Spending Disadvantage - GMU 2013

George Mason 2012-13
[File Name] [Name]
Spending DA GMU
Spending DA GMU.......................................................................................................................................1
*** Shell...........................................................................................................................................................3
Spending DA 1NC.........................................................................................................................................4
*** Uniqueness Debate....................................................................................................................................7
UQ Econ High...............................................................................................................................................8
UQ Econ High Stocks...............................................................................................................................11
UQ Brink.....................................................................................................................................................12
UQ No Deficit Spending Now....................................................................................................................13
UQ No Spending Now.................................................................................................................................14
UQ Deficit Decreasing Now.......................................................................................................................15
*** Link Debate.............................................................................................................................................17
Link Cuba BizCon....................................................................................................................................18
Link EE Generic.......................................................................................................................................20
Link EE Pork Barrel.................................................................................................................................21
Link Energy Deficit $...............................................................................................................................22
Link FA Deficit $......................................................................................................................................23
Link Trade Deficit $.................................................................................................................................24
*** Internal Link Debate................................................................................................................................26
IL Deficit Spending.....................................................................................................................................27
IL Pork Barrel..............................................................................................................................................30
IL AT: Keynesian Good...............................................................................................................................32
*** Impact Debate..........................................................................................................................................37
MPX War.....................................................................................................................................................38
MPX AT: US Not K2 Global ECON...........................................................................................................39
MPX Poverty...............................................................................................................................................41
*** AFF Answers...........................................................................................................................................43
NU Economy Low.......................................................................................................................................44
NU Spending Low.......................................................................................................................................45
AC QE.........................................................................................................................................................46
Keynes Good..................................................................................................................................................47
No Link FA..................................................................................................................................................50
AT: Biz Con....................................................................................................................................................51
AT: Impact ECON Decline Doesnt => War...............................................................................................52
AT: Impact ECON Resilient........................................................................................................................53
Turn War......................................................................................................................................................54
Turn Trade Bad............................................................................................................................................56

[File Name] [Name]

[File Name] [Name]
*** Shell

[File Name] [Name]
Spending DA 1NC
Uniqueness the economy is recovering, but its on the brink people are still
adjusting to Fed policy
Hwang, reporter for Bloomberg, 6/25, 2013, (Inyoung, U.S. Stocks Rebound From Nine-Week
Low on Economic Data, Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/u-s-stock-futures-gainindicating-s-p-500-rebound.html, MWH)
U.S. stocks rose, as the Standard & Poors 500 Index (SPX) rebounded from a nine-week low, after data
showed durable-good orders and home sales increased more than forecast and consumer confidence
climbed. PulteGroup Inc. (PHM) rallied 3.9 percent as an index of homebuilders jumped 1.1 percent.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corp. gained at least 2.3 percent as financial companies
advanced. Walgreen Co. sank 5.9 percent after posting quarterly profit that missed estimates. Netflix Inc.
(NFLX) slid 1.3 percent after Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. cut its rating on the company to underperform.
The S&P 500 climbed 1 percent to 1,588.03 in New York. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 100.75
points, or 0.7 percent, to 14,760.31 today. People are still digesting the news from the Fed, making mental
adjustments for different levels of interest rates and what those might imply for securities prices over the
next several quarters, John Carey, a fund manager at Boston-based Pioneer Investment Management Inc.,
said by telephone. His firm oversees about $208 billion. Im encouraged the market has stabilized a little
here. U.S. equities climbed today as the Conference Boards index of U.S. consumer confidence increased
to 81.4 in June from 74.3 a month earlier. Another report showed bookings for U.S. goods meant to last at
least three years climbed 3.6 percent for a second month, topping economist forecasts. Separate data
showed sales of new U.S. homes climbed more than forecast in May to the highest level in almost five
years, while home prices increased more than forecast in the 12 months through April.
Link Economic engagement involves spending

Helen V Milner and Dustin H Tingley- 2011
(Who Supports Global Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic
Policy, Pg 49, http://www.princeton.edu/~hmilner/forthcoming%20papers/MilnerTingley
%20(2011)%20Who%20Supports%20Global%20Economic%20) S
For foreign aid, the president also needs congressional approval since this involves taxing and spending+
Congress must agree to the presidents proposals to appropriate and then allocate funds for foreign aid
each year+ Unlike in trade, aid appropriations are usually part of a much larger foreign operations bill,
which contains spending for all forms of international activity in the federal government+ House
committees amend the presidents proposals and then these bills may face amendments on the House
oor+ We focus on these amendments since they give a clearer picture of preferences for aid alone
C. Impact Deficit spending causes economic decline

Rob Nichols- 2013 -the president and chief operating officer of the Financial Services Forum- (Financial
Services Forum, American Banker, http://www.financialservicesforum.org/index.php) S
Given current Congressional Budget Office projections, there is reason to conclude that, unless significant
structural changes are made to balance revenues with spending, the U.S. will probably approach a point
where global market sentiment regarding the nation's fiscal condition could change abruptly for the worse.
This would make corrective action far more urgent and painful than if such steps were taken in the near
term. Failure to meaningfully address the nation's fiscal circumstances raises the prospect of dangers that
could hurt the U.S. economy. Principal among these is the risk that investors could demand higher risk
premiums when buying U.S. government debt. At the current elevated debt tally, rising interest rates could
quickly compound an already challenging fiscal situation. Moreover, given that Treasury bills and bonds
are the basis for borrowing structures in private credit markets, the effect of burgeoning government debt

