleet. When the
plane came in range, the command ''Shoot'' appeared on the screen, and with a flick of a switch, a white tail slithered across the
screen hitting a dot that exploded into a small fiery ball.
But if the plane passes all of its tests during the next three to four years, officials say that the expensive stealth features
built into nearly every part of the plane will insure that the F-22 image on an enemy radar is so reduced that it is
unlikely to be detected before the it attacks. And according to Lockheed officials, the F-22's supersonic cruising speed,
and technical advances will enable the F-22 pilot to take the first shot in an aerial duel.
The aviation electronic system in the cockpit, where data are collected, integrated and instantly compiled on the screen,
is one of fighter jet's biggest selling points. Many modern fighter jets have the F22's capabilities but none compile it and
integrate it on one single screen.
The House Appropriations Committee cited these ''ambitious technical goals of the F-22,'' especially the electronic system in
the cockpit, as the reason for the delays in the fighter jet's development.
And this advanced technology has come at a cost far in excess of the original $70 million budgeted for each plane. Lockheed
Martin officials admit that the average price per plane, when all costs are included, is $172 million -- not far from the $180
million and $200 million figure cited by Congress.
They recognize that Congress is convinced that the Pentagon should drop at least one of the three fighter jet programs under
development. Naturally, Lockheed Martin has a different candidate than its own F-22 jet.
''If Congress feels it needs to remove one of the air weapons programs, I'd pick the F-18,'' said Mr. Rearden, recommending the
Navy's refitted fighter jet.

182
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

***DOD Trade off Answers

183
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

2AC
1. NON-UNIQUE, TRADE OFF INEVITABLE
Air Force is being forced to scrap its F-22 proposals
Ivan Eland, Director of Center of Peace and Liberty, 6/28/08, The Independent Institute, “Can the Air Force be Reformed?”,
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=13059
During the tenure of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the Army was the military service in the doghouse. Under
his successor, Robert Gates, it appears to be the Air Force. Recently, Secretary Gates took the unprecedented step of
firing the top civilian and military leaders of the service for its snafus with nuclear weapons and components. And then
there was also the Air Force's favoritism in contracting and its failure to be a team player in the counterinsurgency
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite the Secretary's dramatic actions, vested interests will probably thwart his desire
to reform the service.
Since the Vietnam War, the "essence" of the Air Force has been promoting and flying high performance tactical fighter aircraft.
The service's concentration on heavy bombers that could deliver nuclear weapons waned as the Cold War dragged on, and its
attention to nuclear delivery systems fell into oblivion after the Berlin Wall fell. The Air Force's de-emphasis of its nuclear
mission is in part responsible for bomber crews carrying nuclear weapons across the country without knowing it and
mistakenly sending fuses for nuclear weapons to Taiwan. Yet despite the firings, and most likely to compensate the Air Force
for them, Secretary Gates promised to reward failure by increasing the service's budget for nuclear activities.
Also much to Secretary Gates's stated annoyance, the service has been neglecting remotely piloted surveillance drones, which
have proven invaluable in the counterinsurgency wars being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has also shortchanged the
mission of transporting troops, equipment, fuel, and food for ground troops in such theaters, while lobbying to buy more stealth
F-22 stealth fighters to counter future possible adversaries. The drones are neglected because they don't require pilots – the
people who run the Air Force. Resembling giant toy airplanes, they are piloted remotely using a joystick.
The transport mission is shortchanged because cargo planes are much less sexy to fly than new high tech fighter jets. The
problem is that the Air Force, even without having bought any F-22s, has existing aircraft, pilots, and weapons that, when used
together, would vastly dominate any future conventional opponent, including China, India, or and Russia. The F-22 was
originally designed during the Cold War to counter Soviet fighters that were never built.
Another problem is that unmanned surveillance drones don't cost as much as high tech fighters. In addition to pilots being a
powerful interest group within the service, the military-industrial-congressional complex would probably thwart an increased
emphasis on drones even if the pilots didn't. Lucrative contracts on the F-22, which usually go to industrial concerns heavily
dependent on defense business in key congressional districts, have kept the unneeded fighter alive, at the expense of increased
funding for badly needed drones. Members of Congress who have such defense industries in their districts and states usually
become powerful members of congressional committees that authorize and appropriate funds for such projects.
Firing the civilian and military leaders of the service with only 7 months to go in the Bush administration will do virtually
nothing to bust the vested interests that have led to the present state of affairs. Although the new military chief will stay on into
the next administration and is, for once, a military transport person, the fighter mafia, because of its glamour, is still likely to
remain in control of the service. Supporting losing counterinsurgencies on the ground will never be as alluring as dreams of
dogfights with non-existent enemy superfighters.
The one thing that could be done to at least loosen the grip of the military-industrial-congressional complex is to require
the Air Force to drop excessively unique military specifications for components of weapon systems and instead use
commercial components or slight variations thereof. Letting commercial non-defense companies – which are not part of
the dedicated defense industry dependent on government largesse – compete for defense subcontracts would lessen the
pressure to buy unneeded weapon systems. If subcontractors had commercial business to fall back on when defense
procurement was slow, there would be less pressure for the Air Force and Congress to buy unneeded systems to keep the
welfare queens of the dedicated defense subcontracting industry aloft.
However, this reform, even if adopted, would have an effect only over the long-term. Thus, despite the secretary's
dramatic personnel changes, don't expect to see a different Air Force soon.

2AC

2. F-22 JETS FACE ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS

184
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

F-22s faces initial engineering issues


John A. Tirpak, executive editor of Airforce Magazine, 9/2002, Airforce Magazine, “F-22 on the Line”,
http://www.afa.org/magazine/sept2002/0902raptor.asp
Other F-22 problems that have made headlines--a brake overheating issue and wing vortex that threatened to damage
the vertical stabilizers--have been largely resolved, Jabour said.
"We are gathering more data" on the stabilizer issue, but a fix involving a beefed up rudder actuator and some strengthening of
some of the ribs in the rudder should do the trick, he said. The change will not affect the mold line of the airplane--its external
shape--nor will it affect the F-22's stealthiness.
The brake issue has been looked at, and the aircraft has been cleared for hot-pit refueling--meaning that ground crews are
allowed to refuel the airplane when the brakes are still hot, and this is not considered especially dangerous.
An F-22 a few months ago showed its mettle when it absorbed a bird strike, Jabour noted. On takeoff from Lockheed
Martin's Marietta, Ga., plant, he said, the aircraft collided with a "nine-pound bird," but the pilot reported that he
could feel "no change in engine performance" and landed merely as a precaution.

Sofware issues threaten to hurt F-22 jet efficiency and production


John A. Tirpak, executive editor of Airforce Magazine, 9/2002, Airforce Magazine, “F-22 on the Line”,
http://www.afa.org/magazine/sept2002/0902raptor.asp
In another example, Rearden noted that all the power cables, hydraulics, cooling hoses, and other umbilicals that usually have
to be connected to an airplane in assembly will now flow from a single "vault" in the floor beneath each station, reducing
accidents and disconnections and saving time as the line moves.
The F-22's software problems coincided with a brain drain that hit the aerospace industry in the late 1990s, when the
dot-com fever lured away many talented software engineers with stock options and other compensation, Rearden noted.
In the wake of the dot-com crash, he now has all the software engineers he needs, but the effect of the turbulence is still
felt.
A 44-day production strike at Lockheed Martin also affected the program. The reduced time resulted in slowing the
numbers of aircraft available for test, thus slowing the rate at which the Air Force can burn down the required flight
test points, Jabour said.
The Rumsfeld review is likely to have heavy input from Stephen A. Cambone, the Pentagon's new program analysis and
evaluation chief and a Rumsfeld confidante. Cambone explained to reporters in Washington in June that the big-ticket systems
review is "not a budget-cutting drill" and that good answers are what are being sought. The Air Force, he said, is welcome to
ask for more F-22s or to suggest shifting the aircraft's mission emphasis.
"There's nothing that is prohibited from being presented," Cambone noted.

2AC

185
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

3. NO IMPACT, THERE WILL BE NO LOSS OF AIRWAY CONTROL WITHOUT THE F-


22 JETS

A trade-off with military spending is overdue; the F-22 is ineffective and


expensive.
Ethan Heitner, Staff writer for Tom Paine Common Sense. 7/27/06 “The Other F-22 Problem”
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/27/the_f22s_other_problem.php
What do you do when you've got the world's most expensive fighter jet and its canopy won't open correctly so you have
to chainsaw free the hapless pilot?
If you're the U.S. government, you sign up for an extended three-year contract to ensure you get even more of them
than you originally wanted
Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan elucidates the cost of the Pentagon's outdated thinking about defense spending today in an
article on TomPaine.com about the bloated and unloved F-22 Raptor fighter jet:
Political leaders in Washington are so scared of being labeled “weak on defense” that they rarely object at all to
defense expenditures, even ones like the F-22 that are widely regarded as wasteful. In fact, it’s an open secret in
Washington that tens of billions of dollars are going down the drain at the Pentagon.
At the same time, it’s also an open secret that millions of American kids lack health insurance, public schools around the
country are falling down, and our nation continues to rely on petroleum—a national vulnerability that could set us up for a
serious economic collapse.
And how much is the federal government spending on renewable energy research? About as much as we’re spending
on the F-22 fighter jet. And less than a third as much as we spend on national missile defense.

F-22s unnecessary for US security


Victoria Samson, staff writer, 2/26/08, Asheville Citizen-Times, “How many guns are enough?”,
http://www.cdi.org/program/issue/document.cfm?DocumentID=4223&IssueID=214&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Or
derby=DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&issueID=214
To put this request into proper perspective: When the United States was preparing for nuclear war with a peer competitor, as it
was commonly thought to be doing during the five decades of the Cold War, it still asked for less funding (corrected for
inflation) than the Pentagon is seeking now. The real question is whether this current stratospheric level of funding is
warranted. And if it is, are we spending our money on the actual threats we face, or are we throwing money after programs that
have been rendered obsolete?
One case in point is the F-22 Raptor plane. Originally intended for air-to-air combat, this aircraft now has a
questionable role in determining U.S. security. Whom exactly this fighter would be fighting is unclear. As Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates recently pointed out, “The reality is, we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the
F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater.”
Even so, the Pentagon wishes to limit its purchases of the F-22 to “just” 183 of them, at a cost of $140 million…each. This is
still not enough for the Air Force, which vehemently insists that 381 are still needed as initially planned. The Air Force as a
service is trying to find direction in a time when the chance of aerial dogfights is slim to none, and it is understandable that
some old procurement inclinations reassert themselves from time to time. But it is inexcusable to put this sort of funding
into a program that does little to strengthen U.S. security when so many other more pressing needs for the military go
unmet.

2AC

186
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Military purchases must be made in light of longevity of the weapons, F-22s


are not strategic buys
Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., staff writer, 3/20/2008, National Journal, “On the sea and in the air, military bills come due”,
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0308/032008nj1.htm
The air and sea services certainly make the case for their own relevance. Besides an increasing number of air strikes since the
beginning of the 2007 "surge" of troops into Iraq, "what you see is Air Force airplanes providing intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance in direct support of ground forces," said Maj. Gen. Paul Selva, the service's director of strategic planning. With
land vehicles vulnerable to roadside bombs, Selva added, Air Force transports shuttle an average of 2,000 troops a day around
Iraq and Afghanistan. But even Selva puts the case for high-tech, high-cost systems in terms of future conflicts, not the
current low-tech war."The question with the F-22 is the long-term strategic horizon," Selva said, "because whatever
number we end up [buying] with the F-22, that's the number we're going to have for the next 20 years." The Navy,
likewise, emphasizes that the ships it builds today must last for decades in a world where lethal technologies are proliferating
rapidly. Whether these long-term arguments will shake an extra $40 billion out of Congress is an open question. And whether
the services' planned purchases are the right investments for the future is another question altogether."My main
concern is readiness for the unexpected, for what's around the corner," said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the
House Armed Services Committee. "You do your best to have high-technology systems to deter and prevail in the
unexpected [future] -- but the need to bolster the ground forces is highly important today. We have to do our very best
to balance them out."

187
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

F-22’s suck

A trade-off with military spending is overdue; the F-22 is ineffective and


expensive.
Ethan Heitner, Staff writer for Tom Paine Common Sense. 7/27/06 “The Other F-22 Problem”
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/27/the_f22s_other_problem.php
What do you do when you've got the world's most expensive fighter jet and its canopy won't open correctly so you have
to chainsaw free the hapless pilot?
If you're the U.S. government, you sign up for an extended three-year contract to ensure you get even more of them
than you originally wanted
Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan elucidates the cost of the Pentagon's outdated thinking about defense spending today in an
article on TomPaine.com about the bloated and unloved F-22 Raptor fighter jet:
Political leaders in Washington are so scared of being labeled “weak on defense” that they rarely object at all to
defense expenditures, even ones like the F-22 that are widely regarded as wasteful. In fact, it’s an open secret in
Washington that tens of billions of dollars are going down the drain at the Pentagon.
At the same time, it’s also an open secret that millions of American kids lack health insurance, public schools around the
country are falling down, and our nation continues to rely on petroleum—a national vulnerability that could set us up for a
serious economic collapse.
And how much is the federal government spending on renewable energy research? About as much as we’re spending
on the F-22 fighter jet. And less than a third as much as we spend on national missile defense.

188
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

***DOE Trade OFF

189
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

DOE TRADE OFF 1NC


Renewable energies will trade off with ITER
Space Ref, 1/31/08
http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358&Itemid=2
Energy Under Secretary Orbach: "We Are Now at a Perilous Moment in the History of Funding for Science in the United
States"
In remarks delivered yesterday to the Universities Research Association, Energy Under Secretary for Science Raymond L. Orbach was clear: "Though you
have heard this phrase before, we are now at a perilous moment in the history of funding for science in the United States."
Orbach's comments made it clear that legislative actions have real-world consequences: failure to enact the President's FY 2008
request for the Office of Science will be felt keenly in the research programs that the Office of Science supports. Reduced
budgets will result in the elimination of funding for more than 4,300 Ph.D.'s, graduate students, and others from what was
envisioned in the FY 2008 request.
Selections from Orbach's presentation follow; his entire speech may be read at
http://www.er.doe.gov/News_Information/speeches/speeches/08/SC08.htm Note that his presentation on this site includes two figures: the first, "Office of
Science; FY 2008 Appropriation", the other, with new information, entitled "Office of Science; FY 2006 - FY 2008;Impact on Scientific Employment"
Headings have been added to the below excerpts:
FY 2008 OUTCOME:
"Though you have heard this phrase before, we are now at a perilous moment in the history of funding for science in the United
States. I speak from the perspective of the Director of the Department of Energy Office of Science, and as Under Secretary for
Science, but I believe I also represent the views of other leaders of the federal agencies that support science.
"I refer you to the consequences for the funding for science of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Omnibus Bill, and the preceding year-
long FY 2007 Continuing Resolution. Both failed to provide adequate funding for the physical sciences in the United States
and for many other fields of science. The President's Budget Request for FY 2009, in the context of the American Competitive
Initiative, or ACI, will again be a vote of confidence for the three federal agencies that are the primary supporters of the
physical sciences: the Office of Science within the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the core
research component of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The President's commitment to support of long-term
basic research continues to be evident in this budget request, as it has been in previous requests. Indeed, in his State of the
Union Address on Monday, the President devoted some of his precious time to state:
"'To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of
tomorrow. Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This
funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I ask Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure
America remains the most dynamic nation on Earth.'
"I have never heard before such support for the physical sciences from a President of the United States. But if the FY 09 enacted budget proves similar to FY
07 and FY 08, a "three-peat," the future of the physical sciences will be in jeopardy. Opportunities will be lost forever: for science, and our country."
[At this point, Orbach quoted an op-ed by Intel Chairman Craig Barrett]
"I needn't remind this group what happened in the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill . . . . The President's request for the ACI, a trajectory that would have led to a
doubling of the budgets of the NSF, the DOE Office of Science, and NIST, was, with a few exceptions, at best ignored. For the Office of Science, the budget
without earmarks was reduced by $500 million from the President's request, and is only 2.6% above FY 07, which itself was down by $300 million from the
President's FY 07 request. The loss of more than three quarters of a billion dollars for the physical sciences for the Office of Science will never be recovered.
Worse, specific areas of science within the physical sciences were marked for major reductions from the President's request. I speak of High Energy Physics
for which the enacted FY 08 budget was $63.5 million less than enacted in FY 07, and by $94 million from the President's request for FY 08. Fusion Energy
Sciences was reduced by $32.4 million from FY 07, and by $141 million from the President's request for FY 08, zeroing our Nation's contribution to ITER
construction. Nuclear Physics was slightly increased by $10 million from FY 07, but cut by $38.6 million from the President's request for FY 08. Finally, the
budget for Basic Energy Sciences was increased by $19.7 million from FY 07, but cut by $229 million from the President's request, eliminating funding for
basic research energy initiatives such as solar and electrical energy storage. To be fair, the budgets for Biological and Environmental Research and Advanced
Scientific Computing Research were augmented above the President's request.

"Nevertheless, the consequences of the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill for the U.S. scientific workforce are substantial. . . . Office of
Science funding for Ph.D.'s, graduate students, and others was decreased from the President's Request by over 4,300. This at a
time when other nations around the world are increasing their scientific workforce.
<<CONTINUES NEXT PAGE

190
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

DOE TRADE OFF 1NC


<<CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE>>

Space Ref, 1/31/08


http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358&Itemid=2
"The budget decisions that led to these consequences were carefully drawn. They were not the result of hasty last-minute
actions. They represent the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives."
FY 2009 BUDGET REQUEST:
"But enough of the past. What's done is done, and we need to move on. The President's request for FY 09 will be wonderful,
again, for the physical sciences. While I can't go into details here, I can say that it will continue the funding request consistent
with the American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act. The problem for all of us is that, faced with
essentially flat funding for the physical sciences in FY 08, the President's Request for FY 09 will appear as a very large
percentage increase for the three ACI agencies. The danger is that basic research in the physical sciences will again be 'donors'
to other programs.
FAILED ATTITUDE:
"Compounding this danger is that we scientists tend to regard the proposed increases for the physical sciences under the
American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act as an entitlement. That attitude has failed us. Our
lawmakers have clearly signaled where they want to put taxpayer dollars. If we are to avoid a repeat in FY 09 of what
happened in FY 08, we need to actively make the case for the support of long-term basic research across those fields that have
historically represented U.S. world leadership. Our fellow citizens must understand that these investments in basic research
have held the key to America's prosperity and strength in modern times. As Vannevar Bush wrote to President Truman more
than half a century ago: '.without scientific progress no amount of achievement in other directions can insure our health,
prosperity, and security as a nation in the modern world.'
FURTHER DETAILS ON THE FY 2009 REQUEST:
"The President's FY 09 request for the Office of Science will continue to support the full spectrum of physical science basic
research. It will restore the ACI funding trajectory for High Energy Physics, for Nuclear Physics, for Basic Energy Sciences,
and for Fusion Energy Sciences, including major support for ITER construction.
NEW APPROACH NEEDED THIS YEAR:
"But the President's vote of confidence in us will go for naught if we regard his Budget Request as 'a done deal' The final
congressional action on the FY 09 budget will not be a free ride. Our community must make clear to Congress why it is critical
for the Nation's future that the physical sciences be supported at least at the level of the President's request. Failure to do so will
yield more of the same we experienced in FY 07 and FY 08, and the 'three-peat' will have the potential of continuing the flat-
to-declining trajectory into the indefinite future.

"The message of this year's appropriation is unmistakable. The American public, through its duly elected Congress, has made
its priorities clear: short-term applied research wins over the full spectrum of long-term basic research. It is our job to make
clear to the American people that our country will 'run out of gas' if the latter is not supported. In the absence of breakthroughs
in fundamental science, current technologies will simply not be able to meet the energy and environmental challenges that
loom ahead for our Nation. Progress in basic science is essential to America's continued prosperity and strength in the twenty-
first century.

191
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

DOE TRADE OFF 1NC


The U.S. will probably desert ITER
David Pace (Masters at University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Physics
and Astronomy, Doctorate Candidate in Experimental Plasma Physics, M.Sc., Physics, 2003, University
of the Pacific, Stockton, California, USA Department of Physics, B.S., magna cum laude Physics, 2002,
Honorary Teaching Award, UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2006-2007, Research
Mentorship Fellowship, UCLA, 2004-2005, Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award, UCLA Department of
Physics and Astronomy, 2004, Cota Robles Fellowship, UCLA, 2002-2003, Most Outstanding Senior, U.
Pacific Department of Physics, 2002, DOE Energy Research Undergraduate Laboratory Research
Fellowship, 2001, Dean’s Honor Roll, U. Pacific, 1998-2001) , 1/5/08
http://www.davidpace.com/physics/graduate-school/us-leave-iter.htm

Finding and understanding the actual congressional material regarding this cut is difficult. It is easy to find media coverage of
the results but they will not say much about the ITER issue. A collection of the House Amendments to the bill provides the best
overview. With respect to ITER, the Joint Explanatory Statement says (emphasis added),
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes $289,180,000 for Fusion Energy Sciences. Within Fusion Energy
Sciences, $162,910,000 is provided for Science, $93,504,000 for U.S. Facility Operations, an increase of $6,000,000 to be used
to increase facility operations at the three U.S. user facilities (i.e., the DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod, and National Spherical Torus
Experiment) $22,042,000 for Enabling R&D, an increase of $1,225,000 for materials research, $0 for the U.S. contribution to
ITER, and $10,724,000 for Enabling R&D for ITER. Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes $12,281,000 for
High Energy Density Physics. Funding may not be reprogrammed from other activities within Fusion Energy Sciences to
restore the U.S. contribution to ITER.
The removal of funds for our ITER contribution might normally be considered a temporary technicality if not for the final line
stating that money may not be transferred from other funds to pay the contribution. This suggests that the bill's intent is to
completely reacquire the $160 million originally reserved for ITER. I have not determined what is included as “Enabling
R&D” though I suspect that this money will allow those already being paid through U.S. ITER support to continue receiving
their wage.

192
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

DOE TRADE OFF 1NC


Loss of ITER kills U.S. heg
David Pace (Masters at University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Physics
and Astronomy, Doctorate Candidate in Experimental Plasma Physics, M.Sc., Physics, 2003, University
of the Pacific, Stockton, California, USA Department of Physics, B.S., magna cum laude Physics, 2002,
Honorary Teaching Award, UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2006-2007, Research
Mentorship Fellowship, UCLA, 2004-2005, Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award, UCLA Department of
Physics and Astronomy, 2004, Cota Robles Fellowship, UCLA, 2002-2003, Most Outstanding Senior, U.
Pacific Department of Physics, 2002, DOE Energy Research Undergraduate Laboratory Research
Fellowship, 2001, Dean’s Honor Roll, U. Pacific, 1998-2001) , 1/5/08
http://www.davidpace.com/physics/graduate-school/us-leave-iter.htm

The collection of circumstances now present do not bode well for ITER and they encourage renewed concern over U.S. fusion
and plasma research in general. It seems that history is repeating itself with regard to our role in ITER. An unwilling Congress,
the lack of powerful supporters, and economic pressures are aligned against a U.S. presence in ITER. The Government
Accountability Office has highlighted both the need for more fusion Ph.D.'s in the workforce and the fact that as many of half
of all plasma science and engineering Ph.D.'s leave the field (plain text, pdf). As a member of the group of graduate students in
this field I can positively state that our discussions focus on events like this ITER cut and the uncertainty in funding for this
type of research is a major motivation for moving to other sectors and very different careers. Supporting ITER encourages a
new generation of plasma scientists as much as cutting it leads these same people to other fields.
A broader issue remains: what happens if ITER is a rousing success and we were not involved? For a comparison, imagine that
the methods of AC and DC electricity generation and transmission had not been developed in the United States. The negative
impact on our industrialization and technological prowess is unimaginable. A successful ITER project with no U.S. assistance
will be very similar. The rest of the industrialized world will have a wealth of knowledge and ability in the field of fusion
driven electricity production@, along with the desire to feed their own national corporate interests with the first commercial
applications.

Loss of Heg leads to nuclear war


Khalilzad ’95 (Washington Quarterly)
http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not
as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the
global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.
Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear
proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude
the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the
attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a
bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

193
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Nuclear Energy funding key

Funding for nuclear energy is key because current containment units are
already malfunctioning
Energy News Service, 7/14/08 http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2008/2008-07-14-095.asp
The U.S. Department of Energy doesn't know enough about the condition and contents of millions of gallons of radioactive and
hazardous wastes stored in tanks at its Hanford Site in Washington state to make good decisions about cleanup and costs, according to
a new report by Congress's investigative agency.
The findings issued by the U.S. General Accountability Office are the latest in a string of critiques finding fault with the way the
Department of Energy is handling Hanford, which GAO natural resources and development director Gene Aloise called "one of the
most contaminated places on Earth."
Situated on 586 square miles along the Columbia River in southeastern Washington, upstream from the cities of Richland, Pasco and
Kennewick, the Hanford Site was established in 1943 to produce plutonium for atomic bombs, as part of the government's top-secret
Manhattan Project.
Hanford manufactured nuclear materials through 1989, a mission that left in its wake the world's largest environmental cleanup
project.
Now, the Department of Energy is responsible for managing more than 56 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous waste stored in
149 single-shell and 28 double-shell underground tanks.
Of those, 67 are confirmed or presumed to have already leaked about one million gallons of waste into the ground. In 2000, the
estimated cost of tank waste cleanup was estimated at nearly $50 billion.
One of the agency's plans is to convert some of the most perilous radioactive waste into glass, a process called vitrification. But the
process of conversion is stymied by the fact that some of the radioactive elements have formed "unknown compounds" while in
storage.
The Energy Deparment has an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state of Washington's Department of
Ecology to remove waste from single-shelled tanks by the fall of 2018 and "immobilize" all tank waste by the end of 2028.
But the department is far behind schedule. By its latest estimate, according to the GAO report, waste treatment will not begin until late
2019 and it could continue to 2050 and beyond.
In its report issued June 30, the GAO recommended that the Department of Energy give priority to assessing the integrity of single-
shelled tanks; quantify specific risks of continuing to use the tanks; and work with state and federal agencies on a realistic cleanup
schedule.

194
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

ITER Brink/Internal Link

ITER is on the Brink now, any trade-off will cut its funding
Peter Fairley, Contributing Editor Peter Fairley has reported for IEEE Spectrum from Bolivia, Beijing,
and Paris., 2/14/08 http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb08/5980 The 2004 report “Burning Plasma: Bringing a Star to
Earth,” from the U.S. National Research Council, sold Washington on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER),
a massive R&D project that proponents predict will be the breakthrough project for fusion energy. In its fiscal 2008 budget, however,
Congress drove the United States’ role in ITER right into the ground, slashing US $160 million promised for this year to $10.7
million. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) officials are expected to provide an update on how the United States plans to work around
the budget shortfall at a meeting of the agency’s Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee next Tuesday. But the United States’
paltry participation has some wondering if fusion research, considered since the 1960s one of the great long shots for a sustainable and
relatively clean energy supply, has run out of time. ITER, set to begin construction in Cadarache, near Marseilles in southern France,
aspires to produce the first self-sustaining fusion reaction. Like most fusion experiments to date, ITER will use formidable electric
currents and magnetic fields to induce fusion in isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) and to contain the resulting burning
plasma—akin to a tiny star and exceeding 100 million ˚C. But where existing fusion reactors have produced heat equivalent to just a
few megawatts of power for fractions of a second, ITER should put out 500 megawatts—10 times as much as the external power
delivered—for several minutes. Getting there requires a scale of investment that only international consortia can support. The 27-
meter-high magnetic confinement chamber required will take a decade to build and cost an estimated $2.76 billion. Including design,
administration, and 20 years of operation, the project’s total expenses will be nearly $15 billion. The European Union has agreed to
cover half that cost, with the other half shared by the United States, China, India, Japan, Russia, and the Republic of Korea. U.S.
support has waxed and waned before. In 1998, Congress pulled the United States out of ITER, judging the design too pricey. ITER got
Congress back on board in 2005 with a redesign that cut the cost in half, only to see the United States trim the cap on its contribution
for ITER the next year from $1.4 billion to $1.1 billion. This year’s budget cut will prevent the DOE from lining up contractors for
the design and assembly of the hardware that it committed to supply, which includes conductors for the magnets, a pellet injector to
deliver solid deuterium fuel, and an exhaust system for tritium gas. The $10.7 million provided by Congress will cover only U.S.
personnel posted to ITER in France and a skeleton staff in the States. ITER supporters say the setback is temporary. They note that
congressional committees fully funded ITER in draft legislation last fall, only to see the funds shed in the course of a larger budget
battle between President Bush and Congress. At the last minute, Congress slashed $22 billion to avoid a threatened veto, and ITER
was an obvious target as a new and nondomestic project. “It’s just one of those things that happen because of this financial mess we’re
in,” says Stephen Dean, president of Fusion Power Associates, a nonprofit research and educational outfit based in Gaithersburg, Md.
Dean says that slowdowns at ITER, as officials grapple with more than 200 proposed design changes, will blunt the effect of U.S.
delays. “The impact is going to be relatively small, provided that it doesn’t happen again next year,” says Dean. But some observers
say it could happen again if the “financial mess” endures, because ITER—the core of the U.S. fusion program—appears to be low on
Congress’s list of priorities. James Decker, a principal with Alexandria, Va., lobbying firm Decker Garman Sullivan and former
director of the DOE’s Office of Science, notes that Congress instead provided extra funding for shorter-term energy solutions. For
example, Congress gave a 23 percent raise to the DOE’s energy R&D programs, covering such areas as carbon sequestration and solar
energy. If the United States does drop out of ITER, that could weaken support among other ITER players. Britain pulled its funding
for another international R&D megaproject, the $6.7 billion International Linear Collider, after Congress effectively froze U.S.
participation in the project. The International Linear Collider is the successor to the CERN (European Organization for Nuclear
Research) Large Hadron Collider, which is to begin operations this year. Proponents of renewable energy would shed no tears if ITER
came apart. Ed Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says governments today must determine if energy
technologies—including fusion—are “going to be realistic large-scale energy sources on a timeframe needed to mitigate global
warming.” Lyman says fusion, which even supporters agree is still several decades from fruition, flunks that test and has no place in
tight budgets: “R&D resources just aren’t there to support projects that are so expensive and have shown so little potential for promise
in the near term.”

