State CP Answers

Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League States Ans
355 S. Grand Ave, Suite 3500

Los Angeles CA, 90071
.la!dl.org
States Counterplan Answers Table of Contents
Solvency
"o Solven#$ % State &unding "ot Stable....................................................................................................................................................'
"o Solven#$ % State &unding "ot Stable....................................................................................................................................................3
()at t)is #ard is stating is t)at t)e states are alread$ unable to *und *or a plan su#) as t)is one be#ause t)e$ )ave no !one$ at all. And
t)e$ are not able to run de*i#its to a**ord t)e plan li+e t)e ,S&G #an........................................................................................................3
"o Solven#$ % State &unding "ot Stable....................................................................................................................................................-
"o Solven#$ % ,ni*or!it$ ..........................................................................................................................................................................5
"o Solven#$ % ,ni*or!it$ ./t....................................................................................................................................................................0
"o Solven#$ % &ederal Govern!ent 1e$ Generi#......................................................................................................................................7
"o Solven#$ % 2a#e to t)e 3otto!..............................................................................................................................................................4
5er!utation % Generi#.................................................................................................................................................................................9
Sti!ulus DA...............................................................................................................................................................................................10
States 2a#is! 6urn....................................................................................................................................................................................11
Massa#)usetts Spending DA % S)ell.........................................................................................................................................................1'
Massa#)usetts Spending DA % S)ell.........................................................................................................................................................13
Massa#)usetts Spending DA % S)ell.........................................................................................................................................................1-
Massa#)usetts Spending DA % ./tensions................................................................................................................................................15
Ansers 6o7 &ederal &unding 8ne**i#ient..................................................................................................................................................10
(9A6 698S CA2D 8S SA:8"G 8S 69A6 69. S6A6.S 3,DG.6 8S L8M86.D, 2A69.2 69A" 69. ,S&G 69A6 D;.S
";6 9A<. A L8M86.D 3,DG.6. 698S AD<A"6AG. G;.S 6; 69. A&& 3.CA,S. 698S ALL;(S ,S 6;
62AD868;"ALL: D; 69. 5LA"........................................................................................................................................................10
Ansers 6o7 States are Laboratories.........................................................................................................................................................17
Ansers 6o7 State Leaders)ip Good.........................................................................................................................................................14
Ansers 6o7 &ederalis! "et 3ene*it.........................................................................................................................................................19
1
.la!dl.org
No Solvency State Funding Not Stable
[___]
[___] NO SO!"NC#$States will cut$bac% even &ore as t'e econo&y slows
(as'ington )ost* +,-+
(March 21, Why Cant We just Leave Infrastructure Spending to the States,!
http"##$$$%$ashingtonpost%co&#'logs#e(ra)*lein#post#$hy)cant)$e)just)leave)infrastructure)spending)
to)the)states#2+12#+,#21#gI-.jp/0SS1'log%ht&l2
3ne potential pitfall $ith handing over &ore and &ore infrastructure responsi'ilities to the states,
&ean$hile, is that states tend to cut $ay 'ac* on spending during recessions% .nd local funding
can 'e pretty erratic, all told% 4eres a graph fro& 5e$ .&ericas Sa&uel Sherradan, 'ased on
C03 data" Weve seen this in the current do$nturn% Sherraden o'serves that California.s
transportation spending declined by /- percent fro& +,,0 to +,,1 after t'e 'ousing bubble
burst and local ta2 revenue fell3 T'e sa&e goes for Te2as, $hich sa$ an 6 percent drop% 78I9t is
clear,! Sherraden $rites, 4 t'at leaving a greater s'are of infrastructure spending to state and
local govern&ents &a%es infrastructure invest&ent &ore vulnerable during downturns 35
[___] Federal funding &ore stable because states can.t deficit spend
T'e Transportation )olitic* +,-+
(:e'ruary 1;, 2+12, 7Clearing it <p on :ederal =ransportation >?penditures,!