[File Name] [Name]
on the cost of capital, economic growth and job creation would be far-reaching and decidedly negative.
Given the probable impact of higher rates on U.S. economic prospects, another risk associated with further
deterioration in the nation's debt position is that investors may sour on dollar-denominated assets. The
dollar's relative value would fall, undermining Americans' purchasing power and standard of living. A
falling dollar also has dangerous implications for inflation. Finally, further deterioration in the nation's
debt position would probably be associated with greater financial market instability. The threshold beyond
which investors would demand higher real yields for holding U.S. debt, or flee from dollar-denominated
assets, is not obvious. This inherent uncertainty has tended to make fiscal discipline seem less urgent, or
easier to postpone. Research by Ken Rogoff of Harvard and Carmen Reinhart of the University of
Maryland reveals that, throughout history, in advanced and emerging nations alike, debt-to-GDP levels
surpassing 90% are strongly associated with notably slower economic growth, more frequent and severe
financial crises, higher inflation and overall economic decline. America's debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to
surpass 90% this year. Some analysts argue that the United States' position in the global economy is
unique and, therefore, conventional debt metrics that might signal trouble for other countries simply do not
apply. It is true that the U.S. still enjoys a favored position in the global economy, but it is not immune to
economic decline. The trajectories of former historical powers make clear that failure to achieve fiscal
sustainability increases the risk of financial instability. Unless we as a nation make a strong commitment to
fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.
Economic collapse causes global nuclear war.

Merlini, Senior Fellow Brookings, 11
[Cesare Merlini, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and chairman of
the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for International Affairs (IAI) in Rome. He served as IAI
president from 1979 to 2001. Until 2009, he also occupied the position of executive vice chairman of the
Council for the United States and Italy, which he co-founded in 1983. His areas of expertise include
transatlantic relations, European integration and nuclear non-proliferation, with particular focus on nuclear
science and technology. A Post-Secular World? DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2011.571015 Article Requests:
Order Reprints : Request Permissions Published in: journal Survival, Volume 53, Issue 2 April 2011 , pages
117 - 130 Publication Frequency: 6 issues per year Download PDF Download PDF (~357 KB) View
Related Articles To cite this Article: Merlini, Cesare 'A Post-Secular World?', Survival, 53:2, 117 130]
Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities,
albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the postWestphalian system. One or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and
traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis
might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of
which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences
for peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of
national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be
amplified, emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the
European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India and
Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to
immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated.
One way or another, the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic
absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.

[File Name] [Name]

[File Name] [Name]
*** Uniqueness Debate

[File Name] [Name]
UQ Econ High
U.S. stocks breaking more records- the economy is doing well
Dieterich, 7-11, 2013,
(Chris, Covering stocks and ETFs for The Wall Street Journal in New York, Stocks Surge Into Record
Terrain, Wall Street Journal, JH,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324425204578599172822776806.html?
mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection)
Signals that the Federal Reserve will keep its easy-money policies in place for the long haul energized
investors across the globe and sent U.S. stock indexes soaring to all-time highs. The spark came from Fed
Chairman Ben Bernanke, who said late Wednesday that the economy still needs "highly accommodative
monetary policy for the foreseeable future." U.S. stock futures bolted higher after Wednesday's closing bell,
triggering overnight advances in Asia and Europe and ultimately big gains on Wall Street Thursday. Mr.
Bernanke's comments also prompted a selloff in the dollar, a decline in Treasury yields and a rise in gold
prices. Both the Dow Jones Industrial Average and Standard & Poor's 500-stock index closed at records.
The blue chips climbed 169.26 points, or 1.1%, to 15460.92.
US economy increasing steadily- markets and investors driving it up

Rudarakanchana, 7-10, 2013,
(Nat, US Economic Snapshot: Its all Good When It Comes To Executive Expectations, CEO Confidence
And Salary Increases, International Business Times, JH, http://www.ibtimes.com/us-economic-snapshotits-all-good-when-it-comes-executive-expectations-ceo-confidence-salary-1340391#)
The economy, executives and markets in the United States augur steady improvements in the nation's
economy over the coming six months, according to a trio of reports released on Wednesday. About 40
percent of business executives surveyed hailed North America as a top market for corporate mergers and
acquisitions in 2013, according to a Deloitte LLP report. And almost 70 percent of those executives expect
the U.S. economy to continue its gradual improvements throughout this year, the report notes. Deloitte
polled more than 1,800 professionals in an online May 2013 poll. Meanwhile, confidence among CEOs
saw boosts for the third consecutive quarter, with 60 percent of respondents perceiving better economic
conditions than six months ago, according to nonprofit business association the Conference Board. Thats
up from 36 percent in the previous quarter.
The economy is up- producer prices and the labor market are driving it up
Reuters, 7-12, 2013,
(U.S. producer prices rise, give positive economic signal, Reuters, JH,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/us-producer-pricesrise-could-signal-stronger-economy/article13188500/
the pace of hiring has held at
relatively robust levels and most economists expect growth will rebound later in the year. The data sends a
reassuring signal that demand is still strong enough to push prices higher. While much of the increase in prices was fuelled by a
jump in gasoline which could weigh on consumers, a gauge of underlying inflation pressures pointed to a little more vigor in the
economy. So-called core producer prices, which strip out volatile energy and food costs, rose 0.2 per cent last month, boosted by a 0.8 per
cent increase in the price of passenger cars. Economists had expected core prices to rise 0.1 per cent. Core prices at the wholesale level rose
1.7 per cent in the 12 months through June, matching the gain in the previous month. Economists had expected a weaker 12-month rise. Firmer core inflation could be
good news for the economy as it may signal firming consumer demand.
While federal budget cuts and higher taxes appeared to slow U.S. economic growth sharply in the April-June period,
US labor market growing faster than expected, spurring overall economic growth
and confidence
Huffington Post, 7-5, 2013,