195
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

ITER Brink/Internal Link


AT: Bush says new money/ Normal Means is trade off Ignore cards based on what Bush will do, the
budget reflects his intentions to cut renewable energy
Center For American Progress 2/8/08
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/energy_budget.html
President Bush has repeatedly said in recent months that he would lead the United States in taking steps to reduce oil
consumption, combat global warming and expand the production of renewable fuels. Bush signed the Energy Independence
and Security Act in December, and in his State of the Union address just last week, he said that we must continue to invest in
renewable fuels and that the United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate
change. Yet a quick look at the president's FY 2009 budget proposals for the Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection Agency programs show cuts in critical areas, including climate protection, tribal energy, and solar energy, while
funding for fossil and nuclear energy was increased. And some programs, such as Weatherization Assistance Grants, and the
Renewable Energy Production Incentive, were zeroed out entirely.

196
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

ITER Brink/Internal Link


ITER is on the brink of getting funding, prominent scientists are pushing for it, but a spending trade off could drain funds
Richard M. Jones (Media and Government Relations Division) 1/17/08
http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=352&Itemid=2)
An unexpected outcome in the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act was the appropriators' decision to provide no money for the U.S.
contribution to ITER. In addition, the Explanatory Statement directed that "Funding may not be reprogrammed from other activities within
Fusion Energy Sciences to restore the U.S. contribution to ITER." The Administration requested $160.0 million. As reported in FYI #2,
appropriators provided "$10,724,000 for Enabling R&D for ITER."
Twenty leaders in the U.S. fusion community have sent a letter to OSTP Director John Marburger, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Senate
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and House Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Peter Visclosky (D-IN). (Visclosky and Dorgan have jurisdiction over funding for the Office of
Science.) "We most respectfully urge that funding be provided for continued U.S. participation in ITER," the letter states, continuing, "We
also ask that funding be restored to the other areas of the Department of Energy's Office of Science."
The Administration sends its FY 2009 budget to Congress on February 4. Senior Department of Energy officials will describe their request
that day, and may comment on the FY 2008 outcome.
Copies of this letter were also sent to Energy Under Secretary for Science Raymond Orbach, and the leadership and members of relevant
House and Senate appropriations and authorization committees. The full text of the January 4 letter follows:
"Dear Dr. Marburger, Secretary Bodman, Chairman Dorgan and Chairman Visclosky:
"Despite being fully funded in the President’s and in the House and Senate Appropriations measures, the Fiscal Year 2008 omnibus funding
measure contains $0 for the U.S. contribution to the ITER Project. ITER is the key breakthrough project for magnetic fusion energy. The
purpose of the ITER Project is to 'demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful purposes.' If the
United States cannot participate in ITER, the U.S. will lose a centerpiece of its own fusion program, a key scientific tool for understanding a
fundamental process in the universe (burning plasmas like those in the sun and stars) and the pathway to the future of fusion energy.
"ITER is a joint project of the China, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States. Congress authorized U.S.
participation in this project in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the President committed the United States to its approximately 10% share of
the ITER construction just a few months ago. Failure by the United States to sustain its international commitments to ITER seems certain to
establish the United States as an unreliable partner not only in the ITER project, but in many other areas of science. This comes at a time
when the expense and scope of many critically important scientific activities suggest international partnership and cooperation.
"Therefore, for the sake of the international and domestic fusion effort and for the sake of the U.S. reputation in the international scientific
community, we most respectfully urge that funding be provided for continued U.S. participation in ITER.
"Finally, as scientists concerned about the whole U.S. scientific enterprise, we also ask that funding be restored to the other areas of the
Department of Energy’s Office of Science. There is no doubt that scientific progress on a broad variety of fronts is essential for our nation’s
future. These areas of science also represent essential fronts in our understanding of the universe and the basic functioning of the world
around us. We therefore urge that these budgets also be made whole.
"Thank you in advance for your attention to this important matter."
The letter was signed by:
Mohamed Abdou; University of California, Los Angeles
Charles Baker; University of California, San Diego
Michael Brown; Swarthmore College
John Cary; University of Colorado
Steven Cowley; University of California, Los Angeles
Stephen Dean; Fusion Power Associates
Robert Goldston; Princeton University
Adil Hassam; University of Maryland, College Park
Richard Hazeltine; University of Texas at Austin
Thomas Jarboe; University of Washington
Arnold Kritz; Lehigh University
Stanley Milora; Fellow, American Physical Society
Gerald Navatril; Columbia University
Miklos Porkolab; MIT
Stewart Prager; University of Wisconsin
Ned Sauthoff
Ron Stambaugh; General Atomics
George Tynan; University of California, San Diego
James Van Dam; University of Texas at Austin
Glen Wurden; Los Alamos National Laboratory

ITER Brink/Internal Link

ITER currently has funding requested, but it could be cut


197
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Alan Boyle (winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and
other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the
Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.) 2/4/08
http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=361&Itemid=2%3C/span%3E)
President Bush’s final budget proposal puts America’s biggest science projects back on track, as expected, but the big question
is whether Congress will gut those projects like it did last year.

For the scientific community, one of the biggest disappointments in the budget compromise rushed through Congress late last
year was the $400 million reduction in support for projects on the cutting edge of physics through the Energy Department's
Office of Science. Hundreds of physicists are facing layoffs, and America's promised contribution of $160 million for
international nuclear fusion research was cut to zero.

All this led the Energy Department's under secretary for science, Ray Orbach, to remark over the weekend that "we are now at
a perilous moment in the history of funding for science in the United States."

The Energy Department's newly proposed $4.7 billion science budget for the 2009 fiscal year, beginning in October, is in some
ways a case of "back to the future." The request represents an 18.8 percent increase over the current year's appropriation.

Support for the fusion project known as ITER is set at $214.5 million, with officials ruefully noting that last year's budget
reversal "will impact the schedule and increase the U.S. costs." Funding is restored as well for Fermilab's NOvA detector and
preparations for the International Linear Collider - two projects that went into limbo due to last year's congressional cuts.

Kei Koizumi, who analyzes science policy issues for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said the broad
strokes appeared to follow through on Bush's State of the Union pledge to beef up support for the physical sciences. He
cautioned, however, that Fermilab and the Energy Department's other national laboratories will still have to weather some
tough months ahead..

"If those labs can get through this year, and appropriations follow the requests, then starting next year, those labs and those
physical programs will be in much better shape," Koizumi told me.

That's a big if. Over the past seven years, Bush has repeatedly faced criticism for his approach to scientific issues such as
global warming and stem cells - but on this issue, he's the one who looks like the champion of science, while members of
Congress come off looking like Neanderthals.

Big science could still lose out to congressional tinkering, driven by the desire to make up for cuts elsewhere. For example, this
Reuters story notes that while proposed spending on high-energy physics, nuclear physics and basic energy sciences rose 19
percent to $1.57 billion, the budget for low-income energy assistance (through Health and Human Services) was reduced 22
percent to $2 billion.

198
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

ITER Brink/Internal Link

Although ITER funding was cut last year, this year they have gained funding, but the program will shut down if the funds are not
received
American Institute of Physics, 2/11/08
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2008/019.html

In an attempt to get the Department of Energy's Office of Science budget back on track, the Administration has requested an 18.8
percent increase for the fiscal year starting November 1. Under this request, funding for the Office of Science would increase by
$748.8 million, from $3,973.1 million to $4,722.0 million. The Office of Science is one of the three components of the American
Competitiveness Initiative.

The Department of Energy's budget would see the largest increase in five years under this proposal. Departmental funding would
increase by $1.13 billion to $25.0 billion. Funding for all of the department's primary functions - science, energy, defense,
environment, and management - would increase. Of note is the final exhibit in a department-wide overview of the budget which
included the statement, "Budget Proposal is Focused on Our Priorities." Above other priorities, such as "expanding nuclear power" and
the transformation of the nuclear weapons complex was "Investing in American Competitiveness in the 21st century by continuing to
focus on the physical sciences."

Components of the FY 2009 request for the Office of Science follow, with additional comments from a briefing by Under Secretary
for Science Raymond Orbach. For detailed information on the request for each program see
http://www.science.doe.gov/obp/FY_09_Budget/FY_09_Budget.htm

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES: Up 23.5 percent, or $298.3 million, from the FY 2008 appropriation of $1,269.9 million to the FY
2009 request of $1,568.2 million. In commenting on this program, Orbach said "we listen to Congress," announcing a $100 million
request for a new program, "Energy Frontier Research Centers." The request fully funds the department's light sources.

FUSION ENERGY SCIENCES: Up 72.1% or $206.5 million, from $286.6 million to $493.1 million. Orbach commented on the
"bitter blow" to the program when ITER funding for this year was zeroed, adding that program officials were "doing our best to stay
alive." The request does not make-up for the loss of ITER funding this year, Orbach saying "the money is lost."

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS: Up 16.8 percent or $115.6 million, from $689.3 million to $805.0 million. Orbach spoke of this being a
"very difficult year" for the program with "significant layoffs" because of funding reductions. The proposed budget, he said, "gets us
back on track."

199
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

ITER Brink/Internal Link


ITER is on the chopping block, elections and the current economic situation
make it likely to get cut
David Pace (Masters at University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Physics
and Astronomy, Doctorate Candidate in Experimental Plasma Physics, M.Sc., Physics, 2003, University
of the Pacific, Stockton, California, USA Department of Physics, B.S., magna cum laude Physics, 2002,
Honorary Teaching Award, UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2006-2007, Research
Mentorship Fellowship, UCLA, 2004-2005, Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award, UCLA Department of
Physics and Astronomy, 2004, Cota Robles Fellowship, UCLA, 2002-2003, Most Outstanding Senior, U.
Pacific Department of Physics, 2002, DOE Energy Research Undergraduate Laboratory Research
Fellowship, 2001, Dean’s Honor Roll, U. Pacific, 1998-2001) , 1/5/08
http://www.davidpace.com/physics/graduate-school/us-leave-iter.htm
Instead of honoring our international promises we have decided, through congressional action, to leave our partners millions of
dollars short. If we truly leave ITER completely, then we will keep over one billion dollars from the project. It should be noted
that Boehlert was not talking about earmarks and pork-barrel projects in his speech, he actually suggested that ITER might be
the unnecessary project. Still, even though not all earmarks have to be wasteful just a small percentage of the $10 billion set
aside for these projects could have fulfilled our role in something to which we have already agreed. In fact, in an era where the
U.S. does not always engender a favorable image in the international community we could have taken a slightly larger portion
of this pot and over-contributed to the project as a sign of our desire to participate in cooperative endeavors. This is an election
year, however, so no one should expect a politician to willingly divert funds away from their local districts.
The combined effects of a downward moving economy, incredible financial burden of multiple military exercises, and the
coming election leaves it incredibly unlikely that ITER will be funded. Congress is ending our involvement in the project as
they did previously.
Who Wants the U.S. to Support ITER?
In 2003 the Secretary of Energy was encouraged to bring the U.S. back to ITER. Representative Zach Wamp also encouraged
participation, along with most of Tennessee which stands to benefit through the involvement of Oak Ridge National Laboratory
and its Fusion Energy Development program. Other endorsements remain enthusiastic but cautious. President Bush includes
fusion research, and ITER specifically, as part of the response to climate change and the quest for energy independence. His
administration expected this year's commitment to ITER to proceed as planned. The cooperation even extended to India as their
participation in ITER has been considered part of a welcome partnership between the U.S. and India with regard to energy
affairs.
An argument can be made that the Bush Administration is not entirely supportive of a true fusion research program. Their
Advanced Energy Initiative calls for the fusion research budget to be nearly equivalent to the amount spent on coal research
(pdf). The differences between a world powered entirely by coal and one powered entirely by fusion are dramatic. Coal,
however abundant, is still analogous to collecting a big pile of firewood for our national energy needs. Burning coal is never a
zero emissions process. Using coal for energy always produces carbon products, the claimed lack of emission comes from
capturing and storing these compounds. The method involves burying carbon products underground. Zero emissions coal
factories are simply underground garbage dumps. People of the late 21st century will surely come to view this type of plan with
the same disdain we presently exhibit towards the ignorant environmental practices of the early 20th century.

200
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – General

Increasing Alternative Energy incentives trades-off


John Stephen, Republican candidate for Congress, Union Leader, 7/18/08, “John Stephen: On energy costs, Washington offers no
real answers”,
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Stephen%3A+On+energy+costs%2C+Washington+offers+no+real+answers
&articleId=58250a2c-89b0-4696-925a-977411675a71
Actually, they wouldn't. The House of Representatives is prepared to let tax credits for these renewable energy sources
expire. These tax credits give businesses like Foss Manufacturing in Hampton the incentive to look for opportunities to
use wind power for 60 percent of their electricity. Foss has high energy needs as it transforms recycled water bottles into
high-end fabrics. Without these incentives, companies like Foss have a more difficult time making the transition to
cleaner energy. You would think that with the rising price of energy, the House would at least extend these tax credits to
give the appearance that it cares about doing something to increase supply. However, these credits are doomed by a
more powerful force than the need to cut energy costs: Washington's insatiable appetite for spending. You see,
extending the tax credits would mean that individuals and businesses would keep $19 billion more of their money,
instead of sending it to Washington. Under the House rules, that money "loss" would have to be offset by new taxes or
spending cuts. Now, no Congress in its right mind would hike taxes in an election year, so that means that to keep these
incentives for renewable energy in place, Washington would have to do what the rest of America is doing to meet the
rising costs of energy prices -- roll up its sleeves and make the tough decisions on spending.

Any type of federally funded research will draw from DOE funds
Michael S. Lubell, American Physical Society 2008
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/08pch8.htm
Today, the Department of Energy is one of the principal investors in federal R&D. Among the government agencies, it ranks
first in supporting physical sciences research and first in supporting national facilities. It ranks second in mathematics and
computer science. Its research programs play an extraordinarily important role in training the next generation of scientists and
engineers. University researchers, for example, receive slightly more than 15 percent of the Office of Science budget directly,
and in many fields, including the life sciences, they rely heavily on the facilities DOE operates at its national laboratories.
Traditionally, about half of DOE's R&D budget is allocated to developing, building and operating federally funded research
and development centers (FFRDCs), including multipurpose, specialized civilian and national weapons laboratories. These
centers, long regarded as jewels in the nation's R&D enterprise, contain many large facilities, such as synchrotron light sources,
neutron reactors, specialized accelerators and super computers, which are used by scientists and engineers in universities,
industry and other federal research agencies.
The FFRDCs also provide excellent opportunities for interdisciplinary activities. Today, for example, biomedical researchers
constitute more than 40 percent of the users of the synchrotron-radiation facilities, developed and maintained by accelerator
physicists, optical scientists, vacuum engineers and computer scientists. And teams of scientists at FFRDCs, drawn from
different fields, tackle complex problems ranging from the environment to nuclear safeguards.
The missions of the FFRDCs also evolve over time to meet changing needs and to take advantage of technological advances.
The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), for example, developed for high-energy physics in the 1960's, today devotes
an increasing fraction of its resources to the material sciences, biological sciences and cosmology.
Some research fields could not survive in the United States without the FFRDCs. The particle accelerator at Fermi National
Laboratory, for example, is the center of American experiments in high-energy physics, while the Relativistic Heavy Ion
Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator at Thomas Jefferson
National Laboratory represent a major focus of the nuclear physics community.

201
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – General
The DOE will lose funding to any renewable energy affs
DOE, No Date
http://www.doe.gov/organization/index.htm

The DOE is principally a national security agency and all of its missions flow from this core mission to support national
security. These various missions are managed by Program Offices at DOE.
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
The mission of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management is to manage and dispose of high-level radioactive waste
and spent nuclear fuel in a manner that protects health, safety and the environment; enhances national and energy security; and
merits public confidence.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
The mission of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability is to lead national efforts to modernize the electric
grid, enhance the security and reliability of the energy infrastructure, and facilitate recovery from disruptions to the energy
supply.
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is working to provide a prosperous future where energy is clean,
abundant, reliable, and affordable.
Office of Environmental Management
The Office of Environmental Management (EM) works to mitigate the risks and hazards posed by the legacy of nuclear
weapons production and research.
Office of Fossil Energy
Ensuring that we can continue to rely on clean, affordable energy from our traditional fuel resources is the primary mission of
DOE's Office of Fossil Energy.
Office of Legacy Management
The Office of Legacy Management (LM) manages the Department’s post-closure responsibilities and ensures the future
protection of human health and the environment.
Office of Nuclear Energy
The Office of Nuclear Energy mission is to support the nation’s diverse nuclear energy programs.

Office of Science
The Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, providing
more than 40 percent of total funding for this vital area of national importance.

202
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Gas/Oil R&D Trade off

Funding for gas and oil R&D would be the first to go because the DOE is
already trying cut these programs despite funding increases due to a focus ACI
Kei Koizumi, (Kei Koizumi is director of the R&D Budget and Policy Program at the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), M.A. from the Center for International Science,
Technology, and Public Policy program at George Washington University and received his B.A. from
Boston University in Political Science and Economics.) American Association for the Advancement of
Science 2008,
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rd09main.htm
The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science would be a clear winner in the 2009 budget among R&D agencies
because of its key role in the President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). R&D in DOE Science would climb 21
percent from the final 2008 appropriation to $4.3 billion, the largest percentage increase among the R&D funding agencies, in
an effort to keep the office on track to double its budget between 2006 and 2016 after appropriations setbacks the last two years
(see Table II-11). Most Science programs would receive substantial increases to hit historic highs, but these gains depend
crucially on the outcomes of 2009 appropriations.
- The total DOE R&D portfolio would soar 8.9 percent or $858 million to $10.5 billion because of the large Science increase,
and smaller increases for DOE's energy and defense R&D portfolios.
- DOE's energy-related R&D would total $2.4 billion, a slight increase after enormous increases in 2007 and 2008. Investments
in renewables such as biomass and nuclear energy would show strong gains. In fossil fuels, coal R&D would soar 26 percent to
$624 million, including a 25 percent boost to $149 million for carbon sequestration research and a doubling of funding for the
recently restructured FutureGen project to $156 million. But DOE once again proposes to eliminate funding for gas and oil
technology R&D, and to cancel $50 million in mandatory funding for a deepwater oil and gas exploration R&D program.
DOE R&D IN THE FY 2009 BUDGET
President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), both set for their third
years in 2009, have made the Department of Energy's (DOE) R&D programs a high priority within an increasingly tight
domestic budget. DOE's Office of Science is the largest federal sponsor of physical sciences research and is thus one of three
federal agencies (the other two are the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology
laboratories) that would receive substantial increases to fulfill the ACI's goal of increasing federal investments in basic physical
sciences research. DOE's energy R&D portfolio is a key Administration and congressional priority that received enormous
increases in 2007 and 2008.

203
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Natives specific link


Funding for native Americans cuts into DOE funding
DOE, 9/14/07
http://www.doe.gov/news/5493.htm

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced the appointment of Steven J. Morello to be
Director of DOE’s newly formed Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs. As Director of this office, Mr. Morello will
work to implement and manage energy planning, education and efficiency for American Indian tribes.
Also today, the Secretary announced that DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would make available a
total of up to $2 million for 15 Native American tribes and Alaskan villages that have been selected for negotiation of awards
that support the advancement of renewable energy technologies on tribal lands and rural Alaskan villages.
“The creation of the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs will further assist the Department in reaching all Americans
in promoting clean, reliable and affordable energy,” Secretary Bodman said. “I look forward to working with Steve to advance
and promote clean energy, changing the way we power this nation.”
The Indian Energy Policy and Program Office will reside within DOE’s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
where Mr. Morello will also continue to serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and External Affairs. Most
recently, Mr. Morello founded Native Insurance Agency LLC (NIA), a Small Business Association-certified, minority-owned
small disadvantaged business, where he served as its Managing Member. Prior to NIA, Mr. Morello worked in his own law
firm, Native Law Group PC, representing his tribe, the Sault Saint Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, among others.
In 2001, Mr. Morello was nominated by President George W. Bush, and later confirmed by the Senate, to be the General
Counsel of the U.S. Department of the Army. In that position, he served as the legal advisor to the Secretary of the Army and
the Army’s Chief Legal Officer. A Georgetown University graduate, Mr. Morello received his law degree from the University
of Detroit Law School, and earned a Master of Science in Business Administration degree from Boston University. Mr.
Morello also earned a Master of Arts in Pastoral Studies from Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan.
As part of DOE’s ongoing commitment to work with Native American tribes and Alaskan villages, the $2 million Secretary
Bodman announced today will be invested, subject to negotiations, in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects on tribal
lands that support President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative, which challenges Americans to change the way we power our
homes, offices, and vehicles.
“The Department of Energy is committed to encouraging and helping groups develop and deploy clean energy sources,”
Secretary Bodman said. “Providing support for Native Americans to explore and employ clean, renewable energy technologies
will help increase efficiency and provide for a cleaner environment.”
Of the 15 Native American tribes and villages whose projects have been selected for negotiation, six will study the feasibility
of utilizing renewable energy technologies on tribal lands; and nine projects will take initial steps toward implementing
renewable energy and energy efficiency projects on tribal lands. The selected projects will receive both financial and technical
assistance from DOE. Since 2001, DOE has provided $12.4 million for 76 tribal energy projects, with tribes contributing an
additional $3.6 million. Read more on DOE's Tribal Energy Program.

204
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Renewable energy trade-off


Funding for renewable energy will be traded off with because they are already losing funding to other areas
Green Car Congress, 2/4/08
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/proposed-depart.html
The proposed budget for the US Department of Energy (DOE) in the President’s 2009 Budget outlines discretionary program
spending of about $26 billion, up 3.2% from the estimated spending for FY 2008.
The proposed budget significantly boosts spending on coal and nuclear technologies and the DOE Science program, with a
smaller increase for biomass and biorefinery R&D. However, funding within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE) program is cut by 28%, down to $1.256 billion, with the reductions coming mainly from funding for hydrogen
technology, solar energy, vehicle technologies, facilities and infrastructure, and the weatherization program.
Coal and carbon capture. Overall, the Fossil Energy Research and Development program’s funding jumps 25% to $997
million, the bulk of that coming from the President’s coal research initiative, which increases is funding by 41% to $818
million.
The budget allocates $400 million to research and $241 million to demonstrate technologies for cost-effective carbon capture
and storage for coal-fired power plants through a restructured carbon capture and storage program. This is the “restructured”
lower-cost FutureGen program. (Earlier post.)
Nuclear. The budget promotes licensing of new nuclear plants and researches an advanced nuclear fuel cycle. $242 million is
allocated for Nuclear Power 2010, an industry cost-shared effort to bring new nuclear plant technologies to market and
demonstrate streamlined regulatory processes. $302 million focuses the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative on innovative
transmutation and separations research and development.
Science. The overall Science budget increases 18% to $4.7 billion, with increases in all major program activities. The
Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program within the Science budget funding increases 13.6% to $568 million.
BER funds research in global climate change; environmental remediation; molecular, cellular, and systemic studies on the
biological effects of radiation; structural biology; radiochemisty and instrumentation; and DNA sequencing. The program also
supports science related to carbon sequestration.
The program works in conjunction with the advanced scientific computing research program to accelerate progress in coupled
general circulation model development through use of enhanced computer simulation and modeling.
This program also includes the Genomics: GTL activity that is developing the science, technology, and knowledge base to
harness microbial and plant systems for cost-effective renewable energy production, carbon sequestration, and environmental
remediation. The request includes $75 million for Genomics: GTL Bioenergy Research Centers. Research at the Centers will
focus on developing the science underpinning biofuel production.
Biomass and Biorefinery Systems R&D. Funding for this program which is part of the EERE activities, increases 8% to $225
million. This program funds research, development, and technology validation on advanced technologies that could enable
future biorefineries to sustainably and economically convert cellulosic biomass to fuels, chemical, heat, and power. The
program’s goal is to help make cellulosic ethanol cost competitive by 2012 using a wide array of regionally available biomass
sources.
Hydrogen technology. Funding for the EERE hydrogen technology program drops 31% in the 09 Budget to $146 million. The
hydrogen technology program is tasked with developing hydrogen production, storage, and delivery and fuel cell technologies.
Current research aims to enable industry to commercialize a hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles by 2020.
Solar. Funding for the Solar America Initiative via EERE is cut 7.1% to $156 million in the 09 Budget.
Vehicle Technologies. Funding for the EERE Vehicle Technologies program is cut a slight 0.9% to $221 million. The Vehicle
Technologies program supports the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership and the 21st Century Truck Partnership with industry.
Program activities encompass a suite of technologies needed for hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles, including
lightweight materials, electronic power control and electric drive motors, and advanced energy storage devices.
This program also supports research to improve the efficiency of advanced combustion engines, using fuels with formulations
developed for such engines, and incorporating non-petroleum based components.
The program also includes community-based outreach via Clean Cities coalitions, competitive awards, and other activities to
facilitate the market adoption of alternative fuels and highly efficient automotive technologies.

205
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Renewable energy trade-off


Renewable energies will trade off with ITER
Space Ref, 1/31/08
http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358&Itemid=2

Energy Under Secretary Orbach: "We Are Now at a Perilous Moment in the History of Funding for Science in the United
States"
In remarks delivered yesterday to the Universities Research Association, Energy Under Secretary for Science Raymond L.
Orbach was clear: "Though you have heard this phrase before, we are now at a perilous moment in the history of funding for
science in the United States."
rbach's comments made it clear that legislative actions have real-world consequences: failure to enact the President's FY 2008
request for the Office of Science will be felt keenly in the research programs that the Office of Science supports. Reduced
budgets will result in the elimination of funding for more than 4,300 Ph.D.'s, graduate students, and others from what was
envisioned in the FY 2008 request.
Selections from Orbach's presentation follow; his entire speech may be read at
http://www.er.doe.gov/News_Information/speeches/speeches/08/SC08.htm Note that his presentation on this site includes two
figures: the first, "Office of Science; FY 2008 Appropriation", the other, with new information, entitled "Office of Science; FY
2006 - FY 2008;Impact on Scientific Employment" Headings have been added to the below excerpts:
FY 2008 OUTCOME:
"Though you have heard this phrase before, we are now at a perilous moment in the history of funding for science in the United
States. I speak from the perspective of the Director of the Department of Energy Office of Science, and as Under Secretary for
Science, but I believe I also represent the views of other leaders of the federal agencies that support science.
"I refer you to the consequences for the funding for science of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Omnibus Bill, and the preceding year-
long FY 2007 Continuing Resolution. Both failed to provide adequate funding for the physical sciences in the United States
and for many other fields of science. The President's Budget Request for FY 2009, in the context of the American Competitive
Initiative, or ACI, will again be a vote of confidence for the three federal agencies that are the primary supporters of the
physical sciences: the Office of Science within the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the core
research component of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The President's commitment to support of long-term
basic research continues to be evident in this budget request, as it has been in previous requests. Indeed, in his State of the
Union Address on Monday, the President devoted some of his precious time to state:
"'To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to
pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness
Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge. So I ask
Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most
dynamic nation on Earth.'
"I have never heard before such support for the physical sciences from a President of the United States. But if the FY 09
enacted budget proves similar to FY 07 and FY 08, a "three-peat," the future of the physical sciences will be in jeopardy.
Opportunities will be lost forever: for science, and our country."
[At this point, Orbach quoted an op-ed by Intel Chairman Craig Barrett]
"I needn't remind this group what happened in the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill . . . . The President's request for the ACI, a trajectory
that would have led to a doubling of the budgets of the NSF, the DOE Office of Science, and NIST, was, with a few exceptions,
at best ignored. For the Office of Science, the budget without earmarks was reduced by $500 million from the President's
request, and is only 2.6% above FY 07, which itself was down by $300 million from the President's FY 07 request. The loss of
more than three quarters of a billion dollars for the physical sciences for the Office of Science will never be recovered. Worse,
specific areas of science within the physical sciences were marked for major reductions from the President's request. I speak of
High Energy Physics for which the enacted FY 08 budget was $63.5 million less than enacted in FY 07, and by $94 million
from the President's request for FY 08. Fusion Energy Sciences was reduced by $32.4 million from FY 07, and by $141 million
from the President's request for FY 08, zeroing our Nation's contribution to ITER construction. Nuclear Physics was slightly
increased by $10 million from FY 07, but cut by $38.6 million from the President's request for FY 08. Finally, the budget for
Basic Energy
<<CONTINUES NEXT PAGE>>

206
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Renewable energy trade-off


<<continued from last page>>
Space Ref, 1/31/08
http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358&Itemid=2

Sciences was increased by $19.7 million from FY 07, but cut by $229 million from the President's request, eliminating funding
for basic research energy initiatives such as solar and electrical energy storage. To be fair, the budgets for Biological and
Environmental Research and Advanced Scientific Computing Research were augmented above the President's request.
"Nevertheless, the consequences of the FY 2008 Omnibus Bill for the U.S. scientific workforce are substantial. . . . Office of
Science funding for Ph.D.'s, graduate students, and others was decreased from the President's Request by over 4,300. This at a
time when other nations around the world are increasing their scientific workforce.
"The budget decisions that led to these consequences were carefully drawn. They were not the result of hasty last-minute
actions. They represent the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives."
FY 2009 BUDGET REQUEST:
"But enough of the past. What's done is done, and we need to move on. The President's request for FY 09 will be wonderful,
again, for the physical sciences. While I can't go into details here, I can say that it will continue the funding request consistent
with the American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act. The problem for all of us is that, faced with
essentially flat funding for the physical sciences in FY 08, the President's Request for FY 09 will appear as a very large
percentage increase for the three ACI agencies. The danger is that basic research in the physical sciences will again be 'donors'
to other programs.
FAILED ATTITUDE:
"Compounding this danger is that we scientists tend to regard the proposed increases for the physical sciences under the
American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act as an entitlement. That attitude has failed us. Our
lawmakers have clearly signaled where they want to put taxpayer dollars. If we are to avoid a repeat in FY 09 of what
happened in FY 08, we need to actively make the case for the support of long-term basic research across those fields that have
historically represented U.S. world leadership. Our fellow citizens must understand that these investments in basic research
have held the key to America's prosperity and strength in modern times. As Vannevar Bush wrote to President Truman more
than half a century ago: '.without scientific progress no amount of achievement in other directions can insure our health,
prosperity, and security as a nation in the modern world.'
FURTHER DETAILS ON THE FY 2009 REQUEST:
"The President's FY 09 request for the Office of Science will continue to support the full spectrum of physical science basic
research. It will restore the ACI funding trajectory for High Energy Physics, for Nuclear Physics, for Basic Energy Sciences,
and for Fusion Energy Sciences, including major support for ITER construction.
NEW APPROACH NEEDED THIS YEAR:
"But the President's vote of confidence in us will go for naught if we regard his Budget Request as 'a done deal' The final
congressional action on the FY 09 budget will not be a free ride. Our community must make clear to Congress why it is critical
for the Nation's future that the physical sciences be supported at least at the level of the President's request. Failure to do so will
yield more of the same we experienced in FY 07 and FY 08, and the 'three-peat' will have the potential of continuing the flat-
to-declining trajectory into the indefinite future.
"The message of this year's appropriation is unmistakable. The American public, through its duly elected Congress, has made
its priorities clear: short-term applied research wins over the full spectrum of long-term basic research. It is our job to make
clear to the American people that our country will 'run out of gas' if the latter is not supported. In the absence of breakthroughs
in fundamental science, current technologies will simply not be able to meet the energy and environmental challenges that
loom ahead for our Nation. Progress in basic science is essential to America's continued prosperity and strength in the twenty-
first century.