http"##$$$%thetransportpolitic%co&#2+12#+2#1;#clearing)it)up)on)federal)transportation)e?penditures#2
Co&&enter @ohn notes that &any transit projects are paid for through 'onds, $hich are in essence
deficits, and that states have the technical po$er to have deficits A and these points are 'oth valid%
4o$ever, all states e?cept Ber&ont have so&e for& of 'alanced 'udget rule% .nd the selling of
'onds 'y transit agencies are reliant on the& having future guaranteed funding sources to pay 'ac*
the de't A federal funding li%e capital grants are an i&portant part of &a%ing t'at e6uation
'appen% Transit agencies do not 'ave t'e ability to e2pand t'eir debt capacity greatly 7unli%e
t'e federal govern&ent8 because of investor fears about future funding security 3
2
.la!dl.org
[___]
[___] States fail at transportation progra&s because of budget instability
A"CO9 +,--
(7<%S% Infrastructure" Ignore the 5eed or Ceta*e the Lead!, March ,+).pril 2,
http"##$$$%aeco&%co&#deployedfiles#Internet#0rochures#.>C3M1.C>CD2+$hiteD2+paper1v,%pdf,
E3." F)6)122
Mean$hile, states continue to e2perience cuts in transportation$related and public wor%s
'udgets for t'e foreseeable future3 Adding pressure* a potential increase in &unicipal bond
defaults t'reatens to da&pen investor ent'usias& for $hat has 'een a $idely successful
financing tool for state and local projects% >ven if $idespread &unicipal 'ond defaults are unli*ely, the
cost of capital $ill assuredly increase to reflect a ris* pre&iu&3
[___] States legally can.t run deficits and t'e courts will enforce balanced budget a&end&ents
National :eview +,--
(3n 0alanced)0udget .&end&entsG @uly 1H, http"##$$$%nationalrevie$%co&#corner#2I22+,#'alanced)
'udget)a&end&ents)&ichael)j)ne$2
4o$ever* enforcea'ility is not a&ong &y &ain concerns3 Cight no$, FH states have 'alanced)'udget
a&end&ents3 3'viously these a&end&ents differ in ter&s of their stringency, 'ut they all see& fairly
$ell enforced% In &any cases, state 'alanced)'udget a&end&ents have resulted in politically
da&aging spending cuts and ta? hi*es% I a& sure that in these situations, &any legislators and
governors would 'ave li%ed to ignore t'ese balanced$budget a&end&ents* but t'ey see&ed
to &a%e a good fait' effort to abide by t'e&3 I really cannot thin* of any instances $here state
'alanced)'udget a&end&ents $ere unenforced% Interestingly, state courts have 'een very tough on
other fiscal li&its, 'ut fairly supportive of 'alanced)'udget a&end&ents% Euring a 'udget standoff in
5evada in 2++,, the courts 'asically nullified 5evadas constitutional super&ajority reJuire&ent for
ta? increases% 4o$ever, they left 5evadas 'alanced)'udget a&end&ent intact3
('at t'is card is stating is t'at t'e states are already unable to fund for a plan suc' as t'is
one because t'ey 'ave no &oney at all3 And t'ey are not able to run deficits to afford t'e plan
li%e t'e ;SF< can3
3
.la!dl.org
[____]
[____] States can.t solve because of budget crunc'
Council on "cono&ic Advisors* +,-+
(Council of >cono&ic .dvisors, 7. 5>W >C353MIC .5.L/SIS 3: I5:C.S=C<C=<C>
I5B>S=M>5=!, ,)2,, http"##$$$%treasury%gov#resource)center#econo&ic)
policy#Eocu&ents#2+12+,2,InfrastructureCeport%pdf, E3." F)6)122
:inally, it is i&portant to consider t'e econo&ic situation facing state and local govern&ents
w'o are significant partners in funding public infrastructure% Euring recessions, it is co&&on for
state and local govern&ents to cut 'ac* on capital projects K such as 'uilding schools, roads, and
par*s K in order to &eet 'alanced 'udget reJuire&ents% .t t'e beginning of t'e &ost recent
recession* ta2 receipts at t'e state and local level contracted for four straig't 6uarters=
receipts are still 'elo$ pre)recession levels% )ast researc' 'as found t'at e2penditures on capital
pro>ects are &ore t'an four ti&es as sensitive to year$to$year fluctuations in state inco&e as
is state spending in general3 /, 4o$ever, the need for i&proved and e?panded infrastructure is just
as great during a do$nturn as it is during a 'oo&% Providing immediate additional federal support for
transportation infrastructure investment would be prudent given the ongoing budgetary constraints
facing state and local governments, the upco&ing reduction in federal infrastructure invest&ent as
Cecovery .ct funds are depleted, and the strong 'enefits associated $ith pu'lic invest&ent%
4
.la!dl.org
No Solvency ;nifor&ity
State action fails
A3 State action lac%s unifor&ity
@ac* <olds&it'* .ssociate Lrof at <niversity of Chicago, -110