[File Name] [Name]
(June Jobs Report: U.S. Economy Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Rate Unchanged, Huffington Post,
JH, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/05/june-jobs-report-unemployment-rate_n_3549873.html
U.S. employers added 195,000 jobs in June and hiring was more robust in the two previous months than
earlier estimated. The gains raise hopes for a stronger economy in the second half of 2013. The Labor Department said Friday
that the economy also added 20,000 more jobs in May and 50,000 more in April than initially reported. The
unemployment rate stayed at 7.6 percent, but for a good reason: More people started looking for work. The government counts people as unemployed only if they are searching for
. Americans' paychecks rose at a healthy pace and have outpaced inflation in the past year. Average
hourly pay increased 10 cents to $24.01. That's 2.2 percent higher than a year ago. Over the 12 months ending in May, consumer
prices rose 1.4 percent. Stock index futures rose shortly after the report was released at 8:30 a.m. EDT. And the yield on the 10-year Treasury note
jumped from 2.56 percent to 2.65 percent, a sign that investors think the economy is improving.
jobs
US stocks set to make record highs again- the economys up

Jarzemsky, 7-12, 2013,
(Matt, Stocks Pause After Rally, Wall Street Journal, JH,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324879504578601251547328608.html)
the Dow climbed 169 points to
surpass the all-time high it had set in May. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index edged down one point, or 0.1%, to 1674. The Nasdaq Composite
Index gained five points, or U.S. stocks are on pace to post their third-straight weekly advance, helped in recent days by Federal
The Dow Jones Industrial Average tacked on nine points, or 0.1%, to 15472 in the minutes after the opening bell. Thursday,
Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke saying monetary policy would remain "highly accommodative" for the foreseeable future. Concerns about a potential scaling back on stimulus
measures later this year, by way of reduced bond purchases, have prompted choppy trading since mid-May.
The stock markets up all round- many factors

NASDAQ, 7-10, 2013,
(Internet Stocks Help Broad U.S Stock Market Gains, NASDAQ.com, JH,
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/internet-stocks-help-broad-market-gains-oil-service-sector-and-small-capstocks-among-leaders-cm258571
The recent sell-off in U.S. equities was reversed during the week-over-week period. Positive economic data
has helped bring the U.S. stock market to within striking distance of all-time highs. The NASDAQ US
1500 INDEX rose 2.8%. "The risk-on trade seems to be back as investors have put worries about Fed
tapering aside. The U.S. looks particularly attractive compared to other markets lately as Chinas growth
seems to be slowing, said Dave Gedeon, Managing Director, NASDAQ OMX Global Indexes. Crude oil
and energy stocks have been helped by U.S. economic data and the turmoil in Egypt. INDEX MOVES
THIS WEEK The NASDAQ Internet Index (QNET) rose 3.1% on the strong price performance of a
number of U.S. large cap internet stocks. Smaller cap stocks represented by the broad NASDAQ 1500
Index (NQUSS1500) also rose 2.8%.
Economy is improving stock market proves

Hwang, reporter for Bloomberg, 6/25, 2013,
(Inyoung, U.S. Stocks Rebound From Nine-Week Low on Economic Data, Bloomberg,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/u-s-stock-futures-gain-indicating-s-p-500-rebound.html,
MWH)
All 10 groups in the S&P 500 rose today, with financial stocks rising 1.9 percent for the second-largest
gain. JPMorgan, the largest U.S. bank by assets, added 2.3 percent to $52.08. Bank of America, the secondbiggest, gained 3 percent to $12.67 for the best performance in the Dow. Railroads, Airlines Investors
bought shares of stocks most tied to economic growth, sending the Morgan Stanley Cyclical Index up 1.4
percent. The Dow Jones Transportation Average (TRAN) rose 1.9 percent, as all of the 20 railroads,
shipping companies and airlines in the gauge advanced. Carnival Corp. rallied 5 percent to $34.89. The
cruise operator that had a series of mishaps at sea this year reported fiscal second-quarter profit that topped
analysts estimates. The company also said Micky Arison will step down as chief executive officer after 34
years as it splits the CEO and chairman roles. Valero Energy Corp. (VLO) rose 3.6 percent to $34.98 after
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. boosted the worlds biggest independent refiner to neutral from sell.

[File Name] [Name]
Even if the US economy is shaky, its doing well compared to the rest of the world
Lee and Puzzanghera, 7-9, 2013,
(Don, writer for Chicago Tribune, Jim, writer for Chicago Tribune, IMF lowers U.S. and global economic
growth forecasts, Chicago Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/la-fi-imf-world-economy20130710,0,5885679.story, MWH)
And the nation is doing much better than other advanced economies, which as a group are expected to
expand just 1.2% this year and 2.1% next year. One factor is that some developed economies, such as
Germany, rely more on exports. The U.S. economy is driven mostly by domestic spending. "Private
demand should remain solid, given rising household wealth owing to the housing recovery and still
supportive financial conditions," the IMF said of the U.S. economy.
10

[File Name] [Name]
UQ Econ High Stocks

U.S. economy increasing- stocks prove
Gibson, 7-9, (Kate, U.S. Stocks rise; S&P 500 nears record, Market Watch, JH,
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-rise-on-earnings-optimism-2013-07-09
U.S. stocks climbed on Tuesday, pushing the S&P 500 to within 1% of its all-time closing high, as Wall
Street embraced an improving economy and higher interest rates. The market is voting itself that things
are improving, with interest rates going higher without taking the stock market down, said JJ Kinahan,
chief strategist with TD Ameritrade. The S&P 500 index SPX +0.72% added 11.86 points, or 0.7%, to
1,652.32, with materials pacing sector gains. From a technical point of view we need to test 1,650 to go
higher, Kinahan added of the level last breached three weeks ago. The market can now make a run for the
May 21 record close of 1,669.16, he added. The benchmark indexes ran up to three-week highs as Alcoa
Inc. AA -0.13% started off earnings season, with the aluminum manufacturer the first Dow member to
report earnings for the second quarter.
U.S. economy rising; stocks leading the way