207
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Scientific Innovation Impact

Pulling ITER funding kills U.S. soft power and scientific innovation
American Physical Society, December 19, 2007, Press Release, “APS Urges Congress and White House to
Revisit Fiscal Year 2008 Science Funding in January”, http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/funding-
fy08.cfm
Finally, apart from its failings on global competitiveness and energy, the omnibus legislation also places at
grave risk committed U.S. participation in two large international scientific collaborations. Just one year ago,
the United States made a major commitment to the construction of the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER). Today, Congress has pulled the plug. In so doing, it critically damages American
credibility as a reliable scientific partner throughout the world and compromises the nation's standing as a host
of future international scientific facilities. Congress has also cut the lifeline of the International Linear Collider,
which represents the future of American high- energy physics. This action sends a strong message to the world:
The U.S. is prepared to jettison support for one of our flagship areas of science that probes fundamental laws of
the universe.

208
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Every dollar Key

New ITER funding will only keep it going for 2008, new funding in 2009 is key
Frank Munger, 7/2/08
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/munger/2008/07/sustenance_for_iter.html

A Dept. of Energy spokesman confirmed today that $15.5 million of the supplemental appropriations for the
Office of Science will support the U.S. ITER office (based in Oak Ridge).

The money, of course, will help sustain activities for ITER after the U.S. effort got mangled in the fiscal 2008
budget, raising doubts about the continued participation in the international fusion project. I've written on this
topic on multiple occasions, including a late-April post based on a talk with U.S. project chief Ned Sauthoff.

Jeff Sherwood of DOE also said there's $2 million to boost spending levels for the Spallation Neutron Souce.

I talked earlier in the day to ORNL Director Thom Mason, who at the time said he didn't know how much
money was coming for ITER but indicated some amount was likely to keep the team intact and help bridge the
project until the 2009 budget is in place. More than $200 million is proposed for U.S. spending on ITER in '09,
although that's uncertain to say the least.

Mason said it was particularly important to get some additional funding this year because of the likelihood that
a continuing resolution could be in effect for the first six months of fiscal 2009.

Here's what the legislation said about the supplemental funding for DOE's Office of Science: "The Department
of Energy is instructed to utilize this funding to eliminate all furloughs and reductions in force which are a
direct result of budgetary constraints. Workforce reductions which are a result of completed work or
realignment of mission should proceed as planned. This funding is intended to maintain technical expertise and
capability at the Office of Science, and may be used for National Laboratory Research and Development
including research related to new neutrino initiatives. Funding for research efforts shall not be allocated until the
Office of Science has fully funded all personnel requirements."

209
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

French relations

u.s. French relations are key to counter terrorism


Marc Perelman, Fri. Feb 13, 2004, “French Judge Sees Growing Cooperation With U.S. Against Terrorism”
http://www.forward.com/articles/6303/
Despite their public sparring over Iraq and other issues, America and France have stepped up their cooperation against
terrorism during the past three years.
French and American police, intelligence and judicial officials involved in tracking radical Muslim groups and individuals have
been exchanging information and tips on an unprecedented scale since the attacks of September 11, 2001, officials say.
Even President Bush, who has expressed frustration over France’s prominent role in opposing the American-led war in Iraq,
has praised the anti-terrorism cooperation with France.
France’s top judge investigating terrorism for the past 20 years, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, in an exclusive interview with the
Forward last month, pointed to the recent spate of flight cancellations and to the 40% jump in the number of judicial aid
requests between both countries since the 9/11 attacks as evidence of the trend.
“The bilateral cooperation is excellent,” he said.
The French authorities have been dealing with Islamic terrorism since the 1990s, when the civil war in Algeria spilled over the
Mediterranean in a series of deadly bombings and a plane hijacking foreshadowing the 9/11 plot.
In response, the French accumulated a trove of information that Washington was eager to tap after the September 11 attacks
made fighting radical Islamic groups the top American priority. By all accounts, Paris has obliged.
“I am not saying we are smarter than others, I am just saying we have more experience,” said Bruguiere, who started his
terrorist-hunting career investigating a fatal 1982 machine-gun attack on a famous Jewish restaurant in Paris and has since
handled high-profile cases involving Iran, Libya, “Carlos the Jackal” and Al Qaeda. “We feel we have to cooperate with the
U.S. because the threat is global and the response has to be global,” he said.
Bruguiere is widely respected for his intimate knowledge of Islamic networks. He also enjoys privileged access to sensitive
information thanks to the creation of investigative teams mixing judicial, police and intelligence officers that report to the
centralized pool of anti-terrorist judges he heads.
After suffering a series of Iranian and Libyan-backed terrorist strikes in the 1980s, France faced terrorism from the so-called
Algerian Armed Islamic Group a decade later. The group, known by its French acronym, GIA, is the most radical of the Islamic
factions locked in a vicious war with the Algerian army after the military suspended the electoral process in 1991, just as the
main Islamic party was on the cusp of a major victory.
The ensuing war claimed more than 30,000 lives and still is not over, even though the army seems to have gained the upper
hand in recent years. In the early 1990s, the GIA accused France of backing the Algerian military and decided to expand its
fight to the former colonial power.
“We were the first European country to invest itself totally to the fight against Islamic radicalism,” Bruguiere recalled. “When I
spoke of the Islamic threat in 1994, people from other countries were smiling. They saw it as a political problem between
France and Algeria and believed France was paying the price of colonization. But the GIA was a detonator for Al Qaeda.”
A watershed event took place in December 1994, when GIA militants hijacked an Air France plane in Algiers and forced it to
land in Marseilles. After a tense standoff, a French elite police force stormed the plane and killed all the hostage-takers without
incurring any casualties among the passengers.
Investigators quickly realized that this was not just a standard hijacking by a group trying to make a point. It was, in retrospect,
a chilling preview of the September 11 plot.
“The Airbus affair is important because it was the first clear signal of the exportation of violence outside Algeria and of the
globalization of the terrorist threat,” said Bruguiere, who handled the investigation and contends he was able to establish that
the ringleader had planned to plow the plane into the Eiffel Tower in Paris. “It was also the first time a civil jetliner was being
used as a terrorist weapon…. So there was a big precedent.”
A few months later, the GIA planted bombs in the Paris subway and several other public places.
Bruguiere said those events did not only prompt investigations to catch the immediate culprits. They also marked the beginning
of an in-depth plunge into the complicated web of Islamist terrorist networks.
<<CONTINUES NEXT PAGE>>

210
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

French relations

<<CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE>>


Marc Perelman, Fri. Feb 13, 2004, “French Judge Sees Growing Cooperation With U.S. Against Terrorism”
http://www.forward.com/articles/6303/

The best example is the investigation of an Algerian man named Ahmed Ressam. He was arrested by chance in December 1999
at the United States-Canada border near Seattle with a cache of explosives in his car. Investigators then said he was planning to
bomb the Los Angeles airport to mark the millennium.
Bruguiere had opened an investigation on Ressam back in 1996 because of his role in a group trafficking false Moroccan
passports. The judge discovered that the main members of the group were actually involved in much more serious operations.
The investigation eventually linked the men, who were mostly North African immigrants, to Al Qaeda leaders such as Abu
Zubaydah.
“This helped us understand Al Qaeda and realize the United States [including U.S. territory] was their prime target,” Bruguiere
said, noting that many of his probes started with a simple discovery of false passports. “This analysis was not shared by others,
including the United States and the United Kingdom.”
But after Ressam was arrested on his way from Canada and his plot was uncovered, American officials realized the threat was
real, their knowledge was poor and border controls were largely ineffective.
The French authorities provided the prosecution team with tons of documents. The Justice Department even took the highly
unusual step of asking Bruguiere to testify as an expert witness.
Although the Seattle judge in charge of Ressam’s case eventually decided against having Bruguiere testify in public because he
was himself conducting an investigation of Ressam, the French expert nevertheless briefed the parties and helped land a guilty
verdict and a life sentence.
Ressam entered a plea bargain and has provided a wealth of intelligence on terrorist networks operating in the United States
and in Canada. French officials were allowed to attend his debriefing sessions as a reward for their assistance.

211
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

US-INDIAN Relations
ITER is key to U.S. Indian relations
Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi-based think tank aims to inform, analyze, and nurture
debates on crucial strategic choices affecting South Asia., Special Report 19, May 2006
“INDO-US RELATIONS”, www.ipcs.org/countSpecialReport.jsp?x=19)
Experimental Reactor (ITER) energy project
India’s inclusion as a full partner in the ambitious multinational ‘International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor’ (ITER)
energy project was an acknowledgement of being a responsible nuclear state with advanced nuclear technology. The decision
was taken by six partner countries -US, European Union, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea. "The decision recognizes that
India can significantly contribute to such endeavours and also is recognition that India is a country with advanced nuclear technology,
including in the field of fusion research," said a spokesman for the External Affairs Ministry. ITER is the experimental step between the latest studies of
plasma physics and future electricity – producing fusion power plants. The main ITER facility will be built in Cadarache in France by 2016 and all partners
will participate in its construction, development and research. 13
Bush visit to India and the Nuclear agreement of March 2006
The Indo-US relationship proceeded at a furious pace in President Bush’s second term. It started with Condoleezza Rice's visit to New Delhi in March 2005,
when she expressed the American desire to help India achieve major world power status and stressed the need for an energy dialogue. This was followed by the
new framework for the US-India defense relationship agreement signed on June 28 2005, the completion of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP),
and the finalization of the George Bush-Manmohan Singh joint agreement on July 18 2005. The joint pact included the nuclear deal that is now the focus of
controversy in both countries. This was followed by India's surprise vote in the IAEA where, along with western nations, it envisaged that Iran would be
referred to the Security Council if it did not satisfactorily account for its suspect nuclear activities. The US Administration was determined to implement the
July 2005 civilian nuclear deal it had entered into with India. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made it clear, once again, that the US was committed to
helping India with advanced technology and equipment to produce sufficient nuclear energy for its fast growing economy. She obviously 13 Editorial “India
becomes partner in nuclear reactor project” Daily Times, 8 December 2005 wanted to tell the skeptics in the US that India's search for nuclear energy, which is
cheaper and cleaner, deserved all-out American support as India has had a clean track record so far, as nuclear non-proliferation is concerned, despite not being
a signatory to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. What Dr Rice said in Washington, while interacting with journalists, was also aimed at convincing the
detractors of the Indo- US nuclear agreement, in India , that there was nothing sinister about the deal. 14 India and the United States remained engaged in
intensive negotiations to try and clinch a civilian nuclear deal, even as U.S. President George.W.Bush landed in New Delhi on March 1st.It was the fifth visit
by an American President to India. Interestingly, during a stop over in Kabul, Mr. Bush said that officials had been talking to the Indians even from his special
aircraft, and these discussions would continue in New Delhi. Reiterating that it was a difficult issue for both governments, the President said that the two sides
would continue to have a dialogue and work towards an agreement.15 President Bush andPrime Minister Manmohan Singh were involved in lengthy
discussions, shortly after the arrival of President Bush. The meetings revolved around
the common values that bind India and the United States together: the commitment to democracy, to the institutions of freedom -- free press, freedom of
religion, independent judiciary, and the like -- and the important message that the United States and India had to stand together as advocates for these
institutions, and subsequently provide the world with a living example of the strength of such institutions. The discussion also included issues like the War on
Terror, trade issues especially the impending entry of Indian mangoes in to American markets, the Doha round conclusions and the agriculture knowledge
initiative.16 The special emphasis, though, lay on energy issues. The discussion largely concentrated around India's need for energy, its plans to dramatically
enhance its ability to provide secure energy to its people, and its desire to do so in a way that avoided proliferation risks and did not create environmental
problems. The American President talked about his advanced energy initiative and his hope that technologies arising from
initiative could be shared with India and other countries. The meeting of the two leaders with the CEO forum, soon after, once
again reemphasised to them that energy issues were the crucial cog in the wheel of relations between the two countries.
President Bush’s visit to India also included visits to an American funded agricultural institute and the business school in
Hyderabad. He cleverly avoided any visits to American outsourcing multi national companies, a topic of hot debate and controversy back in the US.17 Under
the historic nuclear agreement signed on March 2, 2006, India has agreed to classify 14 of its 22 nuclear facilities as civilian, and put these under the
permanent supervision of the IAEA. This should, then end a 30- year long moratorium on the sale of nuclear fuel and reactor components by the US to India.
The export of nuclear material, reactors, and their major components from the US, would require a Section 123 amendment of the Atomic Energy Act.
Technically, India is a non- nuclear weapon state and does not have the full scope of safeguards. Under the terms of the Atomic Energy Act, Congress has to
approve an agreement for cooperation and needs to pass a joint resolution of approval. The Administration, alternatively, may seek to amend certain portions of
the Atomic Energy Act, in particular Sections 128 and 129, both of which includes non proliferation criteria. 18 The nuclear deal, though, accords acceptance
to the military and the security component of the Indian nuclear program, by the sole superpower and torchbearer of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, the
US. The Indo-US deal also makes India's nuclear weapons program acceptable, legitimate and nonthreatening to the existing nuclear order unlike those of Iraq,
North Korea and Iran. The nuclear deal envisages an alliance, albeit informal, between the US and India deriving from a real convergence of mutual security
interests. The nuclear deal also seeks to enhance India's nuclear security via nuclear arms control. By agreeing to separate its large
civilian and small military nuclear programs, India has acknowledged its commitment to minimum nuclear deterrence, which provides for its nuclear
security interests vis-à-vis China and Pakistan. India has readily agreed to continue its voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing and agreed to participate in
future negotiations on the FMCT. India has also committed to prevent the spread of nuclear technologies by strict export control laws, which are already in
place.19
<<CONTINUES NEXT PAGE>>

212
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

US-INDIAN Relations
<<CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE>>
Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi-based think tank aims to inform, analyze, and nurture
debates on crucial strategic choices affecting South Asia., Special Report 19, May 2006
“INDO-US RELATIONS”, www.ipcs.org/countSpecialReport.jsp?x=19)
Space Launch Agreement in the Offing
India and United States are also poised to take their strategic relationship a notch higher. They will soon sign a crucial space
launch agreement to allow India to launch US-made satellites, not just from US, but from other countries that use American
components in their satellites. The understanding will help the country's premier space body, Indian Space Research
Organization (ISRO), boost its earnings. It will also help the once estranged democracies get into a tighter strategic partnership.
Some last-minute refinements in the agreement, relating to the pre-launch treatment of US satellites on Indian rockets are being
worked out. But, these are procedural issues which both sides expect to be sorted out at the next meeting of the space working
group. India has already accepted two US payloads for the ‘Chandrayaan’ mission. Many such joint endeavours are now expected, and together
with these, a closer exchange of strategic space technologies.20
Conclusion
One of the major objectives of the United States in entering into the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement is to bring about an early freezing of the Indian
weapon-usable nuclear materials stock at the minimum possible level. India, in turn, obviously wants to retain all the accumulated inventory of such materials,
as well as the facilities to produce the additional material we consider essential for a minimum credible deterrence, in compliance with IAEA safeguards.
Obviously, each country wants to maneuver the separation plan to suit its specific objective. Despite the façade that the deal is progressing well, it is clear that
most of the originally perceived differences between the two sides are very much present even now. It appears that the US side feels that certain facilities,
especially reactors, which India has proposed to retain in the strategic group, really belong to the civilian list. In addition, it is clear that the US considers
India's time schedule for bringing these facilities in phases into the civilian list as too stretched out, and that India should indeed place them under safeguards
at a more rapid pace. The nuclear deal, though, will improve India's global standing. India's deal with the US for transfer of nuclear technology will help it in a
big way. As non-NPT states, or nonnuclear weapons states with nuclear weapons, India, Pakistan and Israel – a strange trio, indeed - have much to defend to
the rest of the world. They have no choice but to stick together whenever questions of comprehensive safeguards come up. There was even an occasion when
Pakistan changed its vote to join India and Israel. When the Arab world gangs up every year to call upon states to accept comprehensive safeguards, essentially
to focus attention on Israel, it has to contend with Indian diplomatic skills as Israel hides behind us. These strange maneuvers could stop if the India-US
nuclear deal is approved by the US Congress, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and comes to fruition. India will then cross over from the group of nuclear
mavericks to join the designated nuclear weapon states in its new capacity as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology.

213
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

US-INDIAN Relations

ITER is key to U.S. India relations


Victor M. Gobarev, security policy analyst and former scholar at GWU, September 11, 2000, “India
as a World Power” CATO Policy Report, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1240)
American interest in and concerns about India rose sharply after that country carried out underground nuclear tests in May
1998. Clinton administration officials belatedly acknowledged that developing a good working relationship with India should
be one of America's top foreign policy priorities. President Clinton's visit to South Asia in March 2000 was an important
symbolic step.
That initiative, however, does not constitute a major breakthrough in relations between India and the United States. Paying
greater attention to India, although long overdue, cannot by itself dramatically improve uneasy U.S.-Indian relations and turn
India into a de facto strategic partner. The fundamental mistake made by U.S. leaders has been to underestimate India and its
economic and military potential. How India uses its growing power can either enhance or seriously undermine U.S. interests.
Continued insistence by the United States that India liquidate its nuclear arsenal will only cause major problems in relations
between Washington and New Delhi.
Washington's overemphasis on the proliferation issue illustrates the tendency of U.S. policymakers to treat India as a potential
adversary rather than a potential friend. U.S. leaders should not insist on improvement in New Delhi's human rights record in
Kashmir, or set other preconditions, for the U.S.-Indian relationship. Pursuing the current course may well extend the impasse
in relations to the point of irrevocably "losing" India.
Mistakes in U.S. policy have contributed to India's drifting toward a Russia-India-China nexus aimed at preventing U.S. global
domination. The likelihood of India's participation in an anti-U.S. alliance will depend on what New Delhi thinks about
American geopolitical designs toward India and its national security interests.
A long-range strategy needs to be based on Washington's willingness to accept India's world power status. That means
accepting India into the club of nuclear weapons states and enthusiastically endorsing New Delhi's bid for permanent
membership in the UN Security Council. The main benefit to the United States of such a breakthrough in U.S.-Indian relations
would be to prevent a dramatic adverse change in the current global geopolitical situation, which currently favors the United
States. An assertive India could help stabilize the Persian Gulf and Central Asian regions. Even more important, India could
become a strategic counterweight to China and a crucial part of a stable balance of power in both East Asia and South Asia.

214
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

US-INDIAN Relations

U.S. india relations can solve for terrorism and the conflict over Kashmir
Bruce Riedel, 12/18/2006, Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, “India and the United
States: A New Era,” http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/riedel20061218.htm

Now that President Bush has built on this foundation, he should use the new strategic partnership to move beyond crisis management
between India and Pakistan to try to help the two countries resolve the underlying issue that has brought them repeatedly to conflict:
Kashmir. America has avoided dealing with the Kashmir issue for decades, both because of its complexities and because India
opposed outside involvement, preferring to deal bilaterally with Pakistan. This approach has not worked; the problem has gotten worse
and has repeatedly taken the subcontinent to the brink of disaster.

Now is the time for quiet American diplomacy to exploit our stronger ties with India and our improved relations with Pakistan since
9/11 to try to resolve the Kashmir quarrel. It is in the self interest of all three nations to do so. The timing is particularly fortuitous
since India and Pakistan have begun their own bilateral dialogue to improve relations since they were last at the brink of war in 2003.
That dialogue has already produced some modest confidence-building measures in Kashmir but has not really engaged the underlying
issues.

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf says he is ready to engage India on Kashmir and has put some interesting ideas on the table. He
should be tested now by both the U.S. and India. Helping him resolve Kashmir would also help him end Pakistan's long relationship
with jihadist terror groups which have dangerous relationships with al-Qaeda. If Kashmir moved toward peace, Pakistan could more
easily put those groups out of business and isolate al-Qaeda. A deal should not threaten India's territorial integrity; rather it should
focus on improving the Kashmiri's lives.

Now that the nuclear deal is done, President Bush should make Kashmir a major part of his dialogue with India and Pakistan. Nudging
them both toward a deal on Kashmir will not be easy, but the time may be ripe to try. Preventive diplomacy in South Asia in the next
two years would be an enduring legacy for George W. Bush.
U.S. Indian nuclear co-operation improves relations
Bruce Riedel, 12/18/2006, Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, “India and the United
States: A New Era,” http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/riedel20061218.htm

President George W. Bush has signed legislation allowing the U.S. to sell civilian nuclear technology to India. In July, the relationship
between the U.S. and India was bolstered when President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced the framework for
this landmark deal. The new year offers an opportunity for a new era in U.S. relations with India and a new agenda in the "strategic
dialogue" that has been underway between Washington and Delhi for nearly nine years. While the agreement has its downside—it
could prompt other countries to seek similar exceptions to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty—it helps remove a 25-year-old obstacle
to furthering U.S.-Indian relations: disagreement over India's decision to become a nuclear-weapons state. For decades this one issue
has dominated U.S. and Indian diplomacy and prevented the world's oldest and largest democracies from dealing adequately with a
range of bilateral, regional, and global issues.
Ironically, it was the Indian nuclear tests in 1998 that began the process of change. Following India's tests, President Clinton initiated
an intensive dialogue—led by then-deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott—to restrain its nuclear program. Talbott's discussions with
then-foreign minister Jaswant Singh began with a limited focus on proliferation, but expanded to crisis management during the 1999
Kargil war and then into a broad opening of the relationship that culminated in Clinton's watershed visit to India in 2000.

215
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

ITER k heg
Loss of ITER kills U.S. heg
David Pace (Masters at University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Physics
and Astronomy, Doctorate Candidate in Experimental Plasma Physics, M.Sc., Physics, 2003, University
of the Pacific, Stockton, California, USA Department of Physics, B.S., magna cum laude Physics, 2002,
Honorary Teaching Award, UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2006-2007, Research
Mentorship Fellowship, UCLA, 2004-2005, Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award, UCLA Department of
Physics and Astronomy, 2004, Cota Robles Fellowship, UCLA, 2002-2003, Most Outstanding Senior, U.
Pacific Department of Physics, 2002, DOE Energy Research Undergraduate Laboratory Research
Fellowship, 2001, Dean’s Honor Roll, U. Pacific, 1998-2001) , 1/5/08
http://www.davidpace.com/physics/graduate-school/us-leave-iter.htm

The collection of circumstances now present do not bode well for ITER and they encourage renewed concern over U.S. fusion
and plasma research in general. It seems that history is repeating itself with regard to our role in ITER. An unwilling Congress,
the lack of powerful supporters, and economic pressures are aligned against a U.S. presence in ITER. The Government
Accountability Office has highlighted both the need for more fusion Ph.D.'s in the workforce and the fact that as many of half
of all plasma science and engineering Ph.D.'s leave the field (plain text, pdf). As a member of the group of graduate students in
this field I can positively state that our discussions focus on events like this ITER cut and the uncertainty in funding for this
type of research is a major motivation for moving to other sectors and very different careers. Supporting ITER encourages a
new generation of plasma scientists as much as cutting it leads these same people to other fields.
A broader issue remains: what happens if ITER is a rousing success and we were not involved? For a comparison, imagine that
the methods of AC and DC electricity generation and transmission had not been developed in the United States. The negative
impact on our industrialization and technological prowess is unimaginable. A successful ITER project with no U.S. assistance
will be very similar. The rest of the industrialized world will have a wealth of knowledge and ability in the field of fusion
driven electricity production@, along with the desire to feed their own national corporate interests with the first commercial
applications.

216
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

ITER Solves All Energy

ITER solves for all energy demands


China Daily, May 26, 2006, “Scientists to play key role in global fusion reactor”,
http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=184&Itemid=2)

China will be involved in the development of all the core technologies needed to build the world's biggest experimental nuclear
fusion reactor.

On Wednesday China signed a historic deal with the European Union, the United States, Russia, India, Japan and the Republic
of Korea to build the US$14 billion International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).

The project is believed to be the most expensive science experiment ever, with China contributing 10 per cent of the funding.

Scientists hope ITER will unlock the secrets of nuclear fusion, which could solve the world's energy crisis and bring an end to
global warming caused by burning fossil fuels.

Last night Yang Changchun, an engineer with China's ITER office, told China Daily that Chinese scientists will be involved in
12 of the project's key programmes, including manufacturing superconductors and power supply sets.

"China will take part in the research and development of all core technologies in this project," said Yang.

All participants are expected to ratify the agreement to build ITER by the end of the year, with construction beginning in
Cadarache, France, in 2007, said the Xinhua News Agency.

Under the new accord, which was signed in Brussels on Wednesday after three years of talks, the EU will pay 50 per cent of
ITER's total cost with the rest divided amongst the other participants.

The entire project is expected to last 30 years, with the first 10 years spent constructing the facilities.

The finished reactor will have a power capacity of 500 megawatts.

Experts predict that by the end of the century 10 to 20 per cent of the world's energy could come from nuclear fusion.

Huo Yuping, the leading scientist in China's ITER Office, said it was ITER's significance in solving the energy problems
confronted by all humanity that had encouraged China to lend it's scientists to the project.

He added that the nation could also take advantage of ITER to develop related advanced technologies.

Although fusion experiments have only taken place in a few countries around the world, they could hold the key to unlocking
vast untapped supplies of energy.

Theoretically, a fusion power plant could generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity from only 1 kilogram of deuterium and 10
kilograms of lithium.

A conventional nuclear fission power station would need 500 kilograms of highly radioactive uranium to generate the same
amount of power, while a coal power station would need 10,000 tons of coal.

As scientists are able to extract deuterium from sea water, with fusion power the world's oceans would contain enough energy
to meet human use for the next 6 billion years.

217
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

ITER Solves All Energy

ITER is feasible and entirely safe


Environmental News Service, May 24, 2006 , Seven Governments Sign Nuclear Fusion Agreement, http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-24-04.asp</span>)

Coming after the designation in November 2005 of Ambassador Kaname Ikeda of Japan as the nominee director-general, this
means that the core of the management team of the prospective ITER organization is now in place.
ITER is an experimental reactor which will reproduce the physical reaction of fusing the nuclei of atoms that occurs in the Sun
and stars. Existing experiments have shown that it is possible to replicate this process on Earth. ITER aims to do this at a scale
and in conditions that will demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion as a practical energy source.
All of today's nuclear power plants split heavy uranium atoms to generate power. ITER will use fusion, which involves heating
very lightweight atoms to above 100 million degrees Celsius - or 10 times the temperature of the Sun.
This creates a plasma gas in which particles that usually repel one another combine, and thereby yield enormous quantities of
energy. By caging the hot plasma with powerful magnets, scientists aim to keep the process going in much the same way that
the Sun, confined by gravity, burns on and on.
The development of the science and technology involved in this process is the basis of the European fusion program.
ITER scientists explain that nuclear fusion is safe for workers and for the population surrounding the ITER facility in France's
Cadarache forest.
A fusion reactor is like a gas burner, they say, the fuel which is injected into the system is burned off. There is very little fuel in
the reaction chamber at any given moment (about 1g in a volume of 1000 m3) and if the fuel supply is interrupted, the
reactions only continue for a few seconds.
Any malfunction of the device would cause the reactor to cool and the reactions would stop, they say.
The basic fuels - deuterium and lithium – and the reaction product - helium - are not radioactive.
The intermediate fuel – tritium – is radioactive and decays very quickly, producing a very low energy electron - Beta radiation.
In air, this electron can only travel a few millimeters and does not have the power to penetrate a piece of paper.
Nevertheless, the scientists explain, tritium would be harmful if it entered the body, so the facility will have very thorough
safety facilities and procedures for the handling and storage of tritium.
As the tritium is produced in the reactor chamber itself, there are no issues regarding the transport of radioactive materials.
Extensive safety and environmental studies have led to the conclusion that a fusion reactor could be designed in such a way to
ensure that any in-plant incident would not require the evacuation of the local population.