(Birginia La$ Cevie$, 5ove&'er, Le?is2
5onetheless, these concerns need not affect the legiti&acy of the federal co&&on la$ of foreign
relations% .lthough federal courts &ight 'e generally unsuited to &a*e federal foreign relations la$ on
'oth legiti&acy and co&petence grounds, the adverse conseJuences of state)'y)state regulation in
the face of federal political 'ranch silence &ight 'e $orse% States suffer fro& &any of the sa&e
disa'ilities as federal courts in this conte?t% Moreover, federal courts, in contrast to the states, have
independence fro& local political processes and, as a 'ranch of the national govern&ent, are li*ely to
'e &ore sensitive to national foreign relations interests% >ven in the a'sence of strategic 'ehavior 'y
the states, one &ight thin* that, all t'ings being e6ual, su'opti&al 'ut unifor& federal judge)&ade
regulation of foreign relations is preferable to t'e nonunifor&ity in'erent in state$by$state
regulation of a foreign relations issue% 21, :inally, the federal co&&on la$ of foreign relations is
designed to protect political 'ranch prerogatives in foreign relations that the political 'ranches
the&selves are structurally unsuited to protect% .ny re&aining concerns a'out the legiti&acy or
co&petence of the federal co&&on la$ of foreign relations are thus &itigated 'y the political
'ranchesM a'ility to override judicial errors in the develop&ent of such la$%
b3 T'at tan%s solvency
@ohn ?ona'ue* @:N School of Oovern&ent, -110
(Eisunited States, p% F22
>ven $hen states vary, of course, there are argu&ents for unifor&ity% Institutions and individuals $ho
live or do 'usiness in several states face the e?pense, 'other, and confusion of coping $ith different
(and so&eti&es conflicting2 rules3 @nconsistencies a&ong state laws and regulations can lead to
disputes of great co&ple2ity and to resolutions of li&ited appeal% .fter ta*ing its case all the $ay
to the Supre&e Court, for e?a&ple, a cruise ship operator $on the right to 'e sued only in :lorida 'y
aggrieved passengers $ho had 'een on a trip 'et$een Washington State and Me?ico%
5
.la!dl.org
No Solvency ;nifor&ity "2t3
[___] )olitical polarity between states &a%es transportation unifor&ity i&possible
@ohn Aincaid* Lrofessor of Oovern&ent and Lu'lic Service at Lafayette College, +,,B
(P=rends in :ederalis&" Continuity, Change and Lolari(ation,
http"##dspace%lafayette%edu#'itstrea&#handle#1+,6Q#Q21#Nincaid)0oo*oftheStates)2++F%pdf
seJuenceR12
=he partisan polari(ation evident in the 2+++ presidential election and in Washington, E%C%, is a ne$
conte?tual trend that is increasingly shaping federalis& and intergovern&ental relations% In 2++,, it
'eca&e evident that polariCation 'as strained t'e traditional bipartisans'ip of t'e Dig 0 state
and local associations* especially t'e National <overnors Association (5O.2, $here partisan
conflict led to the firing of 5O.s chief lo''yist, to reduced dues pay&ents 'y so&e states, and to
several states $ithdra$ing fro& the 5O. for a ti&e% Alt'oug' bipartisans'ip still prevails
generally in t'ese associations* continued polariCation will wea%en t'eir ability to present a
united front* especially on &a>or issues t'at 'ave significant i&pacts on bot' t'e states and
t'e national electoral balance3 T'is polariCation 'as affected public* presidential*
congressional and >udicial responses to virtually all public policy issues and introduced
funda&ental philosophical differences over so&e long)standing federal)state practices and
intergovern&ental progra&s% T'e conse6uences of polariCation were reflected* for e?a&ple, in
the 'attles that scuttled reauthori(ation of three &ajor intergovern&ental progra&s in 2++," the 1HH;
$elfare)refor& la$, the =ransportation >Juity .ct for the 21
st
Century (T"A$+-8, and the Individuals
$ith Eisa'ilities >ducation .ct (IE>.2% =he co&pro&ises needed to enact legislation under conditions
of polari(ation $ill li*ely &a*e so&e intergovern&ental progra&s &ore co&ple? and so&e$hat
schi(ophrenic% T'is polariCation also &a%es it i&possible to resurrect bipartisan and
nonpartisan intergovern&ental institutions* such as the <%S% .dvisory Co&&ission on
Intergovern&ental Celations (.CIC2, $hich $ere dis&antled or defunded during the 1H6+s and
1HH+s% =hese institutions sought to foster intergovern&ental cooperation and consensus%
6
.la!dl.org
No Solvency Federal <overn&ent Aey <eneric
[___] Transportation infrastructure is in'erently national only t'e federal govern&ent can
effectively plan and &anage it