Kiernan, 7-9, (Kaitlyn, U.S. Stocks Rise as Nasdaq Looks for Multiyear High,
Nasdaq, JH, http://www.nasdaq.com/article/us-stocks-rise-as-nasdaq-looks-formultiyear-high-20130709-00914)
Stocks rose toward session highs in late-afternoon trading Tuesday, pushing the tech-oriented Nasdaq
Composite Index toward a fresh 12-year high as earnings season got off to a decent start. The Dow Jones
Industrial Average advanced 94 points, or 0.6%, to 15318, in afternoon trading, with Caterpillar and Cisco
Systems leading gains. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index rose 14 points, or 0.8%, to 1654, with
industrials leading nine of 10 sectors higher. The Nasdaq Composite gained 23 points, or 0.7%, to 3508, on
track to finish above its May 21 close of 3502.12, which was the highest finish since the year 2000. "We're
encouraged by the fact that technology is starting to lead, versus the beginning of the year when it was
more defensive names leading stocks higher," said Joe Bell, senior market analyst with Schaeffer's
Investment Research
11

[File Name] [Name]
UQ Brink
Obamas administrations policies put economy on brinkCato Institute- APRIL 19, 2013 ( At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge?, CATO Institute,
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/brink-will-obama-push-us-over-edge)S
In At the Brink, economist John Lott argues that the Obama administrations policies are destroying what
has been a health care system that has been the envy of the world. Furthermore, Obama inherited a severe
recession, but the spectacular stimulus spending with which Obama launched his presidency not only has
failed to help the economyit has poisoned it, slowing the recovery. His positions on regulations and taxes
have also harmed the economy. But the Obama administrations legacy isnt just going to be on health
care and the economy, Lott says. For example, another long-lasting legacy will be on peoples ability to
defend themselves with guns. The administrations appointments to the courts, as well as federal actions
and its unprecedented push for states to adopt gun control, will reduce gun ownership and endanger lives.
The US economy is on the brink fears of Fed tapering and sequestration

Lee and Puzzanghera, 7-9, 2013,
(Don, writer for Chicago Tribune, Jim, writer for Chicago Tribune, IMF lowers U.S. and global economic
growth forecasts, Chicago Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/la-fi-imf-world-economy20130710,0,5885679.story, MWH)
"On top of that, you've got this 'taper' panic," he said of investors' fears that the Fed will soon start
unwinding its easy-money policies, leading to higher interest rates and a flight of capital from emerging
economies as investors seek higher returns in the U.S. In the U.S., the IMF said the sequester's effect was
likely to remain until next year, longer than anticipated in the spring. But as the pace of the spending cuts
slows, U.S. economic growth should be able to pick up next year, the IMF said.
12

[File Name] [Name]
UQ No Deficit Spending Now

No deficit spending nowALAIN SHERTER- CBS-, 5-13, 2013, (Feds U.S government is plunging, CBS
Moneywatch, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57584449/feds-u.sgoverment-deficit-is-plunging/)
(MoneyWatch) Lawmakers gearing up for what is shaping up as another bitter partisan clash over the
nation's borrowing limit later this year must reckon with a new fiscal reality: The federal deficit is shrinking
fast. A Congressional Budget Office study released today forecasts that the annual U.S. budget gap -- the
difference between what the government collects in revenue every year and what it spends -- will fall this
year to $642 billion. That's $200 billion less than the non-partisan forecasting arm of Congress was
predicting only three months ago and down sharply from the deficit levels that swelled as the economy
contracted following the housing crash. The CBO attributed the budgetary progress to rising personal and
corporate income taxes, along with Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC) -- the housing agencies
seized by the government during the financial crisis -- repaying part of their bailout loans from taxpayers.
Tax receipts are surging largely because the payroll taxes employees pay to fund Social Security rose in
January and because rates rose on the richest Americans.
No deficit spending now- the government has a surplus

Lange, 7-11, 2013,
(Jason, U.S. posts unexpectedly large budget surplus for June, Reuters, JH,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/11/us-usa-economy-budget-idUSBRE96A0TU20130711)
The U.S. government posted an unexpectedly large budget surplus in June, a further sign of the rapid
improvement in public finances that has taken the heat off Congress to find savings and raise the nation's
borrowing limit. Rising tax revenue, public spending cuts and big payments to the Treasury from
government-backed mortgage companies helped the government take in $117 billion more last month than
it paid out, the U.S. Treasury said on Thursday. Analysts polled by Reuters had expected a surplus of
$39.5 billion.
The governments in surplus- no deficit spending

AP, 7-11, 2013,
(Government reports $116.5B surplus in June, USAToday, JH,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/11/government-budget-surplus-june/2509455/ )
The federal government on Thursday reported a rare surplus of $116.5 billion in June, the largest for a
single month in five years. The gain kept the U.S. on track for its lowest annual deficit in five years. The
surplus was due in part to $66.3 billion in dividend payments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The
mortgage giants were taken over by the government at the height of the 2008 financial crisis and are now
repaying taxpayers for the support they received.
13

[File Name] [Name]
UQ No Spending Now
No new spending nowTRAVIS WALDRON- reporter for ThinkProgress at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Feb
12, 2013
(Three Charts That Show America Doesnt Have A Spending Problem, ThinkProgress,
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/12/1580111/three-charts-that-show-america-doesnt-have-aspending-problem/) S
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosis (D-CA) claim this weekend that the government doesnt have a
spending problem has been met with typical outrage from Republican politicians (and several members of
the Washington media) who have spent the greater part of the last three years arguing that reining in
Americas supposed out-of-control government spending would put the country on a more stable economic
footing. There is, however, no basis to those claims, as actual evidence points in the opposite direction. As
this chart from Slates Matt Yglesias shows, overall government spending has plateaued under President
Obama after rising sharply under George W. Bush and during Obamas first year in office, when the
economic recovery act went into effect. In fact, the reduction in growth of spending under Obama is
unprecedented in the last half-century, and government spending under Obama is growing at the slowest
rate since Dwight Eisenhower was president
14