218
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

ITER Solves All Energy


ITER will use more energy than it provides
Environmental News Service, May 24, 2006 , Seven Governments Sign Nuclear Fusion Agreement, http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-24-04.asp</span>)

Still, critics are uneasy. Some say ITER will draw more power from the French electricity grid than it will produce. Others say
it discourages conservation.
The French group Sortir du Nucléaire (Get Out of Nuclear) is the main French antinuclear coalition with a membership of over
700 organizations and more than 14,000 individuals. Spokesman Stéphane Lhomme told the "International Herald Tribune" last
August, "There's a hidden message behind the ITER project. That message is, 'Don't change any of your consumption patterns
because you'll soon have unlimited amounts of free power.' That's a big gamble."
Hermann of Friends of the Earth Europe sayd, "Even if fusion does come through as an option, it will still carry risks of
proliferation and radioactive contamination."
Friends of the Earth Europe is calling upon the European Commission to withdraw from the fusion project. The group says
funding should be channeled into EU research and development programs to develop sustainable and environmentally-friendly
energy technologies, like solar, wind and biomass.
This proposal has yet to be approved by the European Council and the European Parliament, and Friends of the Earth Europe is
calling on these institutions to reject the Euratom budget proposal.
In fiscal year 2006, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) allocated $25 million to ITER. President George W. Bush has
requested $60 million for the project in fiscal year 2007.
"As partners in ITER," said U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman today, "we are pursuing the promise of unlimited, clean,
safe, renewable and commercially available energy from nuclear fusion, which has the potential to significantly strengthen
energy security at home and abroad."
Raymond Orbach, who signed the agreement as director of the DOE Office of Science, said, "Initialing this agreement brings
us one step closer to a viable source of fusion power, with the potential to free the quickly growing global economy and
population from the looming constraints of conventional energy supplies and their associated environmental effects."
Orbach called ITER "the first stand-alone, truly international, large-scale scientific research effort in the history of the world."
The seven parties to the agreement represent more than half of the world's population, he notes.
Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service based in Washington, DC, has said,
"The ITER fusion reactor is a big-science boondoggle that has no energy payback. ITER will divert billions of dollars away
from real green energy solutions to the world's climate change crisis."

219
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

ITER SAFE
The U.S. will probably desert ITER
David Pace (Masters at University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA Department of Physics
and Astronomy, Doctorate Candidate in Experimental Plasma Physics, M.Sc., Physics, 2003, University
of the Pacific, Stockton, California, USA Department of Physics, B.S., magna cum laude Physics, 2002,
Honorary Teaching Award, UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2006-2007, Research
Mentorship Fellowship, UCLA, 2004-2005, Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award, UCLA Department of
Physics and Astronomy, 2004, Cota Robles Fellowship, UCLA, 2002-2003, Most Outstanding Senior, U.
Pacific Department of Physics, 2002, DOE Energy Research Undergraduate Laboratory Research
Fellowship, 2001, Dean’s Honor Roll, U. Pacific, 1998-2001) , 1/5/08
http://www.davidpace.com/physics/graduate-school/us-leave-iter.htm

Finding and understanding the actual congressional material regarding this cut is difficult. It is easy to find media coverage of
the results but they will not say much about the ITER issue. A collection of the House Amendments to the bill provides the best
overview. With respect to ITER, the Joint Explanatory Statement says (emphasis added),
Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes $289,180,000 for Fusion Energy Sciences. Within Fusion Energy
Sciences, $162,910,000 is provided for Science, $93,504,000 for U.S. Facility Operations, an increase of $6,000,000 to be used
to increase facility operations at the three U.S. user facilities (i.e., the DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod, and National Spherical Torus
Experiment) $22,042,000 for Enabling R&D, an increase of $1,225,000 for materials research, $0 for the U.S. contribution to
ITER, and $10,724,000 for Enabling R&D for ITER. Funding under this heading in the amended bill includes $12,281,000 for
High Energy Density Physics. Funding may not be reprogrammed from other activities within Fusion Energy Sciences to
restore the U.S. contribution to ITER.
The removal of funds for our ITER contribution might normally be considered a temporary technicality if not for the final line
stating that money may not be transferred from other funds to pay the contribution. This suggests that the bill's intent is to
completely reacquire the $160 million originally reserved for ITER. I have not determined what is included as “Enabling
R&D” though I suspect that this money will allow those already being paid through U.S. ITER support to continue receiving
their wage.

220
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

FUNDING KEY TO US INVOLVEMENT IN ITER

ITER funding now is key or U.S. participation can disappear


Frank Munger, 7/3/08
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/03/175m-to-support-or-based-work/

About $15.5 million of a special midyear appropriations package for science will go to support Oak Ridge-
based work on an international fusion project, and another $2 million will supplement the funding at the
Spallation Neutron Source.
Jeff Sherwood, a Department of Energy spokesman in Washington, confirmed the numbers Wednesday and said
the money is part of the $62.5 million approved by Congress to ease a funding crunch in DOE's Office of
Science. "The intent is to eliminate the need for furloughs," Sherwood said.
Oak Ridge is home to the U.S. effort on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, a huge project
that's being built in France. Besides the United States, the partners include Europe, China, Japan, Russia, Korea
and India.
The fiscal 2008 budget approved earlier by Congress slashed the spending for ITER - allotting only $10.7
million, instead of the proposed $160 million - and endangered U.S. participation in the project. U.S. Sen.
Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., called the budget cuts an "embarrassing mistake" by Congress.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Director Thom Mason said Wednesday the supplemental funding will be used
to keep the U.S. team together and sustain operations until the 2009 budget is approved. More than $200 million
is being sought for the ITER project in 2009.
Additional funds for this year were particularly important because the government may operate under a
continuing budget resolution for the first six months of fiscal 2009 and freeze spending levels or impose other
restrictions.
The money for the SNS will support operations at the Oak Ridge science
facility, which also had a funding shortfall in this year's budget.

221
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

ITER SAFE/FEASIBLE
Fusion is entirely safe
ITER, 10/14/04
http://www.iter.org/safety_process.htm

The following explanation focusses on magnetic confinement of deuterium-tritium-fuelled plasmas, such as those in ITER, but
similar or even stronger arguments apply also to other fuel combinations and to laser fusion.
The fusion process is inherently safe.
Leak-tight confinement barriers are essential to produce fusion reactions. Equipment failure quickly leads to plasma
extinguishment.
No chain reaction is involved and the reaction is thermally self-limiting.
There is no danger of a large jump in plasma power output, since normal operation is close to pressure limits which already
maximise the number of fusion reactions that will occur. In ITER, because of experimental uncertainty, it is possible for the
plasma to operate at somewhat (<1.2) higher power levels than planned, but these can be easily brought under control in a
matter of seconds.
The fusion process is limited to a few seconds burn, without continuous refuelling.
Achieving low loss burn conditions is a delicate matter and requires many conditions to be satisfied - the failure or change of a
single one enhances plasma energy losses and terminates the burn. Halting the fuelling quickly extinguishes the plasma. In
ITER about 0.5 g of fuel is in the machine at any time, and the fuelling/exhaust rate is also about 0.5 g/s. Even if the exhaust
fails, the plasma is quickly poisoned by impurities, and extinguishes.
The power and energy densities in the reactor and plasma are low.
The main sources of energy which can damage ITER are pressurised coolant, chemical reactions (e.g. of leaking coolant and
hot materials, or of hydrogen and air), heat from the fusion reaction in the plasma, and magnetic energy in the coils. There are
no large stores of chemicals or other energy sources able to cause powerful explosions. ITER is designed such that its hardware
avoids the unexpected release from energy sources or mitigates the consequences of any such release to acceptable levels not
only for the general public, to ensure the ultimate safety of the plant, but also for plant operators, to protect their investment. To
help in these respects, ITER has large heat transfer surfaces and heat sinks which transfer and absorb energy, maintaining low
temperatures and avoiding melting of components. The same will be true in a power reactor, but the margins needed for ITER
should be able to be reduced, and the overall power density should be able to be increased.
The reaction products are either absorbed in surrounding structural or tritium-breeding materials (neutrons), or are
non-radioactive (helium).
In ITER nearly all materials around the plasma are to shield the surrounding equipment, whereas in a power reactor the bulk
will breed tritium from lithium-containing materials, ready to burn it in the plasma.
Activated structural materials from neutron irradiation are not mobile except dust and corrosion products which form
only a small fraction.
The neutrons produce activated waste materials. Dust is formed by sputtering from high energy particles in the plasma hitting
the surrounding material surfaces. Although not necessarily a problem itself, this dust can become contaminated with tritium.
Coolant channels can become corroded, especially in high nuclear radiation fields, and the corrosion can dislodge and be freed
if a coolant pipe breaks. In ITER the coolant chemical control system is capable of maintaining coatings of activated corrosion
products well below 10 kg per loop, with less than 60 g as loose material or ions in the coolant (these limits are used in
accident analysis). In a power reactor this aspect will be further optimised.
Negligible operational environmental impact.
The potential risk to the local environment is limited and is reduced as low as judged reasonably achievable by the independent
nuclear regulator in the country concerned.
Negligible long term environmental impact.
Neither the provision of fuel or plant hardware, nor its removal after use, places an intolerable and uncertain burden on current
or future generations.

222
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

***DOE Trade off Answers

223
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

No trade off

Renewable Energies and Nuclear power won’t get cut, Bush has requested additional funding for both in
his budget request
Department of Energy, 2/4/08
http://www.doe.gov/news/5920.htm

U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today announced President Bush’s $25 billion Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 budget
request for the Department of Energy (DOE), an increase of $1.073 billion over the FY 2008 appropriation. This request will
continue investments to meet growing energy demand with clean, safe, affordable, reliable and diverse supplies of energy;
support the development of climate change technologies; advance environmental cleanup; and ensure the reliability of our
nuclear weapons stockpile. The President’s budget for DOE directly supports the development of cutting-edge carbon capture
and storage technologies (CCS); begins to transform the weapons complex to address 21st century challenges; and accelerates
technological breakthroughs to further the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), and scientific leadership through the
American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI).
“This budget furthers President Bush’s comprehensive strategy to increase energy, economic, and national security by focusing
on accelerating technological breakthroughs, expanding traditional and renewable sources of energy, and increasing investment
in scientific discovery and development,” Secretary Bodman said. “From transforming the weapons complex to maintain the
utmost safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile, to issuing solicitations for loan guarantees to spur innovation in
advanced energy technologies, this budget enables the Department to continue to lay the foundation for a clean, safe, secure
and reliable energy future for all Americans.”
Among the President’s priorities funded in the FY 2009 budget request includes $1.4 billion to promote the expansion of safe,
emissions free nuclear power. DOE continues to actively work with industry partners to promote the near-term licensing and
deployment of America’s first new nuclear plants in more than 30 years. This budget also requests $648 million, the largest
budget request in over 25 years, for increased research in clean coal technology and demonstration of carbon capture and
storage for coal-fired power plants, an important component of the Administration’s Climate Change Technology Program.
Another key priority in the Department’s budget includes support of its Loan Guarantee program, which requests $19.9 million
for administrative expenses, and would be offset by collections in the same amount as authorized under the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (EPAct). In addition, DOE requests an extension of its authorization to issue loan guarantees through FY 2010 and FY
2011, enabling commitments to guarantee loans under Title XVII of EPAct to total more than $38 billion from FY 2008
through FY 2011. These efforts, combined with plans to further expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to an ultimate
capacity of 1.5 billion barrels by 2029, will help achieve a more secure and reliable energy future for the nation.
The budget also continues to significantly invest in the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI) and the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), both unveiled in President Bush’s 2006 State of the Union Address.

224
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

ITER = nuke power

ITER would create large amounts of waste that could be used for nuclear weapons
Green Peace 6/28/05
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance

Greenpeace deplores the agreement by the Representatives of the Parties to the International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor (ITER) (1) to construct one of the world's largest nuclear fusion experiments in Cadarache, Southern France. The
project, estimated to cost 10bn euros, will not generate any electricity, instead it will need massive amounts of energy to heat
up.
"With 10 billion, we could build 10,000MW offshore windfarms, delivering electricity for 7.5 million
European households," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. Advocates of fusion research
predict that the first commercial fusion electricity might be delivered in 50 to 80 years from now. But
most likely, it will lead to a dead end, as the technical barriers to be overcome are enormous.

Today, the nuclear industry presents itself as the solution to climate change in a massive green-washing
drive. Far from being a solution, the nuclear option stalls real action to combat dangerous climate change.
It is taking away the money for real solutions that are ready and economically available at a large scale,
such as wind energy.

Fusion energy - if it would ever operate - would create a serious waste problem, would emit large amounts
of radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons. A whole new set of
nuclear risks would thus be created.

"Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful
energy," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. Instead, they should invest in renewable
energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today"

225
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

ITER -> Prolif

ITER would create large amounts of waste that could be used for nuclear
weapons
Green Peace 6/28/05
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance

Greenpeace deplores the agreement by the Representatives of the Parties to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER) (1) to construct one of the world's largest nuclear fusion experiments in Cadarache, Southern France. The project, estimated to
cost 10bn euros, will not generate any electricity, instead it will need massive amounts of energy to heat up.
"With 10 billion, we could build 10,000MW offshore windfarms, delivering electricity for 7.5 million European
households," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. Advocates of fusion research predict that the
first commercial fusion electricity might be delivered in 50 to 80 years from now. But most likely, it will lead to
a dead end, as the technical barriers to be overcome are enormous.

Today, the nuclear industry presents itself as the solution to climate change in a massive green-washing drive.
Far from being a solution, the nuclear option stalls real action to combat dangerous climate change. It is taking
away the money for real solutions that are ready and economically available at a large scale, such as wind
energy.

Fusion energy - if it would ever operate - would create a serious waste problem, would emit large amounts of
radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons. A whole new set of nuclear
risks would thus be created.

"Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy," said
Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is
abundantly available, not in 2080 but today"

226
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

ITER -> Prolif

UNCHECKED, PROLIFERATION CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR AND EXTINCTION.

UTGOFF IN 2K2 [Victor A., Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense
Analysis, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions” 2002 p. 87-90]

Further, the large number of states that became capable of building nuclear weapons over the years, but chose not to, can be
reasonably well explained by the fact that most were formally allied with either the United States or the Soviet Union. Both
these superpowers had strong nuclear forces and put great pressure on their allies not to build nuclear weapons. Since the Cold
War, the US has retained all its allies. In addition, NATO has extended its protection to some of the previous allies of the Soviet
Union and plans on taking in more. Nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan, and proliferation programmes by North Korea,
Iran and Iraq, all involve states in the opposite situation: all judged that they faced serious military opposition and had little
prospect of establishing a reliable supporting alliance with a suitably strong, nuclear-armed state. What would await the world
if strong protectors, especially the United States, were [was] no longer seen as willing to protect states from nuclear-backed
aggression? At least a few additional states would begin to build their own nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to
distant targets, and these initiatives would spur increasing numbers of the world’s capable states to follow suit. Restraint would
seem ever less necessary and ever more dangerous. Meanwhile, more states are becoming capable of building nuclear weapons
and long-range missiles. Many, perhaps most, of the world’s states are becoming sufficiently wealthy, and the technology for
building nuclear forces continues to improve and spread. Finally, it seems highly likely that at some point, halting proliferation
will come to be seen as a lost cause and the restraints on it will disappear. Once that happens, the transition to a highly
proliferated world would probably be very rapid. While some regions might be able to hold the line for a time, the threats
posed by wildfire proliferation in most other areas could create pressures that would finally overcome all restraint. Many
readers are probably willing to accept that nuclear proliferation is such a grave threat to world peace that every effort should be
made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talking about much more substantial efforts
now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow or stop nuclear proliferation, it needs to be
established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that would sooner or later evolve without such efforts is not going to be
acceptable. And, for many reasons, it is not. First, the dynamics of getting to a highly proliferated world could be very
dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems before any potential
opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent may consider preemptive nuclear war before the opponent
becomes capable of nuclear retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponent’s nuclear programme or
defeat the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building nuclear weapons
may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological weapons.
[The article continues…] The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and
exchanges of missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months
from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the
other. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can
escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or
humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily
accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such
shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand.
Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late
1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place
than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

227
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

*** EPA DA

228
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

*EPA 1NC*
A. EPA funding is strained—budget cuts.
Andrew Schneider senior national correspondent for investigations, P-I, Two Time Pulitzer Winner, John B. Oakes Award for
Distinguished Environmental Journalism 4/16/08 Seattle PI “White House is widely perceived to be running roughshod over EPA's
scientists and lawyers.” http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/secretingredients/archives/136634.asp [ev]

When Steve Johnson was tapped to head the EPA, many of my friends in the agency said they were proud that one of their own - a real
environmental scientist - was pulled from their ranks to be the boss. But the glow of Johnson's appointment quickly waned in the
messy political realities of being the country's environmental protector. Many of the same scientists and investigators told me that they
were worried that Johnson was anointed to the position because he would be even more susceptible to the ever-present pressure from
the White House and industry lobbyists. Even more susceptiible then George Bush's two previous administrators, Christine Todd
Whitman and Mike Leavitt? Hell yes, says a cover story in the National Journal. Reporter Margaret Kriz wrote that "Johnson's EPA is
regularly pushed around by politically powerful advisers at the White House and in other departments. And that congressional
Democrats aren't making the administrator's life any easier. "There's a sense that the agency has not stood up for itself and has been
run over by other interests in the executive branch -- and that it's happened under Steve Johnson's stewardship," Richard Lazarus, an
environmental law professor at Georgetown, told Kriz. The NJ reported that EPA is failing to live up to its name these days. At a time
when the nation's top environmental regulators face increasingly complex pollution problems, President Bush is pushing for dramatic
cuts in EPA's budget, his administration's strained, pro-industry interpretations of environmental laws have repeatedly been laughed
out of court, and the White House is widely perceived to be running roughshod over agency scientists and lawyers.

B. Enforcing regulations drains EPA resources.


Nathaneal Greene, Senior Policy Analyst for Natural Resources Defense Council, 5/6/08 Testimony before House and Energy
Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, CQ Congressional Testimony, “Renewable Fuels Standard” Lexis
[ev]

The RFS's environmental safeguards must be effectively implemented by EPA While Congress deserves much credit for carefully
crafting the standards, safeguards, and study provisions of the RFS, none of these will amount of a fill of beans unless they are
aggressively and effectively implemented by EPA. EPA's task is complex. Tracking and enforcing the law's environmental safeguards
will be challenging. EPA is up to the task but will require significant resources. Congress must make sure EPA is fully funded to
both develop the implementing regulations and then carry out the enforcement and studies.

C. EPA key to prevent devastating terror attacks on water infrastructure.


US EPA 2008 “FY 2008 Annual Plan” http://www.epa.gov/budget/2008/2008ap/2008_annual_plan.pdf pg 18 [ev]

Homeland Security EPA has a major role in supporting the protection of the nation’s critical water infrastructure from terrorist threats.
In FY 2008, EPA will continue to support the Water Security Initiative (formerly known as Water Sentinel) pilot program and water
sector-specific agency responsibilities, including the Water Alliance for Threat Reduction (WATR), to protect the nation’s critical
water infrastructure. The FY 2008 budget provides $22 million for the Water Security Initiative completing deployment of final pilot
systems. In FY 2008, the Agency in collaboration with our water sector security stakeholders will continue our efforts to develop,
implement and initiate tracking of national measures related to homeland security critical infrastructure protection activities.

D. Terrorism risks extinction


Yonah Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, 8/28/03 (Washington Times)

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international
community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of
civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or
irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on
September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating
blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the
Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago,
are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through
the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries
229
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano
affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons,
including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal
definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the
exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary
terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The
internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism
[e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and
global security concerns.

230
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

EPA Budget Tight


EPA budget is tight now
Environmental News Service, 2-5-08 (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-05-
05.asp)[JWu]
Boxer said, "The EPA’s job is to protect the health of our families, but with this budget the president is once again sending a clear
message that cleaning up our environment is not a priority for the Bush administration." EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson
tried to put the best face on the reduction of his agency's budget by recognizing "the challenge of managing in a time of tight
fiscal constraints." EPA research is on brink of collapse from lack of funding Rebecca Renner, PhD
geochemistry, contributing editor, 5-9-07 ("Budget cuts increasingly damaging to EPA",
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/may/policy/rr_EPA.html)[JWu] Now that Congress has
returned from its spring recess, members have begun drafting the funding bills for federal science agencies. The Bush
Administration's $7.2 billion proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 for the U.S. EPA is a $400 million cut from last year, marking the
lowest overall funding request in this century in real dollars, critics say. The continuing erosion in EPA's budget, including a sharp
drop in funds for science research, is beginning to cripple the agency's ability to do its job. Morale at the agency is at its lowest
point in 25 years, according to several senior EPA scientists who spoke to ES&T on condition of anonymity. Senior researchers at
several EPA labs say that they are struggling to cope with the cuts. Budgets have become so lean that even though these
scientists can keep their labs running, they are having trouble conducting studies that support policy or regulations because
they can't obtain supplies, equipment, laboratory animals, or skilled technicians. Increasingly, they say, they are turning to
regulated industries or industrial consortia to ask for crucial toxicological or engineering data because EPA doesn't have the money to
obtain the information independently. A scientist supervising research directly related to a current drinking-water study says that
thanks to a shortage of full-time agency technicians she has to supervise half a dozen untrained contractors. Not only do these
contractors lack the skills needed for the research, the scientist says, but her own work has slowed to a crawl because she also has to
handle the paperwork for the contractors. Any training and mentoring being done with the outside workers will be lost when the
contractors leave, she adds. The scientists complain that concerns for the future raised during congressional testimony in March by
Granger Morgan, chair of the agency's independent Science Advisory Board (SAB), are already coming to pass. SAB members fear
that the continued decline in financial support could hurt morale and result in an accelerating loss of outstanding people and
increase recruiting difficulties, Morgan said. He also predicted that as budgets shrink a higher proportion of funds will go to
salaries and less to other costs, such as laboratories, field studies, and computers.

EPA water protection super stretched—budget cuts.


National Journal 4/11/08 “Vanishing Act” http://www.nationaljournal.com/njcover.htm [ev]

Washington insiders say that the Bush White House has significantly altered the way the federal government approaches
environmental protection by quietly changing the way EPA does its job. For one thing, critics charge, Bush is trying to
starve the agency of cash. The White House's proposed fiscal 2009 budget would provide just $7.1 billion -- fewer actual
dollars than EPA has received in any fiscal year since 1997. Bush's plan, when adjusted for inflation, includes record-low
funding levels for community drinking water facilities and for the Superfund hazardous-waste cleanup program.
Lawmakers from both political parties say they'll scrap the budget proposal and start from scratch.

231
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

EPA Budget Tight

The EPA budget will get cut to it’s lowest level since 1985
AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program, international non-profit organization for promoting science, February 20, 2008
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/epa09p.htm
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the primary regulatory agency for the U.S. environment, funds a broad portfolio of
R&D to meet the science and technology needs of its regulatory and enforcement responsibilities. The FY 2009 request would
continue the trends of recent years by cutting EPA’s R&D funding by $7 million or 1.3 percent to $541 million (see
Table II-17). Nearly all EPA research areas would decline.
EPA’s R&D is managed by its Office of Research and Development (ORD), which funds both R&D at EPA laboratories around the
country and external R&D. Nearly all of EPA’s R&D funding comes from the Science and Technology (S&T) budget account, which
would total $764 million in 2009, up slightly from the final 2008 funding level. R&D funding makes up two-thirds of the S&T
account. Subtracting non-R&D items such as critical infrastructure protection, operating overhead costs, and clean air standards and
certification activities leaves an R&D portfolio of $513 million from S&T, down $7 million of which $4 million would be from the
elimination of 2008 earmarks (see Table II-17). ORD also receives R&D funding from the Superfund program (up $1 million to $26
million) for hazardous wastes research, and small amounts of funding from other EPA accounts.
Funding for nearly all EPA research areas would decline in the 2009 budget (see Table II-17). Clean air research would
fall $3 million to $97 million after Congress added funds in 2008 appropriations. EPA’s contribution to global change research would
continue to slide, down to $16 million from a congressionally boosted $20 million. The clean air portfolio tries to understand the
composition and effects of air pollution and to develop technologies for reducing it, and also funds research on related topics such as
the health effects of fine particles in the atmosphere. Human health and ecosystems research, the largest part of the ORD portfolio,
would fall $6 million to $217 million, with an increase in the computational toxicology program to $15 million offset by cuts in other
areas such as endocrine disrupting chemicals and human health and ecosystems protection. Within this portfolio, fellowships funding
would fall $1 million to $9 million.
Homeland security related R&D, a growth area in recent years, would increase from $31 million to $37 million. Some of this effort is
devoted to protecting drinking water supplies against terrorist attack through vulnerability assessments and a laboratory network for
surveillance. This portfolio also funds EPA’s National Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC) to conduct R&D on a wide
variety of terrorist threats that may have an impact on the natural environment, such as radiation, drinking water contamination, and
the environmental impacts of cleanup \technologies after a terrorist attack.

The EPA’s budget is an insult and woefully inadequate


Cox News Service, private news media publishing company, Feb. 28, 2008
http://www.wacotrib.com/green/content/shared/green/stories/2008/02/EPA_CONGRESS28_COX.html

Sen. George V. Voinovich sharply criticized EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson Wednesday, telling him that "this budget you've
submitted is an insult."
Voinovich, R-Ohio, said the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed cuts in successful cleanup programs while failing to provide funds to
help economically strapped communities meet required federal pollution-control standards.
"If the federal government is going to impose these costly mandates on struggling state and local governments, then it should provide funding and
flexibility for compliance of those mandates," he said.
At a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Voinovich said the Bush administration's proposed $7.14 billion EPA
budget for fiscal year 2009 is "woefully inadequate" in meeting the nation's wastewater infrastructure needs.
He expressed dismay at a proposed decrease in funding for the Great Lakes Legacy Act — down to $35 million from the $49.6 million that the EPA
projected two years ago.
"This program shows results — hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of contaminated sediments have been removed from the Great Lakes — and I
strongly encourage you to work to increase funding for this program," Voinovich told Johnson.
He accused the EPA of operating in a "cocoon," unaware that Ohio's economy is weakening and that the agency's rules are making
matters worse.
"EPA is requiring the city of Fremont, population of 26,000 people — 49 percent are considered low-income — to spend $63 million" on wastewater
treatment, he said. These residents' sewer rate increases will be 150 percent, he said.
"Administrator, we are asking our communities to do the impossible," Voinovich told Johnson. "EPA is simply not stepping up to the plate to assist
the thousands of communities across the country facing substantial costs to comply with EPA rules."

232
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

EPA Budget Tight


The budget cuts funds to the EPA and funds nuclear weapons instead,
Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Ph.D Student, February 8th, 08
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/bush_budget_cuts_environment.php

Lost amidst the general kerfuffle over the


Bush administration's latest budget - ringing in at a hefty $3.1 trillion - has been a clear-
eyed assessment of its environmental provisions, or, more accurately, lack thereof (unless you're a fan of nuclear energy). Chief
among it are requests to fund the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, the first such nuclear weapons program
in 2 decades, and to begin construction of a new plutonium pit facility (necessary for building new bombs) - at the tune of $10m
and $100m, respectively.
The DOE is also seeking a 79% increase in funding for its Nuclear Power 2010 program, an industry-government partnership designed to foster the
construction of nuclear power facilities. The budget request would extend the period during which businesses can receive financial support for new
"clean energy" plants under the 2005 energy bill's loan guarantee program - amounting to up to 80% of the incurred costs.
Unfortunately, most of the country's other environmental initiatives and monitoring programs won't be benefiting from such largess - in fact, quite the
contrary:
"President Bush again has cut the budget of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, this time by $330 million to a total of $7.14
billion.
The cuts include over $270 million dollars from EPA programs that would clean up and restore lakes, rivers and streams. Global climate change
research comes in at $16 million.
...
The Bush budget eliminates a $5 million EPA program to restore the San Francisco Bay. It cuts air pollution programs, including over $31 million
dollars for grants to states, and eliminates a $10 million dollar program that would help clean up the air in some of California’s most polluted
communities.
It eliminates funding for a new national registry to track global warming pollution."
Even Stephen Johnson, EPA Administrator and the administration's willing stooge, had trouble casting the record-cutting budget in a glowing light.
Boasting that it would provide the "largest enforcement budget ever" - thanks to an (anemic) $9m bump to a $563m budget - he claimed it would
help the EPA "deliver a cleaner, healthier tomorrow" and represented "government at its best" (we're not kidding).
The new budget will provide some modest boosts to nanotechnology research, an international goods tracking system and environmental reviews for
new energy projects. In addition to making cuts to the Department of Interior and other government agencies, Bush's proposal would also starve
funding for infrastructure projects around the country, particularly critically needed water resources infrastructure.