Cico 9aggi, Socioecono&ic Institute, <niversity of Surich, -11+
(=ransportation Cesearch Lart ." Lolicy and Lractice, 7SWISS =C.5SL3C= L3LIC/ :3C
><C3L> :>E>C.LISM .5E =4> E3MI5.5C> 3: L3C.L ISS<>S!2
.S is $ell *no$n, transport infrastructure 'as a networ% c'aracter 3 =his has t$o i&portant
i&plications in the case of transport policy proposals relating to the national or international road)
net$or* (for the ease of the argu&ent the analysis $ill 'e restricted to road transport, 'ut the
&odel could easily 'e adapted to other &odes2% :irst, the road net$or* creates spatial
e?ternalities 'ecause any single lin* in a specific location can have i&pacts on the national
econo&ic develop&ent (e%g% if it solves a 'ottlenec* pro'le& of national relevance2% With regard
to the national develop&ent, these e?ternalities $ould lead to a su'opti&al provision of (large)
scale2 transport infrastructure in t'e case of a federalist solution* because local or regional
units would ta%e a free$rider position% =his is the reason $hy, traditionally, &otor$ay net$or*s,
train syste&s etc% are planned on a national level% . second i&plication of the net$or* character
of transport is that the costs and 'enefits of a specific transport policy project &ay 'e uneJually
distri'uted a&ong the nodes of a net$or* and, &oreover, an i&'alance &ay also e?ist 'et$een
the areas along the lin* and those surrounding the nodes% =hus, (internal2 econo&ic benefits
will often occur in t'e nodes w'ereas 7e2ternal8 ecological disbenefits are felt in t'e areas
along t'e lin%s% =he conseJuence of these e?ternalities is a gro$ing local resistance against the
planning and i&ple&entation of national or international transport infrastructure projects%
>specially in .ustria and S$it(erland, it has also provo*ed an increasing de&and for restrictive
regulation of transit traffic on roads% =hese distri'utional aspects 'eco&e relevant for de&ocratic
decision)&a*ing% Oiven a nor&al spatial settle&ent pattern, the &ajority of the people (voters2 $ill
nor&ally live in the centers (nodes2 and the &inority in the areas along the lin*s% =o find
&ajorities, the policy&a*ers $ill therefore usually propose transport projects esta'lishing &ore
perfor&ing lin*s 'et$een the 'ig nodes% =his solves the e?ternality pro'le&s in the case of
si&ple &ajority rules% 4o$ever, if federalist ele&ents are introduced in decision)&a*ing on
centrally provided goods (or regulations2, the local perspective $ill 'eco&e relevant and &ay lead
to a do&inance of local issues in national policy%
7
.la!dl.org
No Solvency :ace to t'e Dotto&
[___] Co&petitive pressures between states will lead to poor infrastructure develop&ent as
t'ey rus' to try to attract business
Wallace >% Oates* Lrofessor of >cono&ics% <niversity of Maryland, -111
(Septe&'er 7.n >ssay on :iscal :ederalis&!, @ournal of >cono&ic Literature, @S=3C,
http"##$$$%jstor%org#sta'le#1+%2,+I#2Q;F6IF2
T'e general idea of decentraliCing t'e provision of public services to t'e
>urisdictions of concern 'as been widely recogniCed3 It &anifests itself clearly on 'oth
sides of the .tlantic% We see it in >urope under the no&enclature of the Tprinciple of
su'sidiarity,T $here it is e?plicitly enshrined in the Maastrict =reaty as a funda&ental
principle for >uropean union% @n t'e ;3S3* it often appears &ore infor&ally as an aversion
to t'e Eone siCe fits allE approac'3 So&e$hat parado?ically, ho$ever, t'is view is t'e
sub>ect of a widespread and funda&ental c'allenge bot' at t'e t'eoretical and
policy levels3 T'e source of t'is c'allenge is t'e clai& t'at inter>urisdictional
co&petition a&ong decentraliCed levels of govern&ent introduces serious allocative
distortions3 @n t'eir eagerness to pro&ote econo&ic develop&ent wit' t'e creation
of new >obs (so the argu&ent goes2, state and local officials tend to 'old down ta2
rates and* conse6uently* outputs of public services so as to reduce t'e costs for
e2isting and prospective business enterprise3 T'is results in a Erace to t'e botto&5
wit' su'opti&al outputs of pu'lic services%2F
8
.la!dl.org
)er&utation <eneric
[___]
[___] )er&utation ?o bot'
A8 ?o bot' >oint federal and state action solves t'e i&pacts
>rnest #oung* La$ Lrofessor, <niversity of =e?as, +,,B
(=>U.S L.W C>BI>W, 5ove&'er 2++F, p% QH);+2
T'e intertwining of federal and state bureaucracies t'roug' various for&s of Ecooperative
federalis&E li%ewise gives state and local officials t'e ability to resist federal initiatives in
&ore subtle ways% Cecently, for instance, do(ens of localities and several states have critici(ed )