[File Name] [Name]
UQ Deficit Decreasing Now

The deficit is decreasing now
Papadimitriou, president of the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and executive vice president
of Bard, 13
(Dimitri, What the economy needs is even more deficit spending, Deseret News,
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765626414/What-the-economy-needs-is-even-more-deficitspending.html?pg=all, MWH)
The deficit has arguably gained the distinction of being the single most widely misunderstood public policy
issue in America. Just 6 percent (6!) of respondents in a recent poll correctly stated that it had been
shrinking, which has in fact been the case for several years, while 10 times more, 62 percent, wrongly
believed that it's been getting bigger.
15

[File Name] [Name]
16

[File Name] [Name]
*** Link Debate
17

[File Name] [Name]
Link Cuba BizCon

Investment in Cuba tanks business confidence its viewed as dangerous
Rohrlich, 12 (Justin, Award-winning Head Writer of World in Review, Risky Business: Investing in
Cuba Is More Than Just a Financial Gamble, http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/editorspick/articles/cuba-emerging-markets-frontier-markets-market/6/20/2012/id/41867?refresh=1, MWH)
Investment risk can mean a number of different things. This past fall, British businessman Amado Fakhre
took a particularly severe type of loss: His freedom. October, 2011: Fakhre, the Lebanese-born, Havanabased CEO of Coral Capital -- which claimed to have invested $75 million in Cuba, with more than $1
billion worth of projects in the pipeline -- is woken at dawn and arrested by Cuban authorities. Coral
Capitals offices are shuttered and declared a crime scene. Fakhre has been held without charges ever
since. April, 2012: Coral Capitals COO Stephen Purvis, is picked up by Cuban government agents as he
prepares to walk his children to school. He too, has been held without charges, and no mention has been
made of either case in Cubas state-run media. Before their disappearances, Fakhre and Purvis seemed to
have no shortage of confidence in Corals ventures. Were not virgins at this, Purvis told a reporter,
regarding the Bellomonte Golf Club, a 650-acre property under development at the time of his arrest.
Indeed, Purvis and Fakhre were not beginners -- Coral Capital was formed in 1999 to invest in Cuba and
successfully restored Havanas Hotel Saratoga, where rates climb as high as $900 per night. They also
opened the islands first Land Rover dealership, which was admittedly a work in progress (they sold a total
of one car, to themselvesbut these things take time). Coral Capital was not the only foreign company
paid back by the Cuban government with a complimentary stay at Villa Marista, the state security torture
facility that apparently also doubles as a guesthouse. Vahe "Cy" Tokmakjian, CEO of Ontario, Canadas,
Tokmakjian Group, which sold buses, trucks, and mining equipment to Cuba and served as Cubas
exclusive distributor for Hyundai, was an experienced Cuba hand. "I came to Cuba 21 years ago when the
times of economic trouble began and, despite my banker's advice, I considered I could trust Cubans; so
thats how I came here, why Im here now and why I will continue to be here," he told Cuba Plus, a
publication produced by Vancouvers Taina Communications in partnership with the Cuban government.
To be sure, Tokmakjian, whose company did an estimated $80 million worth of business with the island
annually, continues to live in Cuba -- held without charges since September 2011, when he was taken into
custody by state security and his company closed. (A second Canadian, Tri-Star Caribbean CEO Sarkis
Yacoubian, has been held by the Cuban government without charges for almost a year.) What Happened?
As Fakhre, Purvis, et al (over the past two years, Cuba has sent 52 foreigners, as well as hundreds of Cuban
ministers and officials to jail, and has expelled more than 150 foreign business owners and operators) have
now discovered, part of the reform process appears to include President Raul Castro making good on a
2008 vow to root out the rampant corruption that has been a part of daily life for decades. A noble goal,
hampered by the fact that no clear definition exists of what, exactly, constitutes corruption. A centrallycontrolled command economy such as Cubas, with a near-total lack of transparency, ensures that every
act is fraught for anybody trying to exist, from businesspeople to the average Joe, says a diplomatic
official who agreed to speak to me anonymously. The Cubans have very publicly made examples of what
they perceive to be corruption issues, the source explains. One of those, in an interesting reversal of the
norm, is what might be referred to as a maximum wage law, which reportedly hovers around $20 per
month. According to the Economist, Raul Castro considers letting foreign firms pay market wages a step
too far, forcing companies to break the law -- and run afoul of his newfound efforts to enforce it. We
are somewhat in the dark here, said a European businessman based in Havana. If I pay my manager an
extra $100 a month, as I feel I should, is that a crime against national security? The answer is, in a
Communist country, yes. Money is power, and the inevitable income disparities that result from capitalistic
concepts like bonuses collapse the order of a classless society. Heres former UK Ambassador to North
Korea, John Everard: The regimes distaste for markets is easy to understand. Because of the markets,
people who had been brought up to depend on the state to provide everything had developed some
economic independence. Customers had learned the importance of price and had learned to choose their
purchases, while market traders had emerged who had learned the subversive skills of bargaining,
procurement, and logistics. People had also learned the usefulness of markets as sources of news and gossip
outside official control. The results of decades of ideological work were at risk. Sometimes, the bribes are
18

[File Name] [Name]
blatant, like the free trips abroad, computers, flat-screen TVs or large deposits of cash in foreign bank
accounts for senior officials reported by a South American importer doing business in Cuba before he was
accused of corruption and expelled in 2009. Other times, they may be inadvertent (a few dollars for gas) or
perfectly acceptable in market societies (paying commissions). "The forms of persuasion -- let's call it that
-- are nearly infinite," said the importer. And illegal. As one Facebook commenter who appears to be
acquainted with Stephen Purvis, writes: Steve has meant well by subsidising the marginal salaries of
Cuban management staff -- but we all know that ANY payments of foreign currency to Cubans is strictly
prohibited and is regarded as paying bribes.
19