233
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

EPA Budget Tight

The 2009 Budget eliminates 151 programs and cuts EPA funding
White, staff writer for World Socialist Website, FEBhttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/budg-f05.shtml

President Bush submitted his last budget to the US Congress on Monday outlining his administration’s right-wing proposals of tax cuts for the
wealthy, massive military spending and the further gutting of social programs that the majority of ordinary Americans depend on.
While there is little chance that the budget in its present form will be passed by a lame duck president with a Democratic majority in Congress, the
budget illustrates the social and political priorities shared by both parties and the ruling class as a whole.
The $3.1 trillion budget would make permanent the tax cuts passed during Bush’s first term, while increasing the Pentagon budget to
the highest level in inflation-adjusted terms since World War II. At the same time it would freeze all non-defense spending and eliminate
or sharply cut back 151 programs. Spending for social services, including entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid, would be reduced by $23
billion in 2009 and $474 billion over the next five years.
“In my 2009 budget, I have set clear priorities that will help us meet our nation’s most pressing needs while addressing the long-term challenges
ahead. With pro-growth policies and spending discipline, we will balance the budget in 2012, keep the tax burden law and provide for our national
security,” Bush said.
Medicare, the major federal health care program for seniors, would be cut by $178 billion over the next five years. Medicaid, the federal health care
program for low-income people, would lose $18.2 billion over five years. Signaling his determination to cripple the programs, Bush insisted the cuts
were needed to slow “the unsustainable growth in entitlement spending.”
Many of the Medicare and Medicaid cuts will be achieved by reducing payments to doctors and other health care providers, forcing many to limit the
number of elderly and low-income patients they see or drop out of the program entirely. Other cost-cutting will be achieved by shifting the burden to
the states—under conditions in which more than half are already facing severe budget shortfalls due to the collapse of the housing bubble and the
general economic downturn.
In line with the administration’s push to promote private insurers over public health insurance programs, the budget leaves intact more than $150
billion in subsidies to private insurance companies involved in the Medicare Advantage program, the privatized part of the federal program.
According to the Center on Budget Priorities, other cuts in the President’s budget include:
* Funding for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) would be cut by $570 million or 22 percent, affecting more than 1 million
families and elderly people. Funding for the program remains at the same level as in 2001, even though home energy prices have risen by 65 percent.
* Child care assistance for low-income families would be frozen for the seventh consecutive year. According the administration’s own figures,
200,000 fewer children in low-income families would receive federal child care assistance in 2009 than in 2007, under the president’s budget.
* Reductions in the Section 8 housing voucher program, the nation’s largest low-income rental assistance program, would mean at least 100,000
fewer households would receive assistance.
* Funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would be cut by $433 million, even before adjusting for inflation.
* The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget would be cut by $330 million, before adjusting for inflation, falling in 2009 to more
than $1 billion less than the EPA budget in 2004.

234
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

EPA Budget Tight


The government is cutting 15 million from the EPA
Bruce Geiselman, government affairs editor at Waste News, March 3, 2008, EPA funding fight looms, Waste News, COVER
STORY; Pg. 01, Lexis

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, accused the EPA of forcing unfunded mandates on local communities regarding their
wastewater treatment systems. ``Continued cuts to the SRF program, when EPA estimates the nation's need for wastewater
treatment and collection at $193.5 billion, makes no sense,'' Voinovich said. ``This especially concerns me because my state of
Ohio has one of the largest needs in the nation at $11.7 billion.'' Voinovich said the EPA is not stepping up to the plate to
assist thousands of communities nationwide that are facing substantial costs to comply with EPA orders.`I must tell you
that from my experience as a former mayor, county commissioner and governor, I consider this to be an unfunded mandate,''
Voinovich said. ``Administrator, we are asking our communities to do the impossible. If the federal government is going to
impose these costly mandates on struggling state and local governments, then it should provide funding and flexibility for
compliance with these mandates.'' Voinovich also was critical of a nearly $15 million reduction in funding for the Great
Lakes Legacy Act in fiscal year 2009. The program has been paying for removal of contaminated sediment from the
Great Lakes to improve water quality. Boxer listed numerous programs she believes deserve additional funding,
including the Superfund, underground storage tank and diesel emission reduction grant programs.

There are budget cuts to be made within the EPA


Bruce Geiselman, government affairs editor at Waste News, March 3, 2008, EPA funding fight looms, Waste News, COVER
STORY; Pg. 01, Lexis

Inhofe, while upset about the Clean Water State Revolving Fund cuts, also expressed frustration that other areas within
the EPA budget aren't being cut enough. “After seven years, the Bush administration has failed to find any meaningful
savings or wasteful spending in the EPA budget,'' Inhofe said. ``I find it hard, if not impossible, to believe there are no
programs that should be cut. The only significant cuts the administration ever proposes are the ever popular and much
needed SRFs and Congressional earmarks.''

235
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

U—CO2 CUT NOW

CO2 budget being cut now.


Superfund Report 2/25/08 “Despite Push For New Rule, EPA Budget Seeks Limited Funds For Co2” Lexis [ev]

Despite EPA efforts to quickly develop drinking water rules governing underground injection of carbon dioxide (CO2),
the agency's recently released fiscal year 2009 budget is seeking only limited funds for key agency programs that
are looking to address a future carbon capture and storage (CCS) program. The limited funds could hamper agency
efforts to develop rules and research the impacts of storing large volumes of CO2 underground -- considered an essential
element in any future climate change program. For example, a key agency advisory panel on clean coal technologies
recently urged Congress to create a $1 billion fund to finance CCS demonstration projects. According to the agency's
budget justification, the agency is seeking to maintain level funds for the underground injection control (UIC) program,
which is crafting, and will likely implement, any CCS rule. According to the budget request, the agency is seeking
$10.891 million for the UIC program, which will oversee any future CCS program, a $170,000 increase over FY08
enacted levels. The budget justification is available on InsideEPA.com. See page 2 for details. While level funding for the
regulatory program shows agency officials have been able to stave off the steep cuts the agency considered as part of its
early review for the FY09 request, it still falls significantly short of the $56 million target that some state drinking water
officials have suggested the program needs to address future underground injection of CO2.

The Reduced Greenhouse Gas Intensity Program is being significantly cut by the EPA
Carol Werner, Executive Director of ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY STUDY INSTITUTE, Feburary 5, 2008,
(http://www.eesi.org/publications/Press%20Releases/2008/epa_fy09budget.htm)

Looking at the EPA budget by goals, the Reduced Greenhouse Gas Intensity program within Goal 1 has a FY 2009
budget request of $121 million, which is $9.0 million (6.9%) less than the FY 2008 appropriations of $130 million and
$1.7 million (1.4%) less than the FY 2008 budget request of $123 million. Looking at the EPA budget by program and
project, the FY 2009 budget request for Climate Protection programs includes a Science and Technology component,
requested at $11.4 million, and an Environmental Program and Management component, requested at $87.0 million.
Taken together, these were cut $10.3 million (9.5%) from FY 08 appropriations. The Climate Protection Programs include
Energy Star, SmartWay Transport, the Methane to Markets Partnership and Asia-Pacific Partnership. There were a number of
cuts, as well as a few increases to the programs, as illustrated below:

White House JUST CUT Greenhouse Gas programs.


Carol Werner, Executive Director of ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY STUDY INSTITUTE, Feburary 5, 2008,
(http://www.eesi.org/publications/Press%20Releases/2008/epa_fy09budget.htm)

Zeroing out the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry (100% cut from $3.4 million in FY 08)
$10.3 million cut overall (9.5% cut from FY 08 appropriations)
$6.9 million cut in Climate Science and Technology program (38% cut from FY 08 appropriations)
$4.0 million cut in Energy STAR (8.3% cut from FY 08 appropriations)
$177,000 increase in Methane to Markets (4.1% increase from FY 08 appropriations)
$5.0 million increase in Asian Pacific Partnership (no previous FY 08 appropriation amount)
Clean Air Rules are a major component of EPA’s Clean Air and Global Climate Change Goal, and include the Clean Air
Interstate Rule, the Clean Air Mercury Rule and the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule. These rules work towards the
improvement of the United State’s air quality. Additionally, reductions on particulate matter from diesel engines will
continue to be addressed through the Diesel Emissions Reduction Grants program of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
58), which authorizes $200 million annually (2007-2011). However, the President requests just $49.2 million for the FY 09
EPA Clean Diesel grant, 25% of the authorized amount.

236
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

U—CO2 CUT NOW

Programs from Climate Change and Climate Protection are being drastically cut
Carol Werner, Executive Director of ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY STUDY INSTITUTE, Feburary 5, 2008,
(http://www.eesi.org/publications/Press%20Releases/2008/epa_fy09budget.htm)

The President’s FY 2009 budget request for Clean Air and Global Climate Change (EPA Goal 1) is $939 million. This is
$33 million (3.4%) less than the FY 2008 appropriations. Looking at the EPA budget by goals, the Reduced Greenhouse
Gas Intensity program within Goal 1 has a FY 2009 budget request of $121 million, which is $9.0 million (6.9%) less
than the FY 2008 appropriations of $130 million and $1.7 million (1.4%) less than the FY 2008 budget request of $123
million. Looking at the EPA budget by program and project, the FY 2009 budget request for Climate Protection programs
includes a Science and Technology component, requested at $11.4 million, and an Environmental Program and
Management component, requested at $87.0 million. Taken together, these were cut $10.3 million (9.5%) from FY 08
appropriations. The Climate Protection Programs include Energy Star, SmartWay Transport, the Methane to Markets
Partnership and Asia-Pacific Partnership. There were a number of cuts, as well as a few increases to the programs, as
illustrated below:

The EPA is being forced to cut its climate programs


EESI, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, February 11, 2008, Budget Briefing: EPA Clean Air and Global Climate Change
Budget Cut 38%, (http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2008/02/11/budget-briefing-epa-clean-air-and-global-climate-change-budget-cut-
38)

The President’s FY 2009 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget request remains relatively flat compared to the
FY 2008 request and is down slightly from FY 2008 appropriations. The FY 2009 budget request is $7.14 billion, which
is $56.9 million (0.80%) less than the FY 2008 budget request and $330 million (4.4%) less than FY 2008
appropriations. The President’s FY 2009 budget request for Clean Air and Global Climate Change (EPA Goal 1) is $939
million. This is $33 million (3.4%) less than the FY 2008 appropriations. Looking at the EPA budget by goals, the
Reduced Greenhouse Gas Intensity program within Goal 1 has a FY 2009 budget request of $121 million, which is $9.0
million (6.9%) less than the FY 2008 appropriations of $130 million and $1.7 million (1.4%) less than the FY 2008 budget
request of $123 million. Looking at the EPA budget by program and project, the FY 2009 budget request for Climate
Protection programs includes a Science and Technology component, requested at $11.4 million, and an Environmental
Program and Management component, requested at $87.0 million. Taken together, these were cut $10.3 million (9.5%)
from FY 08 appropriations. The Climate Protection Programs include Energy Star, SmartWay Transport, the Methane to
Markets Partnership and Asia-Pacific Partnership. There were a number of cuts, as well as a few increases to the programs, as
illustrated below:

237
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

U—CO2 CUT NOW

The EPA budget cuts funding for global warming research


Sustainablebusiness.com, global news network for the promotion of green business, February 6th, 2008
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/15275

In releasing his agency's 2009 budget, as proposed by the Bush Administration, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson said the president's budget request puts the EPA on "a course to deliver a cleaner, healthier tomorrow."
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who has recently been at odds with the agency over its refusal to grant California a waver to impose its own,
stricter tailpipe emissions standards, had a different take on the budget, which was cut by roughly $330 million (4.4%).
Boxer, who is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said, "With this budget the President is once again
sending a clear message that cleaning up our environment is not a priority for the Bush Administration."
According to a statement released by Boxer, the budget proposes severe reductions in several key programs for protecting health, cutting
air and water pollution, and restoring the environment.
In addition to cutting funds for clean water protection programs and the clean-up of toxic sites, Boxer's statement said the president's budget
eliminates funding for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Registry, zeroes out over $9.8 million in funding for California Emission Reduction
programs, and cuts 38% of the funding for programs that seek to use science and technology to address global warming.
Furthermore, Boxer said normally, EPA provides a detailed "Budget Justification" document with an explanation of all budget figures, but
this year has failed to do so, undermining the transparency of the President's proposed budget.
EPA Administrator, Johnson, did not specifically address any of the budget cuts in his statement, but said the budget proposes to strengthen EPA's
efforts in energy and homeland security.
Johnson noted the following budget items:
• An additional $32 million to protect against terrorist attacks and natural disasters--a total of $170 million
• The largest enforcement budget ever--an increase of $9 million, bringing the total to $563 million
• An additional $14 million to meet the increased permitting and environmental review responsibilities that have come with the upsurge in
proposed energy projects
• $49.2 million for Clean Diesel grants--$15 million specifically targeted to support EPA's Sustainable Ports Initiative
• increased spending on nanotechnology research spending.
Johnson's statement contradicts Boxer's in the area of superfund toxic-site cleanup. Boxer listed roughly $13 million in cuts, while Johnson says the
budget proposes an increase of $10.2 million.
Rep. John D. Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, also opposed what he saw as cuts to clean-up funding.
"Superfund cleanups have fallen dramatically under this Administration, yet the remedial cleanup budget is losing millions again this year causing the
backlog to grow even larger," he said.
Dingell added, "If nothing else, the President is consistent when it comes to the EPA budget. His assault on important environmental
programs continues with the lowest funding request for EPA in eight years. The President's FY09 Budget request would starve many
EPA programs that are vital to protecting the environment and the public health."

The climate is taking a major hit in FY 2009 appropriations


John Neurohr, Deputy Press Secretary, February 8, 2008, Bush’s Energy Budget: Proposals Not Consistent with Claims
(http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/energy_budget.html)

$0: Proposed budget for the greenhouse gas reporting registry, an EPA program for voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas
emissions and reductions. This is a 100 percent cut from the $3.4 million allocated in fiscal year 2008.
$6.9 million: Proposed cut to the EPA Climate Science and Technology Program, which focuses on research and
development of energy and sequestration technologies critical to long-term emissions reduction for coal fired power plants and
other sources. This is a 38 percent cut from the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level.
$10.3 million: Proposed cut overall to climate protection programs such as Energy Star, SmartWay Transport, the
Methane to Markets Partnership, and the Asia-Pacific Partnership. This is a 9.5 percent cut from the fiscal year 2008
appropriations level.
$4.0 million: Proposed cut to Energy STAR, a joint program of the EPA and the DOE helping consumers save money
and protect the environment through energy efficient products and practices. This is an 8.3 percent cut from the fiscal
year 2008 appropriations level.

238
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

U—AE CUT NOW

Bush just cut EPA alternative energy programs.


John Neurohr, Deputy Press Secretary, February 8, 2008, Bush’s Energy Budget: Proposals Not Consistent with Claims
(http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/energy_budget.html)

President Bush has repeatedly said in recent months that he would lead the United States in taking steps to reduce
oil consumption, combat global warming and expand the production of renewable fuels. Bush signed the Energy
Independence and Security Act in December, and in his State of the Union address just last week, he said that we
must continue to invest in renewable fuels and that the United States is committed to strengthening our energy
security and confronting global climate change. Yet a quick look at the president's FY 2009 budget proposals for
the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency programs show cuts in critical areas, including
climate protection, tribal energy, and solar energy, while funding for fossil and nuclear energy was increased. And
some programs, such as Weatherization Assistance Grants, and the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, were zeroed
out entirely.

Budgets for Renewable Energy are being cut considerably


The climate is taking a major hit in FY 2009 appropriations
John Neurohr, Deputy Press Secretary, February 8, 2008, Bush’s Energy Budget: Proposals Not Consistent with Claims
(http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/energy_budget.html)

$0: Proposed budget for the Renewable Energy Production Incentive program, which provides financial incentive
payments for electricity produced and sold by new qualifying renewable energy generation facilities. This is a 100
percent cut from the $5.0 million allocated in fiscal year 2008.
$6.9 million: Proposed cut to the hydropower program, whose purpose is to develop, conduct, and coordinate research
and development with industry and other federal agencies to improve the technical, societal, and environmental benefits
of hydropower, which includes wave, tidal, and traditional dam hydropower. This is a 70 percent cut from the fiscal year
2008 appropriations level.
$12.3 million: Proposed cut to the solar energy program, which works to accelerate the development of solar
technologies as energy sources for the nation and the world, as well as educate the public about the value of solar power
as an energy choice. This is a 7 percent cut from the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level.
$26.8 million: Increase in biomass and biorefinery systems R&D. This is a 13 percent increase from FY08 appropriations
and should be commended as an investment in low-carbon alternatives.
$10.2 million: Increase in geothermal technology. This is a 51 percent increase from FY08 appropriations and should also be
commended as an investment in low-carbon alternatives.

239
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

BRINK—WATER BUDGET

Water safety budget on the brink—major cuts.


Water Policy Report 2/18/08 Vol 17 No 4 “EPA URGES PRIVATE INVESTMENT TO CLOSE CLEAN WATER SRF
FUNDING GAP” Lexis [ev]

EPA is reiterating its call for private investment as a solution to shore up funding for wastewater infrastructure projects in
combination with "sustainability" practices the agency says could save money for municipalities, even as congressional
Democrats are blasting the Bush administration's proposed major cuts to federal infrastructure funding in fiscal year 2009.
The FY09 budget request, released Feb. 4, would fund the clean water state revolving loan fund (SRF) at $555 million, a
$134 million cut from the FY08 omnibus spending law that funded the program at $689 million. The budget request also
renews the administration's contentious push to remove a cap on the use of private activity bonds (PABs) -- tax exempt
bonds used for government partnerships with the private sector -- in order to increase water infrastructure funding

The latest EPA funding slashed water budget.


Bruce Geiselman, government affairs editor at Waste News, March 3, 2008, EPA funding fight looms, Waste News, COVER
STORY; Pg. 01, Lexis

It appears President Bush's proposed 2009 EPA budget will face tough challenges in the Senate, as Democrats and Republicans
alike criticized it Feb. 27 during an Environment Committee hearing with agency Administrator Stephen Johnson. One issue
that united both parties was anger over the administration's proposal to cut $134.1 million from the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund, which loans money to communities to upgrade their wastewater systems. ``This is another one of the hardest
hit programs, and it is heading in the wrong direction,'' said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate
Environment Committee. Her Republican counterpart, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who serves as the committee's ranking
member, agreed. Inhofe, normally a strong proponent of budget slashing, said this was one area in which the cuts are
unwarranted.

240
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

BRINK—WATER BUDGET

The Budget for the EPA slashes money allocated for water
Bruce Geilsman, staff writer for Waste News, March 3rd, 2008
http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4093746364&format=GN
BFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4093746367&cisb=22_T4093746366&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=224249&doc
No=3

It appears President Bush's proposed 2009 EPA budget will face tough challenges in the Senate, as Democrats and Republicans alike
criticized it Feb. 27 during an Environment Committee hearing with agency Administrator Stephen Johnson.
One issue that united both parties was anger over the administration's proposal to cut $134.1 million from the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund, which loans money to communities to upgrade their wastewater systems.
``This is another one of the hardest hit programs, and it is heading in the wrong direction,'' said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the
Senate Environment Committee.
Her Republican counterpart, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who serves as the committee's ranking member, agreed. Inhofe, normally a strong
proponent of budget slashing, said this was one area in which the cuts are unwarranted.
``As I have indicated, I will once again be supporting efforts to restore the large cut you proposed to the critical Clean Water SRF program,'' Inhofe
said. ``There is a nationwide crisis and a need for more water infrastructure money that is acknowledged by this administration.''
Compounding the lack of water infrastructure funding are the many costly new regulations being imposed on localities, Inhofe said.
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, accused the EPA of forcing unfunded mandates on local communities regarding their wastewater treatment systems.
``Continued cuts to the SRF program, when EPA estimates the nation's need for wastewater treatment and collection at $193.5 billion, makes no
sense,'' Voinovich said. ``This especially concerns me because my state of Ohio has one of the largest needs in the nation at $11.7 billion.''
Voinovich said the EPA is not stepping up to the plate to assist thousands of communities nationwide that are facing substantial costs to comply with
EPA orders.
``I must tell you that from my experience as a former mayor, county commissioner and governor, I consider this to be an unfunded mandate,''
Voinovich said. ``Administrator, we are asking our communities to do the impossible. If the federal government is going to impose these costly
mandates on struggling state and local governments, then it should provide funding and flexibility for compliance with these mandates.''
Voinovich also was critical of a nearly $15 million reduction in funding for the Great Lakes Legacy Act in fiscal year 2009. The program has been
paying for removal of contaminated sediment from the Great Lakes to improve water quality.
Boxer listed numerous programs she believes deserve additional funding, including the Superfund, underground storage tank and diesel emission
reduction grant programs.
Inhofe, while upset about the Clean Water State Revolving Fund cuts, also expressed frustration that other areas within the EPA budget aren't being
cut enough.
``After seven years, the Bush administration has failed to find any meaningful savings or wasteful spending in the EPA budget,'' Inhofe said. ``I find
it hard, if not impossible, to believe there are no programs that should be cut. The only significant cuts the administration ever proposes are the ever
popular and much needed SRFs and Congressional earmarks.''
Johnson, meanwhile, in prepared remarks defended the budget proposal, saying it ``meets the major priorities that I've set for my final year of
service.''
In particular, Johnson said, the budget would advance clean, affordable and safe energy, improve homeland security, improve water infrastructure
programs, and continue Superfund remediation ``of the most highly contaminated hazardous waste sites.''
However, it is important to achieve those goals while also demonstrating fiscal responsibility, Johnson said.

241
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Unique internal link:

No new spending in an election year—funding would trade off from other programs

JOHN STEPHEN, politician, Congressional candidate, Jul. 18, 2008 ("On energy costs, Washington offers no real answers"
www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Stephen%3A+On+energy+costs%2C+Washington+offers+
no+real+answers&articleId=58250a2c-89b0-4696-925a-977411675a71) [JWu]

Now, no Congress in its right mind would hike taxes in an election year, so that means that to keep these incentives for renewable
energy in place, Washington would have to do what the rest of America is doing to meet the rising costs of energy prices -- roll up
its sleeves and make the tough decisions on spending.

EPA’s budget is stretched to the limit—nanotech has filled any surplus.


Risk Policy report 7/1/08 Vol 15 No 27 “Amid Criticism Of EPA Nano Efforts, Cleanup R&D Program Wins Praise Risk
Policy Report July 1, 2008” Lexis [ev]

In its draft report, the BOSC subcommittee says the members "recognize that EPA's budget is constrained and that the
agency must stretch to meet the needs of its clients," adding that despite this budgetary limitation the program
"demonstrated an ability to respond to an emerging issue -- addressing potential materials management issues associated
with nanotechnology."

242
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Water Protection – uniqueness/brink

EPA BUDGET IS TIGHT—WATER PROTECTION MAY BE CUT

POLICY NEWS, 2-22-06 http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-


w/2006/feb/policy/cc_newfunding.html
Overall funding for EPA’s clean air and climate change programs would increase by $8 million to total $932 million. Programs
related to science and research would be cut by $10 million, to $119 million, and funds related to reducing greenhouse-gas
intensity would drop slightly to $110 million, according to EPA’s budget summary.
Bush has proposed a $200 million, or 23%, reduction from the $886 million Congress approved in FY ’06 for the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), a loan program for localities seeking to prevent sewage overflows and to implement
other storm-water-related improvements. Johnson says the CWSRF funding would provide “sufficient annual capitalization” to
make $3.4 billion available each year, enough to pay for the local projects that request funding. Congress normally restores
some of the presidential cuts to the SRF, although the federal share of CWSRF funding has been shrinking.
Because of numerous budget reductions, such as the CWSRF cut, state regulators are not happy with the budget. Steve
Brown, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States notes that mandatory state-run programs—including
monitoring air and water, developing plans to protect water bodies, and even enforcement—would be cut by $416
million. This exceeds the $390 million Bush proposes to cut from the entire EPA budget, Brown adds. —CATHERINE M.
COONEY

EPA's environmental enforcement is on the brink of collapse—under Bush, it's low priority
Eric Schaeffer, ex-director of EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, director of the Environmental Integrity Project at
the Rockefeller Family Fund, July/August 2002 "Clearing the air", washingtonmonthly.com/features
/2001/0207.schaeffer.html [JWu]

In a matter of weeks, the Bush administration was able to undo the environmental progress we had worked years to
secure. Millions of tons of unnecessary pollution continue to pour from these power plants each year as a result. Adding
insult to injury, the White House sought to slash the EPA's enforcement budget, making it harder for us to pursue cases
we'd already launched against other polluters that had run afoul of the law, from auto manufacturers to refineries, large
industrial hog feedlots, and paper companies. It became clear that Bush had little regard for the environment--and even less
for enforcing the laws that protect it. So last spring, after 12 years at the agency, I resigned, stating my reasons in a very
public letter to Administrator Whitman.
Enforcing environmental laws has never been easy. Even in the Clinton administration there were bureaucratic turf battles,
truculent congressmen, and relentless industry lobbyists to contend with. But hard work yielded progress; the job was
sometimes a headache, but I never doubted that we were having a positive effect. Under Bush, the balance has shifted, to a
degree few outside the bureaucracy may realize.
The administration's most obvious assaults on the environment have drawn fire. The press and environmental groups attacked
recent EPA rule changes that allow coal-mining companies to dump waste in valleys and streams, and when the EPA last year
overturned Clinton-era regulations to reduce arsenic in drinking water, the public reaction was so intensely negative that
Whitman eventually backed off. But these public efforts to roll back regulations are only half the story. Behind the scenes, in
complicated ways that attract less media attention (and therefore may be politically safer), the administration and its allies in
Congress are crippling the EPA's ability to enforce laws and regulations already on the books. As a result, some of the
worst pollution continues unchecked.

243
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

LWCF BRINK

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is on the brink of collapse


Environmental News Service, 2-5-08 (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-05-
05.asp)[JWu]
"The president's final budget deals a huge blow to the agencies and
programs charged with safeguarding our nation's natural
resources," she said. "The next administration will be burdened
with mending the damage caused by President Bush's disastrous
policies. "For example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the
principal source of funds for acquisition of lands for parks and
wildlife refuges, would be crippled by a budget cut of nearly $104
million, wiping out more than 67 percent of its funding," Clark
warned."

244
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Air Pollution Impacts


EPA cuts destroy anti-pollution enforcement

Rena Steinzor. Law at U Maryland Law, Member scholar of the Center for Progressive Regulation.
3-16, 2005. Center for American Progress.
www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=468713
Bush political appointees, many of them former industry lawyers and lobbyists, have pushed regulatory changes that
undercut our bedrock environmental laws. In its recent proposal to “protect” Americans from mercury poisoning, for
example, the administration offers a plan to allow polluters to trade pollution credits, thus practically guaranteeing
mercury “hotspots” in various pockets of the country where mercury pollution swells far beyond currently unacceptable
levels. (Sorry, Great Lakes region, but you lose the administration’s mercury lottery. See Professor Catherine O’Neill’s recent
article for an explanation.) Lost in the debate over the audacity of the administration’s plan is a large legal problem: the Clean
Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt the strongest possible controls that are technologically feasible,
and this doesn’t mean pollution-credit trading. The administration simply isn’t following the law.
Another approach has been to take the environmental cops off the beat, turning the EPA into a shadow of its former
self. The administration has simply ratcheted down enforcement efforts through budget cuts and inactivity, with the result
that it’s easier to get away with illegally polluting the nation’s air and water.

245
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Trade Off is Normal means

Bush is looking for any excuse to cut environmental funding

Rena Steinzor. Law at U Maryland Law, Member scholar of the Center for Progressive Regulation. 3-16, 2005. Center for
American Progress. www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=468713

Asked about his environmental record during the second presidential debate this fall, President Bush rattled off a series of
well focus-grouped phrases – “clean coal,” “clear skies,” and “mak[ing] sure our forests aren’t vulnerable to forest fires” –
and touted himself as a “good steward of the land.” The rhetoric ignored reality: during the president’s first term, the
administration took a dive on global climate change, flung open wilderness areas to drilling and logging, weakened air
and water pollution standards, starved cleanup and enforcement programs, and in a variety of other ways cast its lot with
polluters instead of the environment and public health.

EPA is low priority in Bush's budget—he's cut it before

The Washington Post. July 22 2001. http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Bush-Conquer-EPA.htm


[JWu]
The Bush administration is advancing a plan to cut federal environmental enforcement operations and to shift resources
to the states, despite mounting evidence that many states are unable or unwilling to enforce federal environmental laws
vigorously.
President Bush has proposed reducing the Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement staff in Washington and
regional offices by 8 percent, or 270 positions, while providing $25 million in new grants to the states for enforcement
activities.
Bush took office promising to provide states and local government with an enhanced role in managing and regulating natural
resources. Rather than seeking to perpetuate the EPA's aggressive enforcement policies under President Bill Clinton's
administration, Bush and his EPA administrator, Christie Todd Whitman, have called for reduced federal oversight and
intervention and have expanded cooperation between state environmental protection agencies and industry.