and so&eti&es even refused to cooperate $ith ) aspects of the War on =erroris& that they felt
intruded too far into personal li'erties%
D8 Foint i&ple&entation &a2i&iCes solvency
Cichard ?anCig and Leter SCanton, la$ professor, Stanford, for&er 3M0 Eirector, -1GH
(5.=I35.L S>CBIC>" W4.= W3<LE I= M>.5, 1H6;, p% 1H+2
State and local progra&s would di&inis' prospects for welding t'e nation.s yout' toget'er in
a co&&on e2perience* but because t'ey would be localiCed* t'ey could en'ance t'eir
participants. sense of co&&on service to t'eir own co&&unity3 :urther, 'y included selected
state and local progra&s in national service and 'y having the 5S3 create a co&&on recognition for
all service activity, so&e synergy and sense of unity could 'e created a&ong state progra&s and
'et$een state and federal progra&s% We could have the 5S3 endorse and su'sidi(e half the costs
of t$o *inds of local progra&s, conservation corps and co&&unity service progra&s%

.la!dl.org
Sti&ulus ?A
[___]
[___] States 'ave no &oney federal spending on infrastructure is a critical econo&ic
sti&ulus for t'e states
0ruce AatC* Bice Lresident Metropolitan Lrogra&, 0roo*ings, +,-+
(:e'ruary 1;, 7Ce&a*ing :ederalis& to Ce&a*e the .&erican >cono&y,!
http"##$$$%'roo*ings%edu#research#papers#2+12#+2#1;)federalis&)*at(2
Lresident)elect 0arac* Oba&a.s advocacy of a 'istoric infrastructure spending plan loo%s
li%e anot'er e2a&ple of t'e federal govern&ent wanting to spread t'e wealt' of its
econo&ic rescue efforts3 (it' t'e govern&ent 'aving already e&ployed financial sector
'ailout pac*ages, special lending facilities, lo$er interest rates, ta2 rebates and 'ousing relief*
t'e infrastructure plan appears ai&ed at 'elping cas'$strapped states as &uc' as t'e
average wor%er 4(e need to try to do so&e direct sti&ulus* direct >ob creation *! says @ohn
Irons, research director at the >cono&ic Lolicy Institute, $hich has 'een advocating such a plan
for a'out a year% 7/ou hear fro& &ayors and governors% =hey all have projects that are ready to go
and just need funding% We *no$ the &oney is going to 'e spent%!
1!
.la!dl.org
States :acis& Turn
[___] States are &ore li%ely to i&ple&ent t'e plan in a discri&inatory &anner* %illing solvency
Stanford Fournal of Civil :ig'ts I Civil iberties H
(.ug 2++;, T.ri(onaMs Lroposition 2++ and the Supre&acy of :ederal La$" >le&ents of La$, Lolitics,
and :aithT2
=hough not a &ajor pro'le& given the political legiti&acy and responsiveness of state govern&ent
vis)a)vis the federal govern&ent, I do pause here to flag one civic concern" t'e legacy of
oppression and discri&ination t'at particular &inority co&&unities associate wit' t'eir state
govern&ents 'as not yet, unfortunately, been relegated to the annals of ancient history% 5ot only
do segregationist policies* denial of t'e franc'ise* and rut'less state$sponsored violence co&e
to &ind for &any poor blac% sout'erners $hen they thin* a'out their relationship to the state
govern&entG they &ay also have salient &e&ories of Ning v% S&ith types of intrusive, hu&iliating
ho&e visits related directly to $elfare ad&inistration% n1;I In light of LCW3C.Ms a'andon&ent of
federal $elfare entitle&ents, t'e oppressive and discri&inatory policies and attitudes of t'e
-1J,s and -1H,s* w'ic' 'ad been reined in by t'e federal protections afforded by way of
<oldberg and Aing* &ay potentially be revived3 Indeed* institutional racis& at t'e state and
local level is alar&ingly enduring% Lrofessor Cashin, for one, devotes considera'le attention to ho$
states profoundly discri&inate against their .frican).&erican $elfare populations% 51;6 and another,
)rofessor Susan <ooden, presents a particularly salient case study of Birginia $elfare services% In
her study, she docu&ents and contrasts state ad&inistratorsK disparaging and ungenerous
treat&ent of blac% welfare recipients wit' t'eir treat&ent of si&ilarly situated w'ite clients
w'o were always given first notice of new >obs* offered t'e EnewestE wor% clot'es* and given
access to auto&obiles3 N-H1 <nderstanding discri&ination is not just an acade&ic e?ercise, 'ut
also a visceral part of the $elfare e?perience% T'e civic 'ar&s associated wit' returning power to
t'e states cannot be disregarded as 'istorically contingent3 Suc' 'ar&s persist today3
11
.la!dl.org
9assac'usetts Spending ?A S'ell
A3 9assac'usetts budget is tig't no roo& to e2pand transportation infrastructure spending
Doston Lerald* +,-+
(May 1+, 2+12, 0oston 4erald, 7Long =er& 0udget 3ut of 0alance,!