[File Name] [Name]
Link EE Generic
The plan causes an increase in spending
Daga, 5-15, 2013,
(Sergio, Economics of the 2013-2014 Debate Topic: U.S. Economic Engagement Toward Cuba, Mexico, or
Venezuela, NCPA, JH, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/economics-of-the-2013-2014-debate-topic-us-economicengagement-toward-cuba-mexico-or-venezuela
The vast sums of money dispensed by multilateral foreign aid agencies, such as the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank, give the officials of these agencies enormous influence on the
governments of aid-recipient nations, regardless of the success or failure of the programs they suggest or
impose as preconditions for receiving money. Direct government-to government grants of money,
shipments of free food, and loans are also made available on terms more lenient than those available in
financial markets. Government-to-government loans are periodically forgiven, allowed to default, or
rolled over by being repaid from the proceeds of new and larger loans. Foreign aid is often a
disguised subsidy to domestic manufacturing firms or farms. The Export-Import Bank of the United
States, for example, loans money to foreign governments to purchase U.S. goods. Other developed
countries have similar agencies.
Economic engagement involves spending money

Daily Impact, 13,
(The Daily Impact: US Senator Calls for Deeper Economic Engagement in Africa, the Impact, JH,
http://blog.psiimpact.com/2013/03/the-daily-impact-us-senator-calls-for-deeper-economic-engagement-inafrica/
-Early reauthorization of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a 2000 law to offer trade preferences to
African countries to help open their economies and build free markets. The law, which expires in 2015, has
supported the growth of an African middle class, reduced dependence on development assistance and
opened African markets to American companies, according to the report. -Increasing the presence of U.S.
foreign commercial service officers, who help develop markets for U.S. exporters, in sub-Saharan Africa.
Six officers are stationed there now. There are no officers in five of the six African countries listed among
the 10 fastest-growing economies in the past decade. -Improved coordination between U.S. government
agencies as part of a more comprehensive strategy for investment in sub-Saharan Africa. Theres literally
10 different federal agencies doing trade policy and international development, Coons said. Making sure
they work better together doesnt require more money. It just requires spending the money well.
20

[File Name] [Name]
Link EE Pork Barrel

Aid is pork barrel spending
Erik Lundsgarade- Senior Researcher at the German Development Institute (DIE) December 2012
(The Domestic Politics of Foreign Aid Volume 1 of Routledge Explorations in Development
Studies,http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Domestic_Politics_of_Foreign_Aid.html?
id=Y8rKpnz0HkEC) S
The politics of the pork barrel spending is one extension of this logic. The scale of pork barrel spending
relating to projects where funding is earmarked, for a specific purpose and a targeted beneficiary, is often
overstated. (Lee 2003). Nevertheless, congressional earmarking can serve as an important means of
building supporting coalitions for potentially unpopular legislation (Evans 1994, Lee 2000, 2003). Aid
spending has been especially venerable to earmarking. As an example, a review of aid programs prepared
by the Congressional Research Service in 1988 noted that earmarks in that year affected 81 percent of
USAIDs operating budget reflecting a rising trend in the use of earmarks in the course of the 1980s
(Nowels 1989b).
21

[File Name] [Name]
Link Energy Deficit $

Energy development and research- spends 172 billion
Bryan Walsh- New York Times- Science and Space November 11 2011
(Does the U.S. Spend Too Much on Green Energy or Not Enough, New York Times,
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2099480,00.html)
The Post piece, by Steven Mufson, noted that from 1961 to 2008 the federal government spent $172 billion
on basic research and development of advanced energy and suggested that we hadn't gotten anywhere
near our money's worth. Experimental nuclear plants, synthetic fuels, hydrogen-powered cars on the
long list of government bets on new energy technology, Mufson found few clean winners. As former
Obama economic adviser and Clinton-era Treasury Secretary Larry Summers put it in an e-mail to other
White House staff about possible loans for Solyndra, the federal government seems to be "a crappy VC."
All this, plus the lingering fallout from Solyndra a poster child for the Obama Administration's greeninvestment plans before its spectacular failure in September would seem to put the final nails in the
coffin for government green investment. Or does it? First, it's important to note that subsidies for clean
energy still lag far behind the public money that goes toward oil, coal and natural gas projects. According
to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuels received $409 billion in subsidies globally in 2010,
compared with $66 billion for renewable power. Of course, fossil fuels supply far more energy than
renewable sources about 80% of global energy consumption and thus give a better return on
investment, on a megawatt-by-megawatt basis. But coal and oil have been around for over a century,
making them the very definition of mature industries and therefore, one would think, less in need of
sustained government assistance.
22

[File Name] [Name]
Link FA Deficit $
U.S foreign aid is deficit spending
Gretchen Hamel- The New York Times, 2012,
(Cant Afford Foreign Aid, or Cant Afford to Cut It?, The New York Times, 12-3,
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/08/15/cant-afford-foreign-aid-or-cant-afford-to-cut-it)
With the American economy and the federal budget in tatters, the $50 billion that the U.S. spends on
foreign aid could be a tempting target for deficit hawks. Should the U.S. sustain its contributions, when it
cant balance its own budget. Since 2009, Americans have watched our national debt grow by 50 percent.
Along with this increase, the concern for government spending is intensifying. Not since the 1990s have
Americans been so focused on the debt, and rightfully so. According to Pew data released this summer, our
deficit is one of the fastest growing priorities for Americans, eclipsed only by the economy and jobs.
Just as a doctor would treat an illness, we must look for the cause of the ailment . In the case of the deficit,
thats government overspending. So the question clearly is, Where do we cut? But that's where the debate
always veers off track. Foreign aid often comes up, because it is a big and slow-moving target. Of course,
its only a drop of the total budget 1 percent but you have to start somewhere. Some foreign aid
spending is wasteful and even counterproductive. Why do we give Pakistan $1 billion a year? Take our aid
to Pakistan, for example. Is there a better place to start than cutting spending to a nation that quite likely
aided and abetted the mastermind behind 9/11, Osama bin Laden? A country that has put a man behind bars
for helping the C.I.A. track down bin Laden? Aid to Pakistan is only a little over $1 billion a year
nothing compared to the $50 billion wasted yearly in Medicare. But this is a cut that would be based on
principle. It would be foolish to cut all foreign aid. We just have to be smarter about how we spend the
money. There are plenty of worthy causes, but the waste and counterproductive spending on foreign aid
show that even the small line items in the federal budget can be trimmed, if we make cuts based on
principles and priorities. On foreign aid and other areas of the budget , its time for the president and
Congress prioritize, reform and reduce government spending. Otherwise, we will face the fiscal and
economic consequences.
23