246
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Trade Off is Normal means

The EPA budget is scarce; funding for one plan is taken from cuts in lower-priority projects

William Ruckelhaus, EPA Administrator, A.B. (cum laude) from Princeton, L.L.B. from Harvard Law, ex-Deputy State
Attorney General, September 21st, 2007 "Goals v. funding" epa.gov/history/publications/ruck/16.htm [JWu]

MR. RUCKELSHAUS: You have to set priorities and defend them on the grounds of having the greatest social payoff.
Then keep saying, "Here is the money and manpower I have to carry out the responsibilities you insist on, here is why I
get the priorities the way I have. While I recognize my obligations, I don't have the resources to fulfill them."
Then you have an added complication: even though the administration isn't going to ask for the resources either, you have
to defend the administration's position and its unwillingness to carry out the mandate of the Congress. I used to combat this by
falling back on the game being played, which everybody understands. Congress lays on EPA more than they are capable of
doing. The administration doesn't ask for enough money to accomplish EPA's whole program because, frankly, there's
too much for any single agency to accomplish in the allowed timeframe. Members of Congress fail to testify on behalf of
more money for EPA, making it impossible for the agency to execute what Congress itself mandated. Then the administrator
appears before the committees and is attacked for not doing what he had no hope of doing in the first instance.
But when you repeat these steps back to the committees and remind them of your warnings of insufficient funding in previous
testimony, they don't say anything; they calm down. They know you understand what's going on, and they have to be quiet or
face further embarrassment from you.
When I returned to EPA after ten years absence, I faced the same thing. I told Congress, "I'll show you the testimony I gave ten
years ago in which I said this was going to happen; and now it has." In the EPA job, you will miss deadlines and have
assignments you can't carry out. It's all just a part of it. You do the best you can. But you are in a stronger position to do the
best you can if you tell Congress ahead of time what you are going to do, what are the limitations on your capabilities, and then
keep pointing back to what you predicted.

CUTS ARE IMMINENT—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN THE EPA IS LOW PRIORITY

Rep. John D. Dingell, Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, February 4, 2008 ("Wynn blasts Bush EPA cuts"
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110nr192.shtml)[JWu]

Washington, DC –Congressmen Albert Wynn (D-MD), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous
Materials, said today that President Bush’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Budget would make drastic cuts to important
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs.
“The President’s FY 2009 budget requests $7.1 billion for the EPA. Compared to last year’s funding level enacted by Congress,
the Bush Administration’s budget proposal would dramatically cut spending by $400 million for environmental programs
that are pivotal to the protection of public health and safety,” Wynn said.
This devastating downward spiral in funding for environmental protection is even more significant when compared to
EPA’s authorized budget five years ago. Congress authorized $8.4 billion in spending for the EPA in Fiscal Year 2004. The
President’s budget request represents an incredible $1.3 billion cut from this level.
“National budgets should reflect our national priorities,” said Wynn. “Clearly, President Bush has not made
environmental protection a priority during the course of his Administration.”

247
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Trade Off is Normal means

FISCAL RESTRAINT MEANS NEW FUNDING COMES FROM EPA'S BUDGET


POLICY NEWS, 2-22-06 http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/feb/policy/cc_newfunding.html
President Bush has proposed $7.3 billion for the U.S. EPA’s overall budget for the 2007 fiscal year (FY ’07), marking a 4%
cut from its current funding. Bush asks Congress for $55 million more for the agency’s homeland-security efforts and shifts
money to expand research in nanotechnology and computational toxicology. Still, the agency’s Office of Research and
Development (ORD) would be cut slightly from what Congress approved last year. ORD programs have been reduced by 14%
over the past 3 years.
When he unveiled the budget to reporters on February 6, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said that all federal agencies
are “being called upon to exercise fiscal restraint.” Nonetheless, he added, the budget “maintains the goals laid out in
EPA’s strategic plan, while spending less.”

248
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Link – NASA SPENDING

NASA dollars trade off with the EPA


Christopher S. Bond, Senator, 03/10/2004. EPA Budget for FY2005 Hearing.
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=218919 [JWu]

At the same time we protect the environment and the family budget, we must be mindful of the federal budget. We on the
appropriations subcommittee funding EPA will get into the specifics of EPA's budget later this month. But the outlook for
VA/HUD looks particularly bleak.
• We must remember that EPA competes for dollars within the same appropriations subcommittee as NASA, the VA, and HUD.
Every new dollar spent on the environment is one dollar we cannot spend to provide healthcare to our veterans or shelter for
our homeless. Every time one of our colleagues suggest spending more money for an EPA program, each of us should think to
ourselves whether that is more important than VA medical care or homeless housing assistance grants.

249
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

EPA=NM

EPA is the normal means actor for enforcing environmental legislation.


NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) Revised November 06, First Published October 2003, NIOSH
Safety Checklist Program for Schools “Chapter 1. Making Sense of Regulations” http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-
101/chap1.html [ev]

The EPA (http://www.epa.gov) is a Federal agency that promulgates and enforces regulations dealing with protection of
the environment and the general public. It covers areas such as collection and disposal of hazardous waste (including
regulated medical waste), air pollution, water pollution, drinking water quality, pesticides, solid waste, hazardous waste
sites, hazardous material releases that threaten the environment, asbestos in public schools, noise pollution, and many
other areas. EPA receives legislative direction from numerous acts or statutes. The most notable of these include: Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
(CAAA) Clean Water Act (CWA) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA
or Superfund) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Emergency Planning and Community Right
To Know Act as part of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

EPA is the agency charged with enforcing regulations.


US EPA 4/23/08 (Last Updated) “Enforcement Actions Under Title VI of the Clean Air Act”
http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/enforce/index.html [ev]

EPA has issued several regulations under Title VI of the Clean Air Act designed to protect the ozone layer and to provide
for a smooth transition away from ozone-depleting substances. EPA is also charged with enforcing these regulations. This
section of the web site will feature information about enforcement actions, ranging from civil fines to criminal
prosecutions. The Stratospheric Protection Division doesn't actually enforce the regulations; enforcement is performed
within EPA by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

250
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

EPA=NM

Normal means is EPA regulation by field officials.


US EPA 7/1/08 (Last Updated) “Introduction to Enforcement”
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/enforce.NSF/Our+Office/Introduction+to+Enforcement [ev]

There are many means of determining the compliance status of affected facilities. Direct inspection and testing by
government personnel is often the best, but also may be among the most costly means. Other means include: Routine self-
reporting requirements. Industries can be required to monitor routinely their own emissions or discharges, and report these
to the government. The best known example of such a program is the requirement that all persons holding a water pollution
discharge (NPDES) permit must file periodic Discharge Monitoring Reports with the federal or state government. A very substantial
portion of all water pollution enforcement cases are based upon information reported in such "DMRs." Under the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 and subsequent regulatory amendments, many types of facilities now have to install continuous emissions
monitors to keep track of what is coming out of their smokestacks. They will be obliged to report the data from these monitors, in
much the same way as NPDES permittees submit DMRs. Failure to monitor, or reporting of inaccurate information, are compliance
problems which must themselves be the subject of the overall enforcement strategy. If sanctions for false reporting are severe, and the
risk of detection is real, self-reporting is an effective compliance monitoring tool. A self-reporting program should therefore be
combined with a program of field audits by government personnel. Targeted information gathering. Instead of, or in addition to routine
self-monitoring obligations, EPA may require a business to carry out special self-testing, or to report other relevant information. EPA
may request submission of operating logs and financial records to show when pollution control equipment was purchased or installed,
how much and what type of fuel was used, what materials were utilized, etc. In most of the federal environmental laws, Congress has
granted EPA broad information gathering authorities of this sort, which can be used whenever noncompliance is suspected.
Increasingly, an enforcement case will not be commenced until an information letter has first been sent, in an effort to get the most
accurate information and minimize arguments about the facts. Citizen tips. Tips from citizens living near a facility, or even workers in
a facility, can be very valuable in identifying possible violators. The likelihood of receiving such tips is enhanced when government
publicizes the existence of environmental regulatory requirements, and makes available telephone "hotlines" for anonymous calls.
Some federal environmental statutes also provide legal job protection for "whistle-blowers," employees who report infractions by their
employers. Click here to submit a tip/complaint in EPA Region 10. Remote sensing. In today's high-tech age, a variety of
technological resources are available which can "stretch" EPA's limited inspection resources. For example, aerial photography or even
geophysical satellite data can disclose potential hazardous waste sites through the presence of distressed vegetation. An aerial photo-
history, showing changes over time, can disclose illegal filling of wetlands, or unauthorized landfills. Infrared photography can yield
clues to the location of industrial discharges (including thermal discharges) into waterways. EPA even developed a mobile laser beam
device for precise measurement of the opacity (density) of smoke plumes at night from afar. Self-Policing. EPA has developed several
policies intended to create incentives for regulated entities to identify and report their own violations. These are discussed further,
below, under AMitigation of Penalties to Encourage Self-Policing.@ Nevertheless, the mainstay of any compliance monitoring
effort will be government inspectors in the field. Intelligent targeting of limited inspection resources is therefore essential.

251
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

EPA=NM
It is the EPA’s job to regulated all aspects of the environment
Michael T. Olexa, Professor in the Department of Food and Resource Economics and Director of the Agricultural Law Center,
2004, (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FE452#copy)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established as an independent agency in the executive branch of the U.S.
government in 1970. EPA was created to regulate all aspects of the environment, especially the pollution of natural
resources. EPA is empowered to fulfill its purpose through many laws. These laws include RCRA (regulating the
disposal of solid and hazardous waste), CERCLA (providing for the cleanup of sites that pose a threat to human health
and the environment), FIFRA (regulating the use and disposal or pesticides), EPCRA (regulating planning for spills),
the ODA (regulating disposal into U.S. oceans and territorial waters), the CAA (regulating release of pollutants into the
atmosphere), and the CWA (regulating disposal into U.S. water bodies).

The EPA works with several different agencies to regulate the environment
John Veil, Head of Argonne National Laboratory, October 31, 2000, (http://web.ead.anl.gov/dwm/regs/federal/epa/
index.cfm)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA or the Agency) is entrusted with protecting human health and
safeguarding the natural environment—air, water, and land. The EPA works with other federal agencies, state and local
governments, and Indian tribes to develop and enforce regulations under existing environmental laws. The EPA, which
is responsible for researching and setting national standards for a variety of federal environmental programs, delegates to states
and tribes the responsibilities for issuing permits and monitoring and enforcing compliance. Where national standards are not
met, the EPA can issue sanctions and take other steps to assist the states and tribes in reaching the desired levels of
environmental quality. Programs not delegated to the states are managed through the EPA's regional offices. In addition to the
various Headquarters program offices, the EPA maintains 10 regional offices and 17 laboratories across the country.

The EPA enforces regulations for air pollution


EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, July 4th, 2008
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/airairpollution.html

There are many sources of air pollution, including automobiles, power plants, factories, small businesses and household products. Under the Clean
Air Act, the EPA develops and enforces rules and regulations for all entities that emit toxic substances into the air. The Agency works
with state, local and tribal governments, other federal agencies, businesses and community groups to implement and enforce its regulations. EPA also
partners with scientists to study the causes and effects of pollution and to develop environmentally beneficial alternatives to pollution-generating
processes.

The EPA enforces regulations for environmental laws


EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, July 3rd, 2008
http://www.business.gov/guides/environment/environmental-regulations/index.html
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state environmental agencies regulate the impact of businesses on the
environment.The EPA develops and enforces regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress.
Likewise, state agencies enforce regulations that implement laws enacted by the state legislature.
There are dozens of environmental regulations that apply to small businesses. The EPA and other agencies help small
businesses understand their specific requirements by publishing plain language guides that explain actions business owners
must take to comply with federal regulations. Similarly, most state governments provide similar guidance for laws enforced by
state environmental agencies.
This guide provides a collection resources available from the federal government that help business understand their
responsibilities under the nation's environmental laws.

252
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

EPA=NM

EPA enforcement is normal means for environmental law.


Richard Michael Price, Attorney at Nixon Peabody Attorneys at Law, 5/24/2000, “Lead-Based Paint Enforcement—
Federal Regulations” http://www.nixonpeabody.com/publications_detail3.asp?ID=16 [ev]

EPA’s authorization for lead-paint enforcement is primarily contained in Section 16 of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(“TSCA”). See 15 U.S.C. §2615 et seq. HUD’s authority, on the other hand, lies in the Residential Lead-Based Paint
Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (the “Lead Paint Act”). See 42 USC §4821 et seq. TSCA and the Lead Paint Act are
enforced by regulations published by EPA and HUD at 40 CFR Part 745 and 24 CFR Part 35, respectively (collectively,
the “Regulations”). The Regulations are nearly identical because the Lead Paint Act requires EPA and HUD to enforce
these overlapping laws jointly. Although neither the TSCA nor the Lead Paint Act are new, both HUD and the EPA have
recently begun significant initiatives aimed at enforcing the Regulations.

EPA is charged with enforcing environmental regulations.


San Francisco Department of Environmental Health September 06 “Safe Drinking Water Act & EPA Regulations”
http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/phes/water/FactSheets/drinkwater_reg.pdf pg 1

Drinking water standards The EPA produces two sets of standards: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and Nat
ional Secondary Water Regulations. Secondary Water Regulations are non‐enforceable standards that affect the taste, odor,
and cosmetic affects of water. Primary Drinking Water Regulations are enforceable standards of drinking water quality tha
t are based on public health principes. Many steps are necessary before a standard is finalized. For most contaminants and
disinfection byproducts, the EPA sets maximum contaminant goals (MCLG). These are non‐enforceable goals that are cre
ated by defining the level of a contaminant that would cause no harm and then adding a margin of afety to level. In some c
ases the MCLG of a contaminant may be set to zero because even a tiny amount is enough to cause disease. In other cases
the levels are higher. When different populations are more or less susceptible to the effects of a contaminant, the levels are
set to protect the most vulnerable population. MCLs are enforceable versions of the MCLG, set as close as possible to the
MCLG. When setting the MCL the EPA considers available treatment and detection technology, and the costs and benefits
associated with achieving the goal. Water Quality Monitoring Drinking water standards specify the levels of contaminant
s, disinfection agents, and disinfection byproducts that are allowed in drinking water. Water utilities are required to monito
r their water for chemical and microbial contaminants, and for levels of disinfectant and disinfection byproducts. Monitor
ing results must be reported to the state or to the EPA. The SDWA gives the EPA legal powers to enforce water quality sta
ndards. The EPA currently requires drinking water to be monitored for 90 contaminants. The EPA also keeps a list of cont
aminants that may have adverse heath effects and may be regulated in the future. SFPUC water meets all current EPA stan
dards.

253
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

LINK: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES

Energy Incentives Involve Massive Administration Costs


UNEP ‘2 [Reforming Energy Subsidies, http://www.uneptie.org/energy/publications/pdfs/En-SubsidiesReform.pdf]

Practical considerations may mean that a subsidy that looks good on paper is, in fact, a bad idea. There are two aspects to this.
One, the country may simply not be able to afford the subsidy if it involves large financial transfers from the national treasury.
Two, it may not be feasible to administer the subsidy in a way that does not involve large administration costs including the
resources required to monitor, prevent and deal with abuse. Subsidy programmes involving cash payments to producers or
consumers are notoriously expensive to administer, since the authorities need to verify that each recipient is entitled to the
money. Cheating can be commonplace. For example, subsidized kerosene and LPG have been diverted to transport uses in
several countries, including Ecuador and India, depriving the poor of the fuel and causing safety problems.

254
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

LINK: CAP AND TRADE

Cap and Trade Involves Substantial Administration Costs


ITS Global ‘7 [August, Australian APEC Study Centre, The Development Costs of the Stern Review Findings,
http://www.apec.org.au/docs/07_SR.pdf]
In the case of the SO 2 program, every large emitter has to install a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS). The
CEMS provides nearly continuous data (every 15 minutes) on the SO 2 emissions at each emitting facility to the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The data are transmitted to the EPA automatically in electronic format. Smaller
emitters are allowed to install cheaper monitoring systems but they are less accurate. Their estimated emissions have to be
reported to the EPA via additional equipment and specific software and are subsequently evaluated by the EPA for accuracy and
non-compliance. In both cases the EPA carries out site inspections and annual performance audits. In the light of this
experience, we can be confident that the costs of administration and compliance for a carbon tax or emissions permit regime
are likely to be very substantial compared to the income transfers that will be generated for governments via carbon tax
revenues or sales of emission permits. These costs are likely to be even more substantial for developing countries that have
relatively immature or underdeveloped systems of public administration, particularly in the areas of environmental monitoring,
accounting and enforcement (Greenspan Bell 2006). . For these reasons, our estimates of the relevant income transfers are
likely to underestimate their associated deadweight losses due to the combination of tax interaction effects, public
administration costs and private compliance costs.

255
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

LINK - GHG REGULATION

EPA is required by law to regulate emissions AND has to divert resources to do so.
National Journal 4/11/08 “Vanishing Act” http://www.nationaljournal.com/njcover.htm [ev]

However, in April 2007, the Supreme Court ruled [PDF] that the Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate greenhouse gases
emitted by cars and trucks if agency scientists determine that the pollutants are a danger to the public. Responding to the
decision, EPA took seven months trying to pull together a regulatory program. It spent $5.3 million on contractor services
and dedicated 53 EPA employees to the project, which concluded that the gases are dangerous. The agency then drafted a
300-page proposal to regulate those emissions. In early December, the documents were sent to the White House and to
other federal agencies for review.

Large Transaction and Administrative Costs for GHG Regulation

Edward Vine & Jayant Sathaye, Energy Analysis Program ­ @ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ’97 [MERV Issues and 


Methodologies, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUT26/$File/merv­ch4.pdf]
These problems point out the difficulty of establishing a credible baseline. One could broaden the monitoring domain to
include, for example, leakage and off-site baseline changes. Widening the system boundary, however, will most likely entail
greater MERV transaction costs. Transaction costs are the costs incurred by the people responsible for monitoring, reporting,
evaluating, and verifying climate change mitigation projects. These costs include not only out-of-pocket expenditures, but also
opportunity costs (e.g., the lost time (delay) and resources (e.g., money and managerial attention) that could have been
devoted to the next best opportunity for that participant (Dudek and Weiner 1996). We revisit these issues later in this paper
(Section 3.3.1), but warn the reader that these questions may have to be resolved through an international consensus, rather
than addressed through the guidelines or protocols.

Large costs Involved in Creating New Emissions Regulation

Edward Vine & Jayant Sathaye, Energy Analysis Program ­ @ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ’97 [MERV Issues and 


Methodologies, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUT26/$File/merv­ch4.pdf]
In DOE’s Voluntary Reporting Program, the guidelines do not discuss institutional issues; however, in
the analysis of the results of the 1995 project data, DOE described some institutional barriers to the evaluation of projects,
such as limited expertise in emissions estimation and the limited availability of data within the reporting organization:
“Organizations rarely collect information on greenhouse gas emissions, and they have no reason to develop corporate expertise
in estimating emissions. Reporters must start from scratch in collecting underlying operating data and developing expertise in
estimating emissions on the basis of operating data.” (DOE 1996a)

Monitoring Involves Clear Costs

Edward Vine & Jayant Sathaye, Energy Analysis Program ­ @ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, ’97 [MERV Issues and 


Methodologies, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUT26/$File/merv­ch4.pdf]

Conducting MERV activities is not inexpensive. For example, based on the experience of U.S. utilities and energy service
companies, monitoring and evaluation activities can easily account for 5- 10% of a project’s budget (see Meier and Solomon
1995; Raab and Violette 1994). Similarly, carbon monitoring efforts require specialized equipment, methods and trained
personnel that can be expensive for individual organizations to procure and maintain, and can result in similar percentage
expenditures (MacDicken 1996; Ravindranath and Bhat 1997). The cost will vary by size of area, scope of project, variation
within and between land use types, type of monitoring, and amount of training required.

256
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

LINK—NUCLEAR POWER

Safety standards make nuclear power MOST expensive to regulate.


Kenneth L. Mossman, Professor of health physics in the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University in Tempe,
Environmental Health Perspectives, Jan, 2003, (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYP/is_1_111/ai_98539769)

Nuclear regulations are a subset of social regulations (laws to control activities that may negatively impact the
environment, health, and safety) that concern control of ionizing radiation from radiation-producing equipment and
from radioactive materials. The impressive safety record among nuclear technologies is due, in no small part, to the
work of radiation safety professionals and to a protection system that has kept pace with the rapid technologic
advancements in electric power generation, engineering, and medicine. The price of success, however, has led to a
regulatory organization and philosophy characterized by complexity, confusion, public fear, and increasing
economic costs. Over the past 20 years, regulatory costs in the nuclear sector have increased more than 250% in
constant 1995 U.S. dollars. Costs of regulatory compliance can be reduced sharply, particularly when health and
environmental benefits of risk reduction are questionable. Three key regulatory areas should be closely examined
and modified to improve regulatory effectiveness and efficiency: a) radiation protection should be changed from a risk-
based to dose-based system; b) the U.S. government should adopt the modern metric system (International System of
Units), and radiation quantities and units should be simplified to facilitate international communication and public
understanding; and c) a single, independent office is needed to coordinate nuclear regulations established by U.S. federal
agencies and departments. Key words: dose, economic costs, nuclear regulations, radiation quantities, regulatory
framework, risk.

257
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

LINK: REBATES

Rebates Involve Substantial Costs


DOE ‘8 [Feb 29, State Energy Alternatives, http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/rebates.cfm]

Depending on the size of the rebate program, administrative costs usually run 10%-20%. Public awareness and advertising
expenses tend to be a significant budget item in rebate programs.

Monitoring and evaluation are important in rebate programs. Tracking the number of appliance purchases and the number of
old appliances recycled helps program personnel total the emissions reduced and energy saved. Allowing consumers the
flexibility to use the installers they choose makes the program easier to administer. Creating a list of approved contractors can
be time-consuming and perceived by consumers as restrictive.

258
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

LINK - RPS

RPS Involves Large Administrative Oversight

Jan Hamrin et. al, @ Center For Research Solutions, ‘2 [June, Center for Renewable Energy Development, Renewable Energy Policy 


Options for China: A Comparison of Renewable Portfolio Standards, Feed­in Tariffs, and Tendering Policies, http://www.resource­
solutions.org/lib/librarypdfs/IntPolicy­Feed­in_LawsandRPS.pdf]
An RPS is highly compatible with both regulated and competitive electricity markets; whereas feed-in laws are more
appropriate in a regulated setting where absolute competitive parity is not required. Under a competitive electricity market,
feed-in laws are only competitively neutral if applied to regulated elements of the industry or if a cost recovery and sharing
mechanism is developed. Concerns over the compatibility of feed-in tariffs with electricity liberalization has led several
European nations to consider abandoning or phasing out such systems over time in favor of an RPS. On the other hand, a fully
implemented RPS requires a strong and effective administration and enforcement mechanism to validate trades in
renewable energy credits and enforce compliance. Without such an advanced administrative mechanism, a fully implemented
RPS cannot function appropriately. Feed-in tariffs do not require as complex and sophisticated administration.

RPS Difficulties Requires Complex System For Montioring/Enforcement

Jan Hamrin et. al, @ Center For Research Solutions, ‘2 [June, Center for Renewable Energy Development, Renewable Energy Policy 


Options for China: A Comparison of Renewable Portfolio Standards, Feed­in Tariffs, and Tendering Policies, http://www.resource­
solutions.org/lib/librarypdfs/IntPolicy­Feed­in_LawsandRPS.pdf]
The design, administration, and enforcement of feed-in tariffs are relatively simple, and significant experience exists in other
nations from which to garner useful experience. The RPS is a much younger concept. While experience in the design and
administration of an RPS is increasing rapidly throughout the world, there are only a few successful examples that have more
than one year’s experience, making the design, administration, and enforcement task a more difficult one for countries now
developing an RPS. From a contractual and transaction cost perspective, fixed feed-in tariffs with standardized interconnection
requirements, contract terms, and conditions can also simplify negotiations and speed the development and contracting process
for renewable generators relative to an RPS strategy. Tendering policies can be relatively simple in design, but are usually
accompanied by a separate system to collect monies to pay for the incremental costs of the renewable energy. In addition,
tendering policies need to be regularly reviewed and modified to ensure that they are achieving goals. Overall, tendering and
RPS strategies are more complex to implement than feed-in tariffs.

259
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

LINK: TAX INCENTIVES

Tax Incentives Involve High Administrative Costs - Tracking

David Clement et al., Consultant to the Center for Resource Solutions, ‘5 [June 17, International Tax Incentives for Renewable
Energy, http://www.resource-solutions.org/lib/librarypdfs/IntPolicy-Renewable_Tax_Incentives.pdf]

Investment tax incentives also often apply to smaller, customer-sited applications of renewable energy. These incentives are
typically awarded for renewable energy systems or equipment installed onsite to supply residential or commercial buildings.
Often, the cost of installing the equipment (in addition to the equipment cost itself) is included in the calculation of the tax
incentive. Since installation costs for these systems can be a significant percentage of the total costs, including installation in
the tax credit provides a stronger incentive to consumers and businesses to purchase these systems. Though some states and
countries have considered applying production-based tax incentives for these smaller systems, it is generally recognized that
the administrative costs of tracking production are significant; as a result, most income tax incentives offered for customer-
sited systems have remained investment-based. Tax incentives are offered for the purchase of renewable energy systems and
equipment by many states and countries.

260
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

TERROR=FIRST TO GO

The EPA’s homeland security program is funded with reallocations.


J.P. Suarez EPA's assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 4/26/03 Statement in
U.S. Newswire, “EPA Statement by Suarez; Correcting the Record: EPA's Role in Homeland Security, Enforcement and
Personal Protection” Lexis [ev]

"Since September 11, 2001 our government has experienced an enormous increase in the need to protect its citizens
from acts of terrorism. Agencies across the government came together and established an effective, strong homeland security
presence. EPA responded immediately and continues to play a critical role in homeland protection. EPA's strategic
plan for homeland security was held up as a model for other Agencies and Departments. Every EPA program and
region has reallocated some of its resources to address important and essential homeland security functions.
"EPA's focus since September 11 has been to support our nation's effort at combating domestic threats while at the same time
ensuring that enforcement of environmental crimes continues. Homeland security is a critical new aspect of EPA's
mission, and we have dedicated resources to support this essential effort. At the same time we continue to achieve
significant success in prosecuting environmental crimes -- in fact, EPA's enforcement numbers in several categories are at
an all time high.

261
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

REGULATIONS KILL TERROR

Regulations and counter-terrorism draw from the same pool of officials.


J.P. Suarez EPA's assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 4/26/03 Statement in
U.S. Newswire, “EPA Statement by Suarez; Correcting the Record: EPA's Role in Homeland Security, Enforcement and
Personal Protection” Lexis [ev]

"EPA continues to produce significant environmental results for the American people through its enforcement program, as
is evidenced by the more than 674 cases initiated last year alone. At the same time, EPA is proud to have the many
professional enforcement officials who could, did, and are stepping in to fulfill the counter-terrorism protection role for
the nation following September 11, 2001."

262
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

REGULATIONS COSTLY

Regulations are expensive for the EPA to deal with.


David Schoenbrod Professor of Law at New York Law School and Former-Senior Attorney for the National Resources
Defense Council 2004 Cato Regulation “Why States, Not EPA, Should Set Pollution Standards”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n4a.html [ev]

At its pinnacle is a thick volume of statutes in fine print. Under this volume is a stack more than two-feet high, also in fine
print, of EPA regulations. The EPA regulations are so lengthy, in part, because those who write them respond more to
pressures from the agency to enlarge and protect its power than to the public’s need for clear, concise rules. The problem
is not that the agency is oversolicitous of environmental quality; it is that it is oversolicitous of itself. So, the regulations
construe the agency’s power overbroadly and then react to the obvious instances of overbreadth by providing narrowly
defined exclusions and variances. Thus, under a statute regulating the handling of hazardous wastes, the agency takes
seventeen pages to define the concept of "hazardous waste"—the definition reads as if written by Monty Python’s John
Cleese.

Strict regulations destroy EPA flexibility.


David Schoenbrod Professor of Law at New York Law School and Former-Senior Attorney for the National Resources
Defense Council 2004 Cato Regulation “Why States, Not EPA, Should Set Pollution Standards”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n4a.html [ev]

The Framers of the Constitution envisioned states serving as laboratories in which different policies would be tried and
compared. State-by-state experiment, however, disappears with federal mandates. Yet experiment is what we need.
Scholars from diverse political perspectives have suggested pollution taxes, emissions trading, greater reliance on the
common law, and other radical alternatives to Washington’s command-and-control approach. Others, such as former EPA
administrator William Ruckelshaus, have criticized the federal approach under which there are separate regulatory
schemes for air pollution, water pollution, and so on. They suggest, instead, that plans be looked at holistically because
this approach often can produce better overall environmental quality at lower costs, implying flexibility at the local level.
Such innovation, however, threatens the EPA with its worst nightmare—loss of control. So, while the EPA feels compelled
to experiment, it hedges innovative programs with so much red tape that flexibility is largely illusory. States, on the other
hand, are more open to real experimentation; and it makes more sense to experiment on the state level.

EPA regulations are costly and expansive.


National Journal 4/11/08 “Vanishing Act” http://www.nationaljournal.com/njcover.htm [ev]

Holmstead notes that EPA is never particularly popular with business. "When I was in the EPA air office, it was hard to
find a U.S. industry that we didn't regulate," he said. "What EPA does is impose very expensive regulations on the
business community. Therefore, EPA is viewed with a little more skepticism perhaps than some of the other agencies."
Every White House keeps a close eye on the agency for fear that its regulators will ignore the economic costs of
environmental protection, Holmstead said, adding, "EPA may not be well suited to understand the overall picture, so there
needs to be a counterbalance within the administration."

263
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

REGULATIONS COSTLY

Regulations cost the EPA.