http"##'ostonherald%co&#ne$s#opinion#op1ed#vie$%'garticleidR1+;11,+Q++Vfor&atRte?t2
. ne$ long)ter& revenue and e?penditure forecast released earlier this $ee* 'y the Latric*
ad&inistration suggests that 9assac'usetts faces so&e difficult fiscal c'oices3 It 'uilds on a
positive 'ut little recogni(ed achieve&ent of our state govern&ent" :or &any, &any years, governors
of 'oth parties have $or*ed $ith the legislative leadership and outside econo&ists to prepare A and
agree on A revenue esti&ates prepared $ithout regard to politics or partisanship% 0ased on these
esti&ates, Oov% Eeval Latric*, his Cepu'lican predecessors and the legislative leadership have 'een
&ore cautious than their counterparts in other states a'out using one)ti&e revenues and have on the
$hole 'een prudent in setting aside funds in good years% Latric*s long)ter& projections can add a
ne$ di&ension to this cooperation 'y loo*ing at the outloo* not for one year 'ut for 1+% (:ull
disclosure" I $as one of the outside econo&ists A $ith colleagues 'oth li'eral and conservative A
$ho $or*ed $ith the governors staff on this project%2 =he report provides a helpful chec* on the use
of one)ti&e funds to 'alance ne?t years 'udget% Specifically, its fiscally prudent to use one)ti&e
revenues if and only if the spending they support is in line $ith revenues the econo&y $ill generate
$hen it eventually returns to full e&ploy&ent% =he governor proposes to use one)ti&e revenues of
WFF; &illion A just under half the 'illion dollar gap ne?t year 'et$een actual and full)e&ploy&ent
revenues% Loo*ing ahead a fe$ years, ho$ever, $e face so&e hard choices% Decause of t'e long$
ter& i&pact of t'e <reat :ecession* state and national output and e&ploy&ent (and therefore
state ta? revenues2 are not going to grow over t'e ne2t decade at rates co&parable to t'e last
period of e2tended econo&ic growt' A the years fro& 1HH+ to 2+++% Lrepared 'efore &ajor
>uropean econo&ies entered recession, the Latric* outloo* assu&es so&e$hat stronger revenue
gro$th over the ne?t t$o years% 0ut after this period of recovery, revenue gro$th slo$s and falls
'ehind the e?pected gro$th in spending% In econo&ists jargon, 'y 2+1; $ell have a structural deficit
A the long)ter& gro$th in spending $ill not 'e supported 'y the long)ter& gro$th in revenues% 3ver
the last year, Massachusetts has seen surprisingly lo$ gro$th in insurance costs for govern&ent
health progra&s% 0arring structural change, this cant continue% .'sent &ajor refor&s, the Latric*
projections are so&e$hat opti&istic A they assu&e health)care cost increases over the ne?t decade
so&e$hat lo$er than the past several years% @f t'e refor&s proposed by )atric% and t'e
legislative leaders'ip eventually %noc% + percent or / percent off t'e annual growt' in
9edicaid and ot'er govern&ent 'ealt' costs* t'e budget will be in long$ter& balance3 Still, as
the report o'serves, 7T'is reduction 3 3 3 would only allow for &aintenance level spending for
e2isting govern&ent progra&s and would not allow for increased invest&ents for
transportation infrastructure, education (or2 restoration of past 'udget cuts%!