[File Name] [Name]
Link Trade Deficit $

Trade is deficit spending
Associated Press- USA Today- May 2 2013
(U.S. trade deficit falls to $38.8 billion, USA Today,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/05/02/trade-deficit-march/2128791/) S
WASHINGTON (AP) The U.S. trade deficit narrowed in March for a second month as the daily
flow of imported crude oil dropped to the lowest level in 17 years. The trade deficit with China hit a threeyear low. Overall, the deficit shrank to $38.8 billion, an 11% drop from February's $43.6 billion,
the Commerce Department reported Thursday. Exports fell 0.9% to $184.3 billion as sales of
machinery, autos and farm products declined. Imports fell 2.8% to $223.1 billion, led by a 4.4% drop
in foreign petroleum. Crude oil imports averaged just 7 million barrels per day, the lowest since March
1996. A smaller trade gap can boost economic growth as U.S. companies earn more from overseas sales
while consumers and businesses spend less on foreign products. For the first three months this year, the
trade deficit is running at an annual rate of $507.7 billion, 5.9% below last year's deficit of $539.5
billion. Economists are looking for the deficit to narrow slightly this year, in part because they expect
continued gains in U.S. exports. The politically sensitive deficit with China shrank 23.6% in March to
$17.9 billion, still far above the imbalance with any other country. The deficit with the European
Union grew 13% in March to $9.9 billion even though U.S. exports to the region rose 14.4%. But for
the year, U.S. exports to Europe are down 8% compared with the same period in 2012, reflecting the impact
of a recession in the 17 European Union countries that use the euro.
24

[File Name] [Name]
25

[File Name] [Name]
*** Internal Link Debate
26

[File Name] [Name]
IL Deficit Spending
Increased deficit spending kills the economy
Mitchell, Senior Research Fellow at George Mason University, 2013
(Matthew, Deficit Spending Displaces Private Economic Growth, US News,
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-balancing-the-federal-budget-be-a-top-policy-priority/deficitspending-displaces-private-economic-growth, MWH)
The case for budget balance begins with economic growth. A number of studies have now found that
nations with high debttypically defined as debt in excess of 90 percent of GDPtend to grow more
slowly. Some still argue that the U.S. is special: We operate our own currency and it happens to be the
currency in which international business is conducted. This advantage may allow us to blow through the 90
percent mark without slowing growth. But the Congressional Budget Office is now projecting thatabsent
policy changeU.S. debt will reach 100 percent of GDP in about a decade and climb to 200 percent just 13
years after that. The U.S. might be special, but it isn't that special. There is some level of debt that will
affect us. And there is no law that says international commerce will always be conducted in the U.S. dollar
(just ask the British). Even if economic growth is not your top priority, excessive debt should still concern
you. It makes it harder for government to do other things that you might value. More debt means higher
debt payments. And every dollar the government sends to a creditor is a dollar it might have spent on Social
Security, Medicare, or infrastructure. Assuming interest rates remain moderate, the CBO projects that in
just 12 years we will spend more on interest payments than on Medicare. In 16 years, we will spend more
on interest payments than on Social Security.
Deficit spending kills the economy it trades off with private profit
Edwards, director of tax policy studies at Cato Institute, 2011,
(Chris, senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic Committee, a manager with
PricewaterhouseCoopers, and an economist with the Tax Foundation, Federal Spending Doesnt Work,
Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/federal-spending-doesnt-work, MWH)
Lets take a look at how government spending damages the economy over the long run. Spending is
financed by the extraction of resources from current and future taxpayers. The resources consumed by the
government cannot be used to produce goods in the private marketplace. For example, the engineers needed
to build a $10 billion government high-speed rail line are taken away from building other products in the
economy. The $10 billion rail line creates government-connected jobs, but it also kills at least $10 billion
worth of private jobs. Indeed, the private sector would actually lose more than $10 billion in this example.
That is because government spending and taxing creates deadweight losses, which result from distortions
to working, investment and other activities. The CBO says that deadweight loss estimates range from 20
cents to 60 cents over and above the revenue raised. Harvard Universitys Martin Feldstein thinks that
deadweight losses may exceed one dollar per dollar of revenue raised, making the cost of incremental
governmental spending more than two dollars for each dollar of government spending. Thus, a $10 billion
high-speed rail line would cost the private economy $20 billion or more. The government uses a leaky
bucket when it tries to help the economy. Former chairman of the Council of Economics Advisors,
Michael Boskin, explains: The cost to the economy of each additional tax dollar is about $1.40 to $1.50.
Now that tax dollar is put into a bucket. Some of it leaks out in overhead, waste and so on. In a wellmanaged program, the government may spend 80 or 90 cents of that dollar on achieving its goals.
Inefficient programs would be much lower, $0.30 or $0.40 on the dollar. Texas A&M economist Edgar
Browning comes to similar conclusions about the magnitude of the governments leaky bucket: It costs
taxpayers $3 to provide a benefit worth $1 to recipients. The larger the government grows, the leakier the
bucket becomes. On the revenue side, tax distortions rise rapidly as tax rates rise. On the spending side,
funding is allocated to activities with ever lower returns as the government expands. Figure 2 illustrates the
consequences of the leaky bucket. On the left-hand side, tax rates are low and the government initially
delivers useful public goods such as crime reduction. Those activities create high returns, so per-capita
incomes initially rise as the government grows. As the government expands further, it engages in less
27