David Schoenbrod Professor of Law at New York Law School and Former-Senior Attorney for the National Resources
Defense Council 2004 Cato Regulation “Why States, Not EPA, Should Set Pollution Standards”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n4a.html [ev]

Accountability With the national takeover, democratic accountability goes by the boards for three reasons. First, the
massive job of controlling the nation’s environment from Washington encourages Congress to delegate its policy-making
responsibilities to the EPA. As a result, environmental policies are made by bureaucrats rather than officials who are
directly accountable to voters. Second, voters cannot effectively hold national officials accountable for how they resolved
local environmental disputes. Third, federal mandates give federal legislators and the president the means to take credit
for the benefits of environmental programs while placing blame for any ensuing costs on state and local officials. Popular
revulsion at such federal opportunism resulted in the passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The act is
an attempt to keep Congress from imposing mandates on state and local governments without providing the necessary
funds to implement them. In other words, if Washington politicians take credit for the benefits promised by a new
mandate, they must also take responsibility for ensuing costs. But, as is well known, the act leaves in place all preexisting
mandates, including the entire corpus of federal environmental law. The national environmental laws are chiefly
regulatory mandates and sometimes tax mandates. For instance, Title V of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, which
require air-polluters to secure permits from states, turns out to be a mandate to tax. Under Title V, states must charge
permit fees at a level that the EPA deems sufficient to fund the bulk of the state’s air-pollution control program, not just
the cost of issuing the permit as the EPA suggests. Prior to 1990, most polluters did not have to get permits, yet they still had to comply with emission
limitations. Before the statute, state pollution officials had to get approval for their budgets from state legislators who also had to take responsibility for the taxes needed
to fund the budgets. After the statute, unelected federal officials supplanted much of the budgetary and taxing authority of elected state officials. The State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators Association and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, whose funding comes partly from the EPA,
vigorously supported the federal mandate for permits and support federal mandates in general.

Enforcing regulations is hugely expensive.


Lynn Scarlett B.A., M.A. polisci U Cal, Exec Director and VP of Research At Reason Public Policy Institute 1994 Cato
Regulation “‘After Environmentalism’ Off Base” www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg17n3-scarlett.html [ev]

First, both command and control and market-based approaches involve centralized, political goal-setting. Under such
decision processes, whether setting centralized standards or specifying fees, central goal-setting produces "winners" and
"losers." And that implies conflict-the sort of "highly adversarial" processes that Mr. Kellogg seems to suggest are
peculiar to command and control. Recent deliberations in California on its tradable emissions program-regarding what
baseline emissions to use for establishing credits, what counts as a credit, etc.-demonstrate just how contentious such
market-based approaches can be. Second, depending on the particular policy design and the targeted problem, market-
based approaches can also involve as high, or even higher, monitoring costs than some command and control regulations.
Indeed, one of the driving forces behind the "technology-mandate" approach of command and control measures is that
compliance can be easily determined: either the regulated firm has, or has not, put in place the required technology. By
contrast, some market-based approaches can require complex, ongoing measurement of emission outputs, constant
restructuring of fees, and monitoring of fee compliance (which can involve significant reporting and auditing).

264
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

FUNDING KEY

Massive funding key to ensure safe drinking water.


US EPA 2008 “FY 2008 Annual Plan” http://www.epa.gov/budget/2008/2008ap/2008_annual_plan.pdf pg 17 [ev]

Drinking Water During FY 2008, EPA, the states and community water systems will build on past successes while
working toward the FY 2008 goal of assuring that 90 percent of the population served by community water systems
receives drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards. To promote compliance with drinking water
standards, states carry out a variety of activities, such as conducting onsite sanitary surveys of water systems and working
with small systems to improve their capabilities. EPA will work to improve compliance rates by providing guidance,
training, and technical assistance; ensuring proper certification of water system operators; promoting consumer awareness
of drinking water safety; maintaining the rate of system sanitary surveys and onsite reviews; and taking appropriate action
for noncompliance. To help ensure that water is safe to drink, the FY 2008 President’s Budget requests $842 million for
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.

Funding key to water pollution.


US EPA 2008 “FY 2008 Annual Plan” http://www.epa.gov/budget/2008/2008ap/2008_annual_plan.pdf pg 17 [ev]

Clean Water In FY 2008, EPA will work with states to continue progress toward the clean water goals to implement core
clean water programs, including innovations that apply programs on a watershed basis, and to accelerate efforts to
improve water quality on a watershed basis. Building on the progress toward clean water achieved over the past 30 years,
EPA is working with states and Tribes to implement the Clean Water Act by focusing on: scientifically sound water quality
standards; effective water monitoring; strong programs for controlling nonpoint sources of pollution; and strong discharge
permit programs. The Agency’s request continues the monitoring initiative begun in 2005 to strengthen the nationwide
monitoring network and complete the baseline water quality assessment of lakes and streams. These efforts will result in
scientifically defensible water quality data and information essential for cleaning up and protecting the nation’s waters.
Progress in improving coastal and ocean waters documented in the National Coastal Condition Report will be maintained
by focusing on: assessing coastal conditions; reducing vessel discharges; implementing coastal nonpoint source pollution
programs; managing dredged material; and supporting international marine pollution control. EPA will continue to
provide annual capitalization to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). The FY 2008 President’s Budget
provides $688 million and will allow EPA to meet the Administration’s Federal capitalization target of $6.8 billion total
for 2004-2011 and enable the CWSRF to eventually revolve at a level of $3.4 billion.

265
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Clean Water Trade Off

EPA, key to water security, has a limited budget, and water security is low priority
Brock Meeks, award-winning journalist, chief Washington correspondent for MSNBC, Oct 23 03, "U.S water supply vulnerable",
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340643/ [JWu]

The Environmental Protection Agency is the government agency tasked with coordinating the water supply protection
efforts. An EPA representative told a congressional panel last year that the agency is putting together a manual to help water
authorities assess vulnerabilities as well as an emergency operations manual, which is due sometime in the middle of this year.
In addition, more coordinated information sharing networks are being established to link water officials electronically so that
information and warnings can be accessed quickly.
The EPA will spend $90.3 million this fiscal year on water-security issues, as set out in emergency legislation passed last
year. That compares with a scant $2.5 million the agency spent on bio-terrorism efforts in the fiscal year that ended Oct. 2001.
The National Infrastructure Protection Center run by the FBI sends out warning messages through the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, using that
organization as the water sector’s Information Sharing and Analysis Center. The ISAC acts as an early-warning system for water officials throughout the
country.
And a promising trend is developing: Jurisdictions are building in redundancy for their water infrastructure, according to Beering, who helped author
an interim report on domestic preparedness to potential terrorist attacks.
Luthy says that water systems should be interconnected to help ensure water quality “through application of multiple
barriers to contaminants in supply, treatment and distribution.” However, because the water distribution system is so
“fragmented” putting such a scheme into practice “has been a low priority unless prompted by chemical spill or natural
disaster,” Luthy wrote in a November editorial.
In addition, Luthy wrote, new technologies should be implemented to help trap contaminates at multiple points. This would
benefit large cities such as New York and San Francisco which currently rely on unfiltered water, which is a source of great
debate and some litigation in the water community. Those cities currently disinfect the water with chemicals such as chlorine.
The water industry is acting in a heightened state of alert in the post Sept. 11 era. Whether policy makers continue to provide
the funding for repairs, research and upgrades remains to be seen. And whether such efforts can be accomplished before a
major disaster strikes is anyone’s guess.

EPA budget cuts decrease clean drinking water


Christopher S. Bond, Senator, 03/10/2004. EPA Budget for FY2005 Hearing.
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=218919 [JWu]

Make no mistake, I believe there are vital programs at EPA we must fund to improve the environment. I have been a long-
standing supporter of helping local communities provide safe drinking water and clean their wastewater. The federal
government has imposed national water requirements with an estimated $500 billion funding shortfall. We cannot abdicate our
responsibility to help close this gap.
• So I am disappointed yet again to see the green eyeshades at OMB cutting the Clean Water SRF. I am also disappointed with
cuts to the Section 319 nonpoint source water program. Farms helped with USDA money are not the only contributors to
nonpoint source pollution, so we must also combat this environmental problem through the EPA budget.

Water security is low priority for policymakers

Brock Meeks, award-winning journalist, chief Washington correspondent for MSNBC, Oct 23 03, "U.S water supply vulnerable",
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340643/ [JWu]

The vulnerability of the nation’s water supply isn’t in the headlines, it’s in the details of the country’s 54,065 public and private
water systems. For years, experts have warned about the need to upgrade, repair and thoroughly assess the risk of terrorists
targeting the nation’s water supply and distribution channels. Yet most of those warnings have been ignored, under-funded or
relegated to the back burner as policy-makers addressed “more important” projects.

266
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Ent’l Justice Impact

Environmental relaxation disproportionately hurt minorities and the poor

Rep. John D. Dingell, Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, February 4, 2008 ("Wynn blasts Bush EPA cuts"
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110nr192.shtml)[JWu]

“Minority and low-income populations often live close to industrial zones, power plants and toxic waste sites,” Wynn
said. “These conditions have serious implications for the health and well being of people of color. For example, people of
color are three times more likely to be hospitalized or die from asthma and other respiratory illnesses linked to air
pollution. It is unconscionable for the Administration to shortchange the very programs aimed at addressing these
disparities.”

267
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Pollution trade off

EPA cuts will cause lead air pollution


Larry West, expert newsman, worked for CBS, ABC, CNBC Europe, CNET, founding news director at TechTV 12-7-06
("EPA may abandon health standards for lead air pollution"
http://environment.about.com/od/pollution/a/lead_pollution.htm)[JWu]

The Bush administration may eliminate health standards for lead air pollution that keep the lead out of gasoline—and out of the air—
according to a preliminary staff review released this week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This is one of the most startling pieces of environmental news to trickle out of Washington, D.C., in this era of jaw-dropping
regulatory pronouncements, because removing lead from gasoline is generally considered one of the most successful clean-air
strategies of the past 30 years.
Why Eliminate Lead Air Pollution Health Standards?
The EPA’s rationale for deregulating lead as an air pollutant is like a case study for convoluted logic. Basically, the EPA says that
concentrations of lead in the air have dropped more than 90 percent since 1976, when the agency started regulating the toxic heavy
metal as an air pollutant, and now argues that its success in keeping lead out of the air through regulation may justify taking lead off
the list of air pollutants the agency is required to regulate. Huh?
Instead of the usual “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach, the EPA seems to be contemplating the less common “if it’s working, then
break it” strategy.
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who will take over as chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform when Congress
convenes in January, urged EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to “renounce this dangerous proposal immediately” and said “this
deregulatory effort cannot be defended.”

EPA key to air quality and decreasing air pollution

Larry West, expert newsman, worked for CBS, ABC, CNBC Europe, CNET, founding news director at TechTV 5-19-08
("EPA rule change would increase air pollution in national parks" http://environment.about.com/b/2008/05/19/epa-rule-
change-would-increase-air-pollution-in-national-parks.htm)[JWu]

Opponents to change are worried that weakening the rules that govern air quality in national parks and wilderness areas will increase
air pollution and decrease visibility in many places that are already threatened. According to the National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA), an advocacy group, one in three national park sites has air pollution levels that exceed health standards set by
the EPA, and yet the agency seems determined to implement a rule that will make that situation worse.
"It's like if you're pulled over by a cop for going 75 miles per hour in a 55 miles-per-hour zone, and you say, 'If you look at how I've
driven all year, I've averaged 55 miles per hour,' " said Mark Wenzler, director of clean-air programs for the NPCA, in an interview
with The Washington Post. "It allows you to vastly underestimate the impact of these emissions."
Jim Renfro, an air resources specialist at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, told The Post that the park no longer meets federal
smog standards, which is a public health issue, and visibility on summer days is 15 miles, down from the previous 80 miles.
"There are some days when it's unhealthy to breathe at the park, so that's a major concern. People come here to get away, and they
can't believe that sometimes they're better off where they came from," Renfro said. "We've got a long way to go."

268
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Pollution trade off

Decreasing EPA funding kills pollution enforcement

The Washington Post. July 22 2001. http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Bush-Conquer-EPA.htm [JWu]


Some states, including Arizona, Delaware and Missouri, have aggressive -- and successful -- environmental enforcement
programs. But the EPA's inspector general and analyses of EPA data by the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy
organization, have documented widespread lapses by many other states' enforcement of federal clean water and clean air
laws.
Environmentalists, Democrats in Congress and federal regulators are citing the conclusions to question the Bush
administration's plans to shift responsibilities to the states.
VIOLATIONS UNREPORTED
The EPA's inspector general said in a September 1998 audit that six states failed to report numerous serious violations of
the Clean Air Act, as they are required to do. While performing more than 3,300 inspections, Arkansas, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Washington state reported only 18 significant violations. While reviewing a
small portion of those 3,300 inspections, the EPA turned up an additional 103 serious violations.
Other states have failed to report serious violations of federal pollution laws, allowed major industrial polluters to
operate without proper permits and failed to conduct basic emissions tests of industry smokestacks, according to the
studies.
The EPA and the Justice Department can step in if they conclude a state isn't doing an adequate job. But with only 3,537
lawyers, investigators and staff involved in enforcement and oversight activities nationwide, the EPA is stretched thin.
"The president's cuts take the environmental cop off the beat, and it creates a devastating blow to EPA's ability to
enforce clean air, clean water and hazardous waste laws," said Rep. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., one of several dozen
Democrats in the House of Representatives who are battling the cuts as Congress considers the EPA's budget for the coming
year.

Air pollution causes stroke, heart disease, and death

American Heart Association, 07 (based on newest date in article, "Air pollution, heart disease, and stroke."
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419)[JWu]
Exposure to air pollution contributes to the development of cardiovascular diseases (heart disease and stroke).
A person’s relative risk due to air pollution is small compared with the impact of established cardiovascular risk factors such as
smoking, obesity, or high blood pressure. However, this is a serious public health problem because an enormous number
of people are exposed over an entire lifetime.
Background
Until May of 2004, the American Heart Association had not issued any expert reviewed statement about the short-term and
long-term effects of chronic exposure to different pollutants. This was due to flaws in research design and methodology of
many pollution studies. During the last decade, however, epidemiological studies conducted worldwide have shown a
consistent, increased risk for cardiovascular events, including heart and stroke deaths, in relation to short- and long-term
exposure to present-day concentrations of pollution, especially particulate matter.
Elderly patients, people with underlying heart or lung disease, lower socioeconomic populations and diabetics may be at
particularly increased risk. More research is needed to find out the differential toxicity of various constituents of air pollution.

269
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Toxic Waste

EPA funding cuts from toxic waste cleanup

Rep. John D. Dingell, Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, February 4, 2008 ("Wynn blasts Bush EPA cuts"
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110nr192.shtml)[JWu]

The Superfund program would also suffer under the President’s FY09 Budget request. At a time when progress on
remediating sites has fallen dramatically, funding for remedial actions at these sites would be cut by $4.5 million. It is well
documented that there is not enough funding for sites requiring cleanup.
“By EPA’s own estimation, one in four Americans lives within four miles of a Superfund site,” Wynn added. “There are
numerous toxic waste sites on the National Priorities List where cleanup has been delayed due to a lack of funds. The cuts
to the remedial program proposed in the President’s FY 2009 cuts would exacerbate this problem.”

Clean water is key to public health

Robert M. Anderson, senior counsel at the law firm of LeBouef, Lamb, Greene, & MacRae LLP; and Paul C. Freeman, Esq.,
an associate at LeBouef, Lamb, Greene, & MacRae, Jan/Feb 05 (Waste and Wastewater Products, Vol 5, No 1, http://www.wwn-
online.com/articles/50916/)[JWu]

Immediately following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the city of New York and a group of federal,
state, and local authorities took steps to secure and maintain the city's lifeline: its drinking water supply system. The Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the state and city of New York quickly negotiated an
agreement to evaluate restrictions on access to the city's drinking water facilities and to strengthen measures to prevent biological,
chemical, and radiological contamination. The swift action taken in the days that followed 9/11's horror and chaos underscores the
critical importance of water resources to public health and our collective psyche.

270
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Air Pollution Impacts

Increased air pollution causes thousands of deaths and costs billions

Larry West, expert newsman, worked for CBS, ABC, CNBC Europe, CNET, founding news director at TechTV
10-2-07 (http://environment.about.com/b/2007/10/02/epa-decision-on-air-quality-may-cause-24000-deaths-
annually.htm)[JWu]

As many as 24,000 Americans could lose their lives every year because of the EPA’s refusal to follow the advice of medical
professionals to tighten U.S. air quality standards that control soot, dust and other particulate matter, by allowing one less microgram
per cubic meter of air annually, according to a cost-benefit analysis released Friday.

The analysis also shows that the estimated $1.9 billion auto manufacturers, power plants, refineries and other companies would have
paid each year to implement tighter standards would have been eclipsed by up to $51 billion in annual savings on health care costs,
work and school attendance, and other benefits.

The EPA is not allowed to consider the cost of a new regulation—even though the agency is required to calculate the costs—but it is
required to consider the health benefits. Many studies have linked exposure to soot, dust and other particulate matter to respiratory and
cardiac disease and premature death.

Pollution is self reinforcing and destroys ecosystems

Michael Jacobs Senior Special Adviser to UK Prime Minister for environment, energy and climate change policy, head
of the Fabian Society, the UK's senior think tank. Ex-ESRC Research Fellow at London School of Economics and at the
Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University. 1991 "The Green Economy", pg 9 [JWu]

271
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Air Pollution Impacts


Pollution abatement programs hurt the US economy – reduction in GNP

Dale W. Jorgenson and Peter J. Wilcoxen, Profs – Econ, Harvard University 1990. “Environmental regulation and U.S. economic
growth.” RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 21 Issue 2, p314-340.

In Section 3 we show that pollution abatement has emerged as a major claimant on the resources of the U.S. economy. The long-run
cost of environmental regulation is a reduction of 2.59% in the level ofthe U.S. gross national product. This is more than 10% ofthe
share of total government purchases of goods and services in the national product during the period 1973-1985. Over this period, the
annual growth rate ofthe U.S. economy has been reduced by .191%. This is several times the reduction in growth estimated in
previous studies.

Lead is very toxic and causes severe nerve damage


Larry West, expert newsman, worked for CBS, ABC, CNBC Europe, CNET, founding news director at TechTV 12-7-06
("EPA may abandon health standards for lead air pollution"
http://environment.about.com/od/pollution/a/lead_pollution.htm)[JWu]

Lead is highly toxic and can cause severe nerve damage and impair physical and mental development, especially in children. Lead
also enters the atmosphere from coal, oil, iron and steel production; lead smelters; battery production; solid waste; and tobacco smoke.
Lead is one of six air pollutants the EPA is required to review every five years to make sure the health standards are tough enough to
protect the public. The other air pollutants are ozone, soot, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides.

272
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Pollution Enforcement

No EPA enforcement means no environmental regulation, allowing polluters to get off scot free

Eric Schaeffer, ex-director of EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, director of the Environmental Integrity Project at
the Rockefeller Family Fund, July/August 2002 "Clearing the air", washingtonmonthly.com/features
/2001/0207.schaeffer.html [JWu]

SHRINK THE POLICE FORCE. Environmental law, just like any other, is a dead letter if not enforced. The Bush administration's
first step was weakening the government's ability to uncover violations of important requirements like tailpipe emission standards.
Each year, about 25 million tons of smog-causing nitrogen oxide is released into the air, about half of it from cars, diesel trucks, and
construction equipment. For several years, the diesel engines of large long-haul trucks have been required to meet emission standards
with catalytic converters that clean exhaust gases. But manufacturers realized that they could beat the system by developing catalytic
converters that would run properly during EPA tests, but whose pollution controls could be turned off on the highway. In November
1998, EPA settled with nine diesel engine manufacturers--practically the entire industry--forcing the companies to spend about
$1 billion to phase out these illegal engines. It was a textbook example of how enforcement is supposed to work: The settlements
will eliminate about 1.3 million tons of illegal emissions a year, or about 10 percent of the total nitrogen oxide pollution from mobile
sources. But winning a settlement like that takes thousands of hours of staff time, and Bush's Office of Management and Budget
knows it. Cutting the enforcement budget by 13 percent, as President Bush has proposed, would hobble the EPA's ability to
uncover and stop such malfeasance.

273
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

EPA KEY

EPA key to solve terror


US EPA 2008 “FY 2008 Annual Plan” http://www.epa.gov/budget/2008/2008ap/2008_annual_plan.pdf pg 3 [ev]

The EPA’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Annual Performance Plan and the Congressional Justification requests $7.2 billion in
discretionary budget authority and 17,324 Full Time Equivalents (FTE). This request reflects the Agency’s efforts to work
with its partners towards protecting air, water, and land, as well as providing for EPA’s role in safeguarding the nation
from terrorist attacks. This request echoes the Administration’s commitment to setting high environmental protection
standards, while focusing on results and performance, and achieving goals outlined in the President’s Management
Agenda. The budget builds on EPA’s long record of accomplishments since its founding 37 years ago. The agency and
nation as a whole has achieved enormous successes. This budget builds on these successes by strengthening our
geographic initiatives, better leveraging our nation’s resources, strengthening citizen involvement, maintaining our
enforcement capabilities, and implementing the President’s commitment to efficiently manage Federal resources.
Homeland Security Following the cleanup and decontamination efforts of 2001, the Agency has focused on ensuring we
have the tools and protocols needed to detect and recover quickly from deliberate incidents. The emphasis for FY 2008 is
on several areas: decontaminating threat agents, protecting our water and food supplies, and ensuring trained personnel
and key lab capacities are in place to be drawn upon in the event of an emergency. Part of these FY 2008 efforts will
continue to include activities to implement a common identification standard for EPA employees

Even a small water terror attack could devastate America—the EPA is critical to protect us.
Georgetown Law Journal, April 03 “NOTE: A New Instrument in National Security: The Legislative Attempt to
Combat Terrorism via the Safe Drinking Water Act” 91 Geo. L.J. 927 Lexis [ev]

In January 2002, the FBI warned water officials that Osama Bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network had considered
attacking water distribution systems in the United States. 1 Public water systems could be attacked on multiple fronts,
ranging from the intentional contamination of a water supply to a physical attack on a treatment plant, distribution system,
or water source. Any attack on a public water system could be devastating: A strike on a chlorine disinfectant tank alone,
for example, could result in the release of an airborne toxic chlorine cloud which, depending on exposure levels, could
prove fatal for a widespread population. A 1998 Presidential Decision Directive listed our nation's water supply as one of
2

twelve areas critical to the functioning of the country that remained vulnerable to non-traditional attacks. 3 However, it
was not until the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on American soil that Congress exhibited a tangible interest in
protecting public water systems. To this end, Congress passed the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness
Response Act of 2002, which, among other things, made several amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA").
4

5
Known as the "Drinking Water Security and Safety amendments," these additions transformed the Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") into a key player in the development and enforcement of national security policies regarding
public water systems.

274
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

EPA KEY

Only the EPA has the authority to comprehensively regulate contaminants.


Georgetown Law Journal, April 03 “NOTE: A New Instrument in National Security: The Legislative Attempt to
Combat Terrorism via the Safe Drinking Water Act” 91 Geo. L.J. 927 Lexis [ev]

The SDWA was enacted in 1974, primarily as a public health statute, "to ensure that every person in this nation, wherever
they are, receives clean, safe drinking water every day." The SDWA regulates both underground sources of drinking
7

water and public water systems ("PWSs") in order to maintain acceptable drinking water quality standards. With
8 9 10

regard to underground water sources, the SDWA establishes an Underground Injection Control program to regulate
11

injection wells, which are used by many industries as a way of disposing cheaply of waste products. The EPA regulates
12

five different classes of injection wells under this program, with varying levels of control over each class depending upon
the type of waste and its proximity to an underground source of drinking water. With regard to the 168,190 PWSs falling
13

under its jurisdiction, the SDWA requires the EPA to promulgate National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in order to
regulate contaminants that may adversely affect public health. 14 Consequently, the EPA currently regulates eighty-seven
[*929] contaminants by establishing maximum contaminant levels and by requiring water treatment plants to employ
15

certain treatment techniques and monitor and report the results of these techniques. 16 The National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations apply to a variety of contaminants in water, including microbial, chemical, and radiological pollutants.
17
Prior to the Drinking Water Security and Safety amendments, the SDWA contained five major enforcement mechanisms.
18
First, SDWA section 1414 gives the EPA general authority to issue administrative orders or pursue injunctive or other
civil relief in response to PWS violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. 19 This provision enables the
EPA to enforce maximum contaminant levels and water treatment methods. Second, section 1432 provides for civil and
20

criminal penalties against any individual who tampers with or attempts to tamper with a PWS. Third, section 1445
21

enables the EPA Administrator (the "Administrator") to require PWSs to maintain records, make reports, conduct
monitoring, and provide information to the EPA as is reasonably required to ensure SDWA compliance. Fourth, section
22

1449 permits citizens to sue PWSs that violate the regulations promulgated under the SDWA. Finally, section 1431
23

provides the EPA unique emergency authority to pursue civil actions or issue administrative orders in cases where there
may be an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health based on a present or likely contamination of a PWS
or underground source of drinking water. To exercise authority under section 1431, the EPA must conclude that the
24

relevant state or local authorities have not adequately acted to protect public health and that a contaminant which is
present or likely to enter the system may cause an imminent and substantial endangerment to health. Once the EPA so
25

concludes, it may use section 1431 to respond to potentially dangerous situations that would otherwise go unaddressed
due to gaps in enforcement authority. [*930] For example, the EPA could use section 1431 to address contamination
26

caused by new industrial pollutants that are not yet subject to regulations but that may still cause health problems in the
population. Collectively, these five enforcement mechanisms empower the EPA to protect the public water supply from
27

regulated and, in some cases, unregulated contaminants that could threaten public health.

275
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

EPA KEY

Only the EPA has enough authority to protect water infrastructure.


Georgetown Law Journal, April 03 “NOTE: A New Instrument in National Security: The Legislative Attempt to
Combat Terrorism via the Safe Drinking Water Act” 91 Geo. L.J. 927 Lexis [ev]

The Drinking Water Security and Safety amendments also enhance the SDWA's emergency provision, section 1431, which
previously allowed the EPA to protect a water supply only in cases of imminent and substantial endangerment [*932] to
public health based on present or likely contamination. Revised section 1431 now permits the EPA to act when there is a
44

"threatened or potential terrorist attack" that presents an imminent and substantial danger to public health. 45 This
amendment changes the EPA's preexisting authority by allowing the EPA to act even when there is no actual
"contamination" of a water supply. In essence, the EPA now can act to protect both the water supply and its physical
46

infrastructure (such as pipes, distribution facilities, water collection, treatment and storage facilities) from any type of
terrorist or other intentional attack, regardless of whether the attack involves a contaminant or not. 47

276
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

EPA KEY
Only the EPA has the regulatory power necessary to protect water systems.
Georgetown Law Journal, April 03 “NOTE: A New Instrument in National Security: The Legislative Attempt to
Combat Terrorism via the Safe Drinking Water Act” 91 Geo. L.J. 927 Lexis [ev]

The EPA also has broad authority under section 1431 to issue administrative orders against states and innocent third
parties, subject to the "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review. This authority becomes relevant because [*943]
103

terrorism differs from the problems that the EPA has previously addressed using section 1431. It is doubtful that the EPA
would be able to hold a terrorist financially responsible for damages, as it would a typical respondent, such as an
industrial facility that leaked pollutants near a groundwater source. Because it would be difficult to hold terrorists
accountable, it is crucial that the EPA has the authority to reach beyond those parties that are or would be directly
responsible for a public health hazard, and to order other parties, such as the PWS, to act when necessary. The EPA is not
required under section 1431 to demonstrate that the respondent caused or contributed to an endangerment before issuing
an order or taking other action against the respondent. In the past, the EPA has issued administrative orders to parties
104

mandating that they take initial steps to abate an environmental danger, such as gathering data, conducting studies,
monitoring pollutants, and modifying their behavior, even before their contribution to the contamination was firmly
established. The EPA may even use its authority over third parties to order state entities to act to protect the public
105

health. Tenth Amendment jurisprudence provides controlling authority for analyzing "whether the method by which
Congress has chosen to regulate [pursuant to its Article I powers] invades the province of state sovereignty." Although
106

the Tenth Amendment has generally been read as protecting state sovereignty, the courts have made clear that states are
107

subject to federal laws and regulations of general applicability, much like private individuals. Therefore, section 1431
108

would apply to states when states act in a way that renders them a part of the regulated community. Under the Supreme
109

Court's Tenth Amendment jurisprudence, however, the federal government is constitutionally prevented from
"commandeering the legislative processes of the states by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal
regulatory program." The distinction between legitimate regulation and commandeering lies in the nature of the coerced
110

action. If the state is forced to exercise its governing authority over its citizens, then the state's sovereignty has been
compromised. Consequently, when issuing a section 1431 emergency order, the EPA could regulate the state in the
111

state's capacity as a PWS, a pollutant discharging entity, [*944] or in any other relevant capacity other than as a
governmental entity. The EPA, for example, could order a state agency to clean and remove materials the state leaked into
an aquifer or require a state-operated PWS to construct a more secure treatment facility. However, the EPA could not
112

order a state to prosecute its citizens for violating the SDWA or force a state to create its own set of laws for
environmental problems. Under section 1431, then, the EPA has expansive authority to take remedial measures similar
113

to those found in the common law, and to take action against third parties when the protection of public health so requires.
This broad authority should be embraced as a valuable mechanism for protecting PWSs from attack.

277
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

EPA KEY
EPA is vital to water security.
Faye Anderson, President at Douglass Policy Institute, 2003 “Security and Water”
http://www.gale.com/pdf/samples/sp656113.pdf [ev]

Even prior to the events of September 11, 2001, the security aspects of water resources and water systems were a national
priority. In 1998, President’s Decision Directive 63 established the National Infrastructure Protection
Center, and made the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the lead agency responsible for the water-supply sector.
Large public and privately owned water utilities are required to undergo vulnerability assessments to evaluate their risks
and vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks and efforts to prevent them. A national Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory
Group began meeting early in 2001 and set up an Information Sharing and Assistance Center to coordinate threat
information. Congress has allocated funds to support counterterrorism efforts in the states and at drinking water and
wastewater utilities. The Environmental Protection Agency has disseminated information on strategies for large, medium,
and small utilities to counter terrorism. Training is being offered in cooperation with research centers and associations to
educate utility officials in conducting their vul-nerability and risk assessments. These efforts will put procedures into place
that will help prevent, assess, and respond to attacks, as is done with natural disaster-preparedness planning. These
counterterrorism efforts are vital to the future security of water systems and water supplies.

278
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

TERROR IMPACT CALC

Environmental terrorist attack easy and probable.


Faye Anderson, President at Douglass Policy Institute, 2003 “Security and Water”
http://www.gale.com/pdf/samples/sp656113.pdf [ev]

Environmental terrorism is a concern to the government as it can potentially have even more significant consequences than
conventional terrorism, and it can be carried out with conventional weapons (as opposed to weapons of mass destruction). The
potential for disrupting society and causing human deaths is substantial. Directing conventional weapons against environmental targets
can cause greater human health and economic damages with lower risks to those carrying them out. As environmental scarcities in-
crease, the potential for damage to natural resources takes on even greater importance. Water resources and water systems are
viewed as vulnerable to terrorist attack for several reasons. First, they are vital to everyday life and economic activity. Thus, if
disrupted or altered, the action has a great impact on society and would garnish a great deal of publicity as a result. Second, they
have played a prominent role in military history and terrorists often model their strategies from military-type operations. Third, water
resources and water systems are typically very accessible to the general public. This is especially true of distribution systems and
reservoirs. Many large dams even are tourist attractions. For these reasons, water resources and water systems can be viewed as
both a tool for and target of terrorist actions.

Water sites are most vulnerable site to bioterror.


Faye Anderson, President at Douglass Policy Institute, 2003 “Security and Water”
http://www.gale.com/pdf/samples/sp656113.pdf [ev]

Water can also be used as a tool or weapon of terrorism. Because it is fluid, water can be used as a delivery vehicle to carry destructive
agents throughout the ecosystem, water system, and to human and animal populations. Destructive agents could include
microbiological agents—bioterrorism— or toxic chemicals. For example, terrorists could drop a concentrated water-soluble conta-
minant, chemical or biological, near an intake pipe. In the best-case scenario, the contaminant would be detected as it entered the
water treatment plant. The plant would be shut down while the contaminant was neutralized, and potable water service to the area
would be interrupted temporarily. In the worst-case scenario, the contaminant would go undetected and would affect the health of
water users, and potentially cause significant health and economic damages. Rivers and water supply reservoirs are particularly
vulnerable to this type of contamination attack. Society also has seen the damages caused by nonterrorist occurrences involving
microorganisms. The 1993 Cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee, Wisconsin killed over a hundred people, affected some 400,000
more, and was estimated to have caused over $37 million in lost wages and productivity. A larger city with a larger water system could
have incurred much greater human and economic losses. Although attack by aerosol contamination is considered the most serious
terrorist threat, the possibility of waterborne contamination is increasingly feared. The Centers for Disease Control lists the following
as Category A biological agents of high concern: smallpox, anthrax, botulinum toxin, tularemia, and hemorrhagic fever viruses. Under
certain circumstances, these biological agents and toxic chemicals could be considered as weapons of mass destruction

279
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

TERROR IMPACT CALC


Water terrorist attack would devastate America.
Faye Anderson, President at Douglass Policy Institute, 2003 “Security and Water”
http://www.gale.com/pdf/samples/sp656113.pdf [ev]

Water resources and water systems are viewed as targets for terrorist attacks for the same reasons they are targets during periods
of war. Water resources are a prime infrastructure target for destruction or compromise by terrorist acts. For example, terrorists could
attempt to blow up a dam to flood a particular area. The psychological impact of such an act would be very great. However, it would
take a very concerted effort to blow up a large dam.
With a relatively small explosive device, terrorists would not be able to cause significant structural damage to an entire dam.
However, they could target the spillway gates to cause significant flooding downstream, or try to flood the dam itself to interrupt
power generation. Pumping stations could also be targeted. Loss of flow and pressure would not only affect water customers, but
wreak havoc with firefighting abilities as well. Chlorine containers, used in water treatment processes, could also be targeted. Another
concern is if terrorists were able to rapidly open or close major valves—an action that would result in numerous main breaks
throughout the system. Backflow also is a serious concern. A public water system has relatively unprotected access to the distribution
system at certain locations. Given sufficient understanding of water systems, a terrorist could distribute toxic chemicals throughout a
neighborhood or pressure zone without detection in most places. These potential actions would rival natural disasters in the stresses
they would place on those responsible for the systems and those receiving services from them.

280
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

BIOTERROR!

Bioterrorism is a very real threat


Richard Olds, Ph.D in medicine from Case Western Reserve University, 11-14-01 http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1005765305.html

Writing an article on bioterrorism for the popular press is as difficult as it is important. How to be factual, clinically sound and responsive to widespread
anxiety and fear is the task. Events of Sept. 11 form the frame. Bioterrorism is real. We need to be informed, cautious and alert.
At the same time, we need to understand the range, risk and response to the threat and not be panicked into holing up at home,
avoiding the mailbox or loading up on Cipro. Imagination is scarier than fact. "Biological warfare" can be worse than poison
gas or conventional weaponry, but it is also easier for us to limit casualties. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of things the
average person should or could do. Don't buy a gas mask. The key to an appropriate, quick response is with the professionals.
What are the facts? There are four likely bioterrorist weapons; anthrax (Bacillus anthracis), plague (Yersinia pestis), botulism
toxin (Clostridium botulinum) and smallpox (variola major). Most U.S. physicians have never seen a patient infected with any
of these agents, yet our health facilities will clearly be our first line of defense. The rapid identification of the event and the
pathogen could literally save thousands of lives. In truth, we were not prepared for either the events of Sept. 11 or the
subsequent anthrax letter attacks, but we are closing the gap quickly. In fact, given the potential, the public health response so
far has been very effective and should be reassuring to the public. Anthrax is the bioterrorism agent being used in the United
States today. It has a colorful history, starting with its description as the fifth plague of Egypt in 1491 B.C. It was the first
identified "infectious disease" and one of the first targets of an effective vaccine. Anthrax has been used in warfare since World
War I (by the Germans). Japan developed and used anthrax as a biological weapon in World War II, and the U.S., along with
almost all major powers, developed anthrax bombs during World War II, but did not use them. U.S. biological weapons were
destroyed in the 1970s. The Soviet Union, unfortunately, continued the clandestine development of anthrax, best evidenced by
the unfortunate accident in 1979 in Sverdlovsk where more than 60 workers and local residents died of inhalation anthrax after
an explosion in a secret biological weapons plant. More recently, Iraq used anthrax on Iran and had deployed anthrax-filled
SCUD missiles during the Gulf War. Sophisticated anthrax and related technology is available today on the international black
market. Anthrax, when outside a living being, is generally in an inactive spore form. It can survive in the ground for decades.
When anthrax is used as a bioweapon, it is generally designed to induce inhalation anthrax. To get the spores into the lungs, the
organism needs to be aerosolized. Getting the spores into a powder fine enough to do this is technologically difficult, but once
in the proper form, delivering the aerosol is straightforward using standard commercial dry spraying equipment. The anthrax
being used is very sophisticated and forms a fine aerosol when a letter containing it is opened. The inhaled organisms land in
the air sacs of the lung and are transported to the lymph nodes in the center of the chest. There, the spores "germinate" and
begin to multiply. These now active bacteria produce several toxins that are primarily responsible for the hemorrhage, edema,
tissue necrosis and, ultimately, death of the victims. As a result of these toxins, patients often die even after appropriate
antibiotics are given. This was true of all three of the recent anthrax deaths. Inhalation anthrax is a two-stage disease.
Symptoms first develop one to two days after inhalation. The initial illness is flu-like and can spontaneously resolve or
improve. A chest X-ray may be normal or look like a mild pneumonia. A few days later, the patient returns extremely ill with
high fever, sweating, short of breath and with chest pains. The chest X-ray at this time is unusual because the middle of the
chest is often enlarged (very uncommon in other types of pneumonia). Half will have an unusual type of bloody meningitis.
This is what tipped off doctors to the first case in Florida. Shock and death occur rapidly. Unfortunately, death of an index case
(the first case in any event) is likely, even if the diagnosis is made. In contrast to recent articles, Ciprofloxacin is not the only
drug that can be used. The current anthrax organism could be effectively treated with amoxicillin or doxycycline. In addition,
several other antibiotics in the family of fluorquinolones could be used. Recognition that one may have inhaled spores is
important since swift action is required. Treatment is continued for 60 days for suspected cases. There is a window of several
days to weeks, as long as the individual stays well, to start treatment. If symptoms start, treatment must be started immediately.
Fortunately, individuals in the first symptomatic phase of this illness also do well with treatment. If a vaccine were available, it
would not be used to treat exposures, but might be used among members of rapid response teams or people with occupational
exposure (such as postal workers). Currently, there are technical problems with the vaccine, but I believe it will be available
again soon. Anthrax contracted through the skin is distinctive and easier to diagnose. The infected area turns black. In fact, the
name anthrax comes from the Greek word for coal suggested by the characteristic skin color.
<<CONTINUES NEXT PAGE>>
BIOTERROR!

<<CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE>>


281
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano
Richard Olds, Ph.D in medicine from Case Western Reserve University, 11-14-01 http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1005765305.html

Anthrax can also cause intestinal illness when eaten with food. Fortunately, both oral and skin anthrax are rarely fatal.
It is also useful to remember that animals, especially cats, are also susceptible to anthrax. Indeed, rapidly dying cats might be
the "canaries in the coal mine" alert that a clandestine attack has occurred. The reason terrorists are using anthrax is easy to
understand. It has a high fatality rate if untreated, a long incubation period and non-specific early symptoms. All of these facts
induce panic. The terrorists have ample time to get out of town and a vaccine exists that can protect them. The sophisticated
powder is easy to disguise or hide and the delivery system can be crude or sophisticated. The good news is that anthrax is
sensitive to antibiotics, person-to-person transmission doesn't occur and exposure can be readily addressed by a competent
health care system and a responsive, vigilant public. ACE Hardware announced it would begin selling home test kits for
anthrax. This is a bad idea. First, these kits (similar to a home pregnancy kit) have both false positives and false negatives.
Non-anthrax bacteria can turn these kits positive, causing unnecessary panic, while they may not detect very small numbers of
anthrax spores that could still make people sick. The most important reason not to use them is that any potential anthrax
exposure is a potential criminal act. People who think they have been exposed to anthrax need to immediately call the
authorities. Would anyone think it reasonable to have people use "home evidence collection kits" in a murder case, rather than
calling the police? Recently, a report also circulated that suggested that all pneumonia cases in the U.S. should be treated for
anthrax. First, the initial illness from inhalation anthrax may not be pneumonia. One of the postal workers who recently died
went to an emergency room with vague symptoms and was sent home. He did not have pneumonia. The failure of the system
was not recognizing the exposure history. Second, Ciprofloxacin is not a very good antibiotic for community-acquired
pneumonia. We should use antibiotics whenever there is a reasonable risk, but the key is identifying the exposure, not
panicking into treating everyone with the flu or pneumonia. Finally, for more than two weeks, people have asked me about
having a supply of Cipro at home "just in case." This powerful antibiotic is not only very expensive, but potentially dangerous
if not monitored by a physician. All antibiotics can cause medical problems when used incorrectly. Hospitals and the health
infrastructure have taken steps to assure adequate local and national supplies of drugs. They will be available should we need
them. If we were worried about being invaded by Canada, I hope we wouldn't give every man, woman and child in the U.S. an
assault rifle. We would let the army, police and National Guard organize a defense. Bioterrorism is a reality and, as a society,
we are having trouble dealing with it. The events of Sept. 11 will change our society forever. People in England have had to
live with civilian terrorism for some time, as have most of Europe and virtually all developing countries. It is useful to know
the facts, but this particular threat is best handled by professionals. We need to keep this threat and any additional issues in
perspective. We must stay alert, be prudent, and know what to do, but also continue to lead normal lives. What is currently
happening is exactly what the terrorists want. We need to stay rational, get the facts, look out for the profiteers, and, whatever
we do, not panic.

282
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

BIOTERROR!
Bioterrorism risks thousands of deaths
Charles J. Hanley, writer for Associated Press, 11-02-05 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174323,00.html
They're among Earth's most common germs — clostridia perfringens, a cause of food poisoning, a specimen for research. But this pathogen can
also be a weapon: Iraqi scientists worked for years to mobilize this "Agent G" for Saddam Hussein's wars. In an America nervous over bioterrorism,
new laws clamp controls on clostridia and other "select agents," demanding registrations, reporting, background checks on scientists. Egypt, in a
region roiled by terrorism, has no such laws, although the bacteria at Ain Shams University are kept in a locked refrigerator, accessible by one
authorized technician, in a laboratory protected by foolproof electronic keys, said Nabil Magdoub, microbe collection director. "We have to be alert,"
he said, but not "unreasonable." After all, Magdoub said, any hospital is also rife with dangerous microorganisms. "The American people have
become so sensitive towards a lot of normal, ordinary matters," he said, echoing a sentiment heard increasingly in America, where microbiologists
fear that ever-stricter controls might stifle their ability to exchange samples and conduct research. Four years after the Sept. 11 attacks,
terrorist use of disease agents to inflict mass casualties looms more and more as the bottom line of America's sum of all
fears. Tom Ridge former homeland security secretary, has said authorities don't believe terror groups can build nuclear bombs, and so bioweapons
become the greater threat. "Anthrax is a concern," said Donald Van Duyn of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division. "You could do as much
damage with anthrax and other substances" as with a nuclear bomb, the FBI analyst said in a Washington interview. One attack
scenario now used in U.S. planning sees more than 300,000 people in an American city exposed to aerosolized anthrax bacteria
spread by terrorists via a truck sprayer, with more than 13,000 dying. The fear is reflected in the U.S. budget's bottom line as well:
Spending on civilian "biodefense" has leaped 18-fold since 2001, to $7.6 billion this year. Project Bioshield to develop bioterrorism
countermeasures, awarded its first contract last November, $877 million for 75 million doses of a new anthrax vaccine. The anthrax scare began
when someone mailed anthrax powder through the U.S. postal system in late 2001 and five people died. As a result, "I'd say we get five white-
powder threats a week, people calling saying, 'I found white powder. What do I do?'" said Van Duyn. Because of the high quality of those 2001
anthrax spores, however, experts believe the perpetrator, still at large, was not linked to foreign terrorists, but possibly to the U.S. government's own
anthrax program. That research began decades back as an offensive weapons program, but is now considered defensive. Even a terror group as well-
financed and educated as Japan's Aum Shinrikyo, whose homemade sarin chemical agent killed 12 people in 1995, failed to isolate a virulent strain
in four years' work on anthrax. Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda also pursued anthrax in Afghanistan, captured documents showed. But it turned the job
over to a Malaysian with a mere bachelor's degree in biology, U.S. investigators found. He, too, apparently failed to find a virulent strain — let alone
a workable way to "weaponize" anthrax — before being arrested in 2001 after returning to Malaysia. Drying and refining anthrax spores into
particles readily inhaled, and then engineering equipment to spread them extensively, is a formidable challenge, U.S. congressional researchers noted
in a 2004 study. "Even a Ph.D. microbiologist doesn't know the dark arts of putting microbes into weapons," said Jonathan Tucker, a bioweapons
expert with California's Monterey Institute for International Studies. It took Iraqi scientists five years to weaponize anthrax in the 1980s. Meanwhile,
others in Saddam's secret program were working on "Agent G," U.N. arms inspectors later learned. The toxin-spewing clostridium perfringens,
applied to shrapnel, would kill the wounded by spreading virulent gas gangrene in their shrapnel wounds. The Iraqis apparently never weaponized
Agent G, however, and eventually reported to inspectors they had destroyed all 900 gallons they made. Today clostridium perfringens is one of 49
microbes on the U.S. list of "select agents" considered potential "severe threats." American laboratories handling the germ must register with
the government, their personnel must undergo background checks, and transfers of cultures must be reported. That list's length, from the toxin abrin
to the plague bacteria yersinia pestis tells some that billions of U.S. dollars won't go far, since only three on the list — anthrax,
smallpox (and botulinum toxin — are being addressed so far in stepped-up biodefense research programs. And that's not counting any
new genetically re-engineered microbes. "What's going to come at you is impossible to predict," molecular biologist Roger Brent told a U.S. House
panel in July. Others question whether anything will come, in view of what Tucker calls Al Qaeda's "gap in technical sophistication." Milton
Leitenberg, a bioweapons authority at the University of Maryland, contends the threat has been "systematically exaggerated." Few question the need,
however, to tighten security at microbe collections worldwide. Only 500 of the estimated 1,500 major repositories — which maintain, exchange and
sell samples for research and diagnostics — subscribe to the World Federation for Culture Collections' voluntary security guidelines. Magdoub's
Egypt Microbial Culture Collection is one. But a team of Egyptian microbiologists noted in a recent study that smaller collections have proliferated
in Egypt, which has no "biosecurity" laws. Team member Youssef Hamdi told The Associated Press all such resources should be combined in a single
"National Culture Collection" to "insure purity, conservation and security." Internationally, "the problem is the ones you don't know about," said
Barry Kellman, director of the International Weapons Control Center at Chicago's DePaul University. Perhaps one-third of the world's microbe
collections are poorly protected, he estimated. The World Health Organization plans a "guidance document" next year promoting laboratory
biosecurity, but only individual governments can enforce restrictions. Kellman, meanwhile, agrees with those who doubt that Al Qaeda, "in a cave in
Afghanistan," poses a bioterrorism threat. He worries more about a homegrown menace, asking, "What if Ted Kaczynski" — America's
notorious Unabomber — "had been a biology professor instead of a math professor?"

DISEASE MODULE

EPA regulation key to clean water supply.


283
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Georgetown Law Journal, April 03 “NOTE: A New Instrument in National Security: The Legislative Attempt to
Combat Terrorism via the Safe Drinking Water Act” 91 Geo. L.J. 927 Lexis [ev]

Where national security and environmental goals coincide, section 1431's emergency powers could be used to enhance public health
protections. Many of the actions the EPA could take to protect water supplies from terrorism would inherently protect the water supply
from more standard types of contamination as well. For example, several water systems currently store their treated water supply in
uncovered finished water reservoirs. 123 These reservoirs hold the water immediately before direct distribution to the public. 124 But as
their name indicates, they are uncovered and open to the atmosphere. 125 Precautionary measures, such as requiring PWSs to cover
their finished water reservoirs or to construct secure storage tanks, will not only protect these water supplies from terrorist attacks, but
also will protect the water supply from more common contaminants, such as airborne chemicals, precipitation, insects, and other
organic matter. The EPA may not have been previously justified in using its emergency authority to take such action because of the
difficulty of proving that an imminent and substantial endangerment would likely result from standard atmospheric contamination. In
today's circumstances, however, uncovered finished water reservoirs present an even greater risk because they are readily accessible to
intentional contamination. The EPA could therefore look to the remedies it has sought in previous cases as a comparative model in
addressing [*947] these new situations. For example, the EPA ordered AK Steel Corporation to install water treatment plant
equipment because the current water system was either contaminated or likely to be contaminated. 126 The EPA could now order PWSs
with uncovered finished water reservoirs to take similar remedial measures, by installing closed-storage tanks.

284
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

DISEASE MODULE

Contaminated drinking water facilitates disease spread through populations.


US EPA 10/12/06 (last updated) “Proposed Ground Water Rule: Questions and Answers”
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/disinfection/gwr/regs_proposed-questions.html

What is the action today? EPA is proposing to further protect America's drinking water by requiring, for the first time, action to protect
ground water sources of public drinking water supplies from disease-causing viruses and bacteria, such as E. coli. The proposal will
protect 109 million Americans, and prevent over 115,000 cases of illness and as many as 10 deaths per year. This rule will require
identification of defects in water systems that could lead to contamination and identification of sources of drinking water that are at
risk of being contaminated. The rule requires monitoring for systems with sources at risk, and actions to remove or inactivate
contaminants, if found, to prevent them from reaching drinking water consumers. Top of page How is this rule related to recent
Clinton/Gore Administration drinking water announcements? Since most Americans drink from public water systems at some point,
whether in their home, at school, or at a restaurant, these three rules together will protect almost all Americans from waterborne
diseases. In December 1998, President Clinton announced a major rule to control Cryptosporidium in large drinking water systems
(those serving at least 10,000 people each). In March, 2000, Vice President Gore announced a new rule that extended those protections
to persons served by small water systems (those serving fewer than 10,000 people). Today's rule proposes the first ever requirements
that water systems which use ground water also protect against disease-causing microbial contaminants, including viruses and
bacteria. Top of page Why is EPA proposing this rule? EPA's Science Advisory Board concluded in 1990 that exposure to microbial
contaminants such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa (e.g., Giardia lamblia and Cryptosporidium) was likely the greatest remaining
health risk management challenge for drinking water suppliers. Illness can result from exposure to microbial pathogens ranging from
mild to moderate cases lasting only a few days to more severe infections that can last several weeks and may result in death for those
with weakened immune systems Although ground water has historically been considered free of contamination, Center for Disease
Control data shows that 318 waterborne disease outbreaks associated with ground water systems occurred between 1971 and 1996.
Eighty-six percent of these outbreaks were associated with contaminated source waters, and half of those outbreaks occurred in
systems that were already using some kind of disinfection. This data indicated a need to strengthen monitoring, prevention,
inactivation and removal of contaminants from ground water systems. Top of page Does today's rule protect ground water systems
from Cryptosporidium and Giardia? No, because disease-causing microbes such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia are not found in
ground water. They only occur in surface water, and ground water under the direct influence of surface water, and are covered by the
two previous regulations announced by President Clinton and Vice President Gore. This proposed rule will protect against E. coli, a
microscopic bacteria found in animal wastes. Top of page What causes contamination of ground water? Viral and bacterial pathogens
are present in human and animal feces, which can, in turn, contaminate drinking water. Fecal contamination can reach ground water
sources, including drinking water wells, from failed septic systems, leaking sewer lines, and by passing through the soil and large
cracks in the ground. Fecal contamination from the surface may also get into a drinking water well along its casing or through cracks
if the well is not properly constructed, protected, or maintained. Fecal contamination may also enter the distribution system, such as
pipes.

285
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

DISEASE MODULE

The terminal impact is human extinction


Frank Ryan, M.D., 1997, virus X, p. 366
How might the human race appear to such an aggressively emerging virus? That teeming, globally intrusive species, with its
transcontinental air travel, massively congested cities, sexual promiscuity, and in the less affluent regions — where the virus is
most likely to first emerge — a vulnerable lack of hygiene with regard to food and water supplies and hospitality to biting insects'
The virus is best seen, in John Hollands excellent analogy, as a swarm of competing mutations, with each individual strain subjected to
furious forces of natural selection for the strain, or strains, most likely to amplify and evolve in the new ecological habitat.3 With such
a promising new opportunity in the invaded species, natural selection must eventually come to dominate viral behavior. In time the
dynamics of infection will select for a more resistant human population. Such a coevolution takes rather longer in "human"
time — too long, given the ease of spread within the global village. A rapidly lethal and quickly spreading virus simply would not
have time to switch from aggression to coevolution. And there lies the danger. Joshua Lederbergs prediction can now be seen to be
an altogether logical one. Pandemics are inevitable. Our incredibly rapid human evolution, our overwhelming global needs, the
advances of our complex industrial society, all have moved the natural goalposts. The advance of society, the very science of change,
has greatly augmented the potential for the emergence of a pandemic strain. It is hardly surprising that Avrion Mitchison,
scientific director of Deutsches Rheuma Forschungszentrum in Berlin, asks the question: "Will we survive!” We have invaded every
biome on earth and we continue to destroy other species so very rapidly that one eminent scientist foresees the day when no life
exists on earth apart from the human monoculture and the small volume of species useful to it. An increasing multitude of disturbed
viral-host symbiotic cycles are provoked into self-protective counterattacks. This is a dangerous situation. And we have seen in the
previous chapter how ill-prepared the world is to cope with it. It begs the most frightening question of all: could such a pandemic virus
cause the extinction of the human species?

286
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Water Terrorism

Just a perception of a water threat kills public confidence

Brock Meeks, award-winning journalist, chief Washington correspondent for MSNBC, Oct 23 03, "U.S water supply vulnerable",
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340643/ [JWu]

Electricity comes and goes at the flick of a switch. People get annoyed when the power goes out, blitzing the cable and
making them miss the latest episode of “The Simpsons.” Water is different — it is nearly sacred. In fact, a terrorist doesn’t
even have to actually contaminate water to affect a terrorist act.
“I just have to make you believe the water is contaminated,” Beering said. If the public suddenly lost confidence in the
integrity of the water system, he said, there would be a domino effect. A panic run on bottled water and alternative
water supplies.

Water is key to life—a terrorist attack probability is high

Robert M. Anderson, senior counsel at the law firm of LeBouef, Lamb, Greene, & MacRae LLP; and Paul C. Freeman, Esq.,
an associate at LeBouef, Lamb, Greene, & MacRae, Jan/Feb 05 (Waste and Wastewater Products, Vol 5, No 1, http://www.wwn-
online.com/articles/50916/)[JWu]

Water is essential to human life, an important source of power, and an integral mode of transportation and commerce.
Unfortunately, whether it is a drinking water treatment facility protected only by a fence and padlocks, a dam and its pristine reservoir
located in a remote area, or a bustling port of call handling large amounts of international trade each day, water and waterborne
activities are susceptible to attack. Likewise, legal protections for water resources, particularly drinking water, and critical water-
based activities (i.e., maritime transportation and the generation of hydroelectric power) present unique challenges for the federal
government and affected private sector businesses. These challenges must be overcome, however, because the stakes for protecting
the nation's water resources are unquestionably high. Water's vital role in society and the magnitude of the consequences that
would flow from an attack on water unfortunately make it an attractive medium through which terrorists may seek to once again
strike at the American public. A brief examination of the security challenges facing the maritime industry provides a useful context
for assessing the magnitude of the task confronting drinking water providers.

Water security affects every American—a terrorist attack would devastate the country

Robert M. Anderson, senior counsel at the law firm of LeBouef, Lamb, Greene, & MacRae LLP; and Paul C. Freeman, Esq.,
an associate at LeBouef, Lamb, Greene, & MacRae, Jan/Feb 05 (Waste and Wastewater Products, Vol 5, No 1, http://www.wwn-
online.com/articles/50916/)[JWu]

Although smaller in size and generally less complex, drinking water facilities in the United States far outnumber America's ports
and, perhaps more importantly, serve as a direct conduit to the health of every American. According to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), approximately 160,000 public water systems (serving at least 25 people or 15 service connections at least
60 days per year) provide drinking water to approximately 90 percent of all Americans.12 While most of these facilities are quite small,
an attack on even the most isolated of systems may accomplish a terrorist's goals. Consider the nationwide hysteria that flowed
from the targeted anthrax attacks perpetrated shortly after 9/11, and then imagine the serious, widespread and long-lasting damage
that would be wrought on our collective psyche and the public's confidence in the safety of our drinking water supplies across the
country if a small, isolated, or even unsuccessful attack were launched on a water system somewhere in the United States.

287
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Water Terrorism

A terrorist water attack would disrupt the economy and national power

Robert M. Anderson, senior counsel at the law firm of LeBouef, Lamb, Greene, & MacRae LLP; and Paul C. Freeman, Esq.,
an associate at LeBouef, Lamb, Greene, & MacRae, Jan/Feb 05 (Waste and Wastewater Products, Vol 5, No 1, http://www.wwn-
online.com/articles/50916/)[JWu]

Because of their locations in natural settings that are often open and remote, dams are accessible in ways that many experts believe
render them vulnerable to attack. Situated within a river complex, dams often may be reached by land, water, or air. Underwater
access also is possible. As a result, imposing effective barriers to access by land, water, and air, as well as monitoring for intruders, is a
complex and challenging task for dam owners and operators. A successful attack at a major hydropower facility, such as Hoover or
Grand Coulee dams, would have the devastating result terrorists seek: significant loss of human life, massive property
destruction and economic loss, long-term economic disruption of a critical part of the nation's infrastructure, and a serious
blow to national symbols of power and pride.

Water is a high probability terrorist target

Brock Meeks, award-winning journalist, chief Washington correspondent for MSNBC, Oct 23 03, "U.S water supply vulnerable",
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340643/ [JWu]

Water is the “quintessential target,” Beering said. It’s been a strategic objective in armed conflict throughout history. The Nazis
dumped raw sewage into reservoirs; dead animals were tossed into wells in Kosovo. And the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover warned of the
potential for attacks on the nation’s water supply prior to the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

Electricity comes and goes at the flick of a switch. People get annoyed when the power goes out, blitzing the cable and making
them miss the latest episode of “The Simpsons.” Water is different — it is nearly sacred. In fact, a terrorist doesn’t even have to
actually contaminate water to affect a terrorist act.

288
Econ Generic
DDI 2008
Serrano

Water Terrorism

EPA is key to fighting water terrorism</