12
.la!dl.org
D3 "ducation is vulnerable ac% of e2isting revenue to spend on education causes cuts
Federal :eserve Dan% of Doston* -110
(7Lerspective on State =a? Lolicy,! http"##$$$%'os%fr'%org#econo&ic#nerr#rr1HHI#$inter#prtvHI11%ht&2
In recent years, states 'ave been &ore inclined t'an t'ey 'ave in t'e past to cut spending in
response to shrin*ing revenues, and to restrain spending growt' as revenues have recovered% In
the recession of the early 1HH+s, w'en revenues fell dra&atically t'roug'out New "ngland* t'e
largest cuts often ca&e in 'ig'er education% .nd rather than cut their o$n 'udgets further* state
legislators often c'ose to give less Elocal aidE to cities and towns*w'ere t'e cuts 'ad si&ilar
effects% Caising local ta?es $as difficult, especially in poorer co&&unities, so cuts in local aid tended
to result in cuts in spending% As t'e largest budget ite&* education often bore t'e brunt3 .t 'oth
the state and local levels, revenue cuts t'us often led to reductions in education spending3
13
.la!dl.org
C3 @nvest&ents in education is critical to t'e econo&y and econo&ic opportunity
Calvert$Lenderson +,-+
(-uality of Life Indicators, 2+12, http"##$$$%calvert)henderson%co&#edu%ht&2
In todayMs glo'ali(ed infor&ation)'ased econo&y, %nowledge is now widely recogniCed as a %ey
factor of production% Loliticians in &any countries, including the <S., run for office on platfor&s
that stress education% =he World 0an* and other &ultilateral institutions no$ agree that invest&ents
in education 7particularly at presc'ool and A t'roug' -+ levels8 are t'e new %eys* along wit'
invest&ents in 'ealt'* to econo&ic develop&ent3 Not'ing is c'anging our business and
acade&ic institutions faster t'an t'e new definitions of 'u&an and intellectual capital3 .s
&any ne$ Internet)'ased, e)co&&erce 'usinesses *no$, a co&pany cannot To$nT the part of its
*no$ledge 'ase that resides in the heads of its e&ployees% =his ne$ evaluation of intellectual capital,
on $hich all technical and social innovation is 'ased, is still under)esti&ated in the <S OEL% Current
OEL still accounts for education costs as Te?pendituresT rather than as invest&ents in hu&an capital%
(=o see 4a(el 4endersonMs article on education, Key Investments in the Wealth of Nations go to
$$$%ha(elhenderson%co& and clic* on M>ditorialsM%2 .lthough education is a significant foundation
of our countryKs econo&ic vitality, preparing individuals for the $or*force is only one goal of
education% 3f eJual i&portance are ena'ling individuals to" lead lives of dignity and purposeG
construct *no$ledge and put it to hu&ane endsG and participate as infor&ed citi(ens in a de&ocratic
society% =he Calvert)4enderson >ducation Indicator provides su&&ary statistics that provide insight
into $hether and ho$ $ell our educational syste&s are achieving these goals% :irst $e loo* at several
overall &easures of the educational achieve&ent of the <S adult population and the resulting
econo&ic i&pact% Second $e loo* at &easures of $ho is 'eing served 'y the e?isting educational
syste& and ho$ $ell% :inally $e loo* at the invest&ent that the <S is &a*ing in our educational
syste& and our hu&an capital and ho$ that co&pares $ith other countries, 'oth in the a&ount 'eing
invested and the results 'eing achieved% .s can 'e seen in the graph 'elo$, t'e education level of
t'e ;S population 'as increased dra&atically in t'e last H, years% In 1HF+, IFD of the population
had less than 12 years of school, $hile 'y 2+1+, the percentage had reversed, $ith &ore than 6ID of
the adult population having co&pleted at least 12 years of school and nearly a third of all adults
having co&pleted at least F years of college%
14
.la!dl.org
9assac'usetts Spending ?A "2tensions
[____]
[____] T'e budget is tig't but balanced now
Shannon #oung* .ssociated Lress, +,-+
(0oston Olo'e, @une 26, Mass% la$&a*ers approve final state 'udget,
http"##$$$%'oston%co&#ne$s#local#&assachusetts#articles#2+12#+;#26#&ass1la$&a*ers1set1to1vote
1on1final1state1'udget#2
TT'is budget &a%es s&art invest&ents to &aintain our fiscal 'ealt' and continue our
econo&ic recovery and >ob growt',T Senate Lresident =herese Murray, E)Lly&outh, said in a
state&ent% E@t also reflects our priority to protect i&portant funding for t'e essential services
and progra&s in the Co&&on$ealth%T =he spending plan includes W6H6 &illion in local aid for cities
and to$ns, tightens restrictions on the use of >lectronic 0enefit =ransfer cards 'y $elfare recipients,