[File Name] [Name]
productive activities. The marginal return from government spending falls and then turns negative. On the
right-hand side of the figure, average incomes fall as the government expands. Government in the United
States at more than 40 percent of GDP is almost certainly on the right-hand side of this figure. In his
2008 book, Stealing from Ourselves, Professor Browning concludes that todays welfare state reduces GDP
or average U.S. incomes by about 25 percent. That would place us quite far to the right in Figure 2,
and it suggests that federal spending cuts would substantially increase U.S. incomes over time.
Spending causes economic decline

Richard Lachmann- sociology department at the State University of New York at Alabany 2011
(The roots of American Decline, American Sociological Association, http://contexts.org/articles/winter2011/the-roots-of-american-decline)S
The dominant view, shared by almost all those on the right and many centrists, is that fiscal crisis is due
to rising spending on social programs. (An alternative version of this theory points to increases in military
spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.) From this perspective, excessive spending produces fiscal
crisis which, in turn, causes decline. The solution, then, is to cut back social benefits (or military
commitments) in order to head off a run on the U.S. dollar and drastic increases in interest rates that would
fatally weaken the U.S. economy. This approach doesnt square with basic facts about American state
spending. The federal budget in the U.S. has held steady as a share of GDP since 1968 (see below). That
lack of growth is possible in part because social benefits in the U.S. are among the skimpiest of any
industrialized country, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), a group of the thirty-three richest countries. The OECD also reports that poverty rates are higher
in the U.S. than most other rich countries. The last expansion of Federal social programs occurred with the
Great Society of the 1960s. And military spending, again as a percentage of GDP, has actually declined
drastically since the Cold War (see below).
Deficit spending causes economic downturn

Thomas E. Woods Jr M.Phil., and Ph.D. in history from Columbia University- bachelor's from Harvard
12 (Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and
Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse by
http://book-nerd.info/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/Meltdown%20A%20Free-Market%20Look%20at%20Why
%20the%20Stock%20Market%20Collapsed%20the%20Economy%20Tanked%20and%20Government
%20Bailouts%20Will%20Make%20Things%20Worse%20by%20Thomas%20E%20Woods%20Jr%20%20Enlightenment%20Dawns.pdfkm\)
Of course downturns are inevitably painful, resulting as they do from Unsustainable rates of project
development and artificially high standards of living created in large part by risky borrowing and lending.
But government interference in the form of stimulus spending, Fed policy to lower interest rates even
further, etc. invariably cause the downturn to last longer and with a smaller rebound than would be
experienced otherwise. Both the Bush and Obama administrations are going about things exactly
wrong: trying to keep a financially disastrous bubble artificially afloat through deficit spending. This
means that real resources will not be available to generate a rebound.It is hard to compress the argument
of this book any further because it is already so concise; the best thing to do is just the read the book. The
upshot of all this and the most important take-away message is that our current crisis is not the result of
the failure of free markets: rather, it resulted from the fact that our markets are not truly free. They are
distorted by the harmful intervention of government which through its insurance policies and special tax
and regulation breaks for GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only increase moral haxard, encourage
risky lending and tamper with the supply of money (which should be based preferably on a gold
standard, or even more ideally whatever medium of exchange people feel is appropriate to their needs).
The argument at least for me was more or less completely persuasive: certainly this explanation makes
the most sense of all the analyses I have read of the crisis so far.
Spending cuts only deepens economic downturn

28

[File Name] [Name]
Krugman, 10-Nobel prize winning professor of Economics and International Affairs at
Princeton University (Paul, The Pain Caucus, The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/opinion/31krugman.html)
The extent to which inflicting economic pain has become the accepted thing was driven home to me by the
latest report on the economic outlook from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
an influential Paris-based think tank supported by the governments of the worlds advanced economies. The
O.E.C.D. is a deeply cautious organization; what it says at any given time virtually defines that moments
conventional wisdom. And what the O.E.C.D. is saying right now is that policy makers should stop
promoting economic recovery and instead begin raising interest rates and slashing spending. Whats
particularly remarkable about this recommendation is that it seems disconnected not only from the real
needs of the world economy, but from the organizations own economic projections. Thus, the O.E.C.D.
declares that interest rates in the United States and other nations should rise sharply over the next year and
a half, so as to head off inflation. Yet inflation is low and declining, and the O.E.C.D.s own forecasts show
no hint of an inflationary threat. So why raise rates? The answer, as best I can make it out, is that the
organization believes that we must worry about the chance that markets might start expecting inflation,
even though they shouldnt and currently dont: We must guard against the possibility that longer-term
inflation expectations could become unanchored in the O.E.C.D. economies, contrary to what is assumed in
the central projection. A similar argument is used to justify fiscal austerity. Both textbook economics and
experience say that slashing spending when youre still suffering from high unemployment is a really bad
idea not only does it deepen the slump, but it does little to improve the budget outlook, because much of
what governments save by spending less they lose as a weaker economy depresses tax receipts. And the
O.E.C.D. predicts that high unemployment will persist for years. Nonetheless, the organization demands
both that governments cancel any further plans for economic stimulus and that they begin fiscal
consolidation next year. Why do this? Again, to give markets something they shouldnt want and
currently dont. Right now, investors dont seem at all worried about the solvency of the U.S. government;
the interest rates on federal bonds are near historic lows. And even if markets were worried about U.S.
fiscal prospects, spending cuts in the face of a depressed economy would do little to improve those
prospects. But cut we must, says the O.E.C.D., because inadequate consolidation efforts would risk
adverse reactions in financial markets. The best summary Ive seen of all this comes from Martin Wolf of
The Financial Times, who describes the new conventional wisdom as being that giving the markets what
we think they may want in future even though they show little sign of insisting on it now should be
the ruling idea in policy. Put that way, it sounds crazy. And it is. Yet its a view thats spreading. And its
already having ugly consequences. Last week conservative members of the House, invoking the new deficit
fears, scaled back a bill extending aid to the long-term unemployed and the Senate left town without
acting on even the inadequate measures that remained. As a result, many American families are about to
lose unemployment benefits, health insurance, or both and as these families are forced to slash spending,
they will endanger