and &aintains FQ 'eds at =aunton State 4ospital, $hich state officials $ere considering closing% Sen%
Marc Lacheco, E)=aunton, $ho pushed for funding at the state hospital, said $hile the funding is not
e?actly $hat he hoped for, it is a Tgood co&pro&ise%T In @anuary, the Latric* ad&inistration
announced it $as closing the hospital, saying it $as antiJuated and not cost effective% =he 4ouse and
governor had suggested &oving &ost of its patients to a ne$ state hospital opening in Worcester%
TWe faced an uphill 'attle after the 4ouse accepted the OovernorMs proposal% =his 'udget $ill allo$
us to *eep the lights on at =aunton State 4ospital,T Lacheco said in a state&ent% .dditionally, t'e
budget includes no new ta2es or fees 'ut relies on WQ1; &illion in one)ti&e funds, including a W,Q+
&illion $ithdra$al fro& the stateMs rainy day fund% =hat still leaves the state $ith a rainy day fund of
&ore than W1 'illion, la$&a*ers said%
15
.la!dl.org
Answers ToM Federal Funding @nefficient
[___]
Federal funding is efficient
T'e Transportation )olitic , :e'ruary 1;, +, -+ * 7Clearing it <p on :ederal =ransportation
>?penditures,! http"##$$$%thetransportpolitic%co&#2+12#+2#1;#clearing)it)up)on)federal)transportation)
e?penditures#
(as'ington does run very co&petitive grant progra&s A e?actly the type of perfor&ance)
'ased financing Mr% Olaeser de&ands A for transit invest&ent pro>ects and for progra&s li*e
=IO>C (and, indeed, for the &uch)hated high)speed rail progra&2% Federal guidelines re6uire
&ost of t'ese pro>ects 7unli%e t'ose funded by for&ula8 to &eet cost$effectiveness and
riders'ip standards
State transportation funding li&ited
"cono&ist, .pril 26, +,--
(7Life in the Slo$ Lane,! http"##$$$%econo&ist%co&#node#16;2+HFF2
At t'e state and local level transport budgets will re&ain tig't $hile une&ploy&ent is high%
With luc*, this pressure could spar" a wave of innovative planning focused on improving the return on
infrastructure spending#
WHAT THIS CARD IS SAYING IS THAT THE STATES BUDGET IS LIMITED, RATHER THAN THE
USFG THAT DOES NOT HAVE A LIMITED BUDGET. THIS ADVANTAGE GOES TO THE AFF
BECAUSE THIS ALLOWS US TO TRADITIONALLY DO THE PLAN.
16
.la!dl.org
Answers ToM States are aboratories
[___]
[___] States are not laboratories
.llan (ell, Eir%, 5ational .cade&y for State 4ealth Lolicy, +,,G
(4>.L=4 .::.ICS, May#@une 2++6, I,62
While states have acco&plished a great deal $ith their refor& efforts targeting access and Juality,
t'ere is little about state 'ealt' policy t'at rese&bles t'e conditions of a laboratory3 Scientists
in laboratories develop 'ypot'eses* conduct e2peri&ents* collect and analyCe data* and reac'
conclusions t'at are t'en applied to real$world conditions3 State 'ealt' policy develop&ent*
by contrast* is episodic % So&eti&es the spread of ideas is 'ased on political trends that shift &uch
&ore rapidly than the *no$ledge 'ase that $ould support a policy shift3 >?a&ples can 'e found in
state)level adoption of &anaged care regulation, regulation of the s&all)group insurance &ar*et, the
$holesale adoption of &anaged care in Medicaid, and the gro$ing application of cost sharing in
pu'lic progra&s%
17
.la!dl.org
Answers ToM State eaders'ip <ood
[___]
[___] State leaders'ip bad for t'e nation as a w'ole
(4>.L=4 .::.ICS, May#@une 2++6, I,62
:elying upon states to lead co&es at a price for t'e nation, particularly if it is encouraged through
a process of selecting volunteer states to pursue a range of co&pre'ensive refor& plans% =his
approach is li%ely to increase interstate variation in 'ealt' indicators* at least in t'e s'ort run
and probably in t'e long run as well 3
18
.la!dl.org
Answers ToM Federalis& Net Denefit
[___]
[___] State leaders'ip 'urts federalis&
(4>.L=4 .::.ICS, May#@une 2++6, I,62
<lti&ately, t'e wea%est lin% of t'e state leaders'ip approac' is its unrealistic view of
federalis&3 @t is no easier for Congress and t'e president to give stated t'e aut'ority and
resources t'ey need to do t'e >ob rig't t'an it is to get Congress and t'e president to agree
on a 'ealt' policy course for t'e nation% =he &ost li*ely outco&e is a &arginal shift in po$er to
states co&'ined $ith outsi(e e?pectations for the state response%
1

State CP Answers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State CP Answers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League States Ans

355 S. Grand Ave, Suite 3500

Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League States Ans

You might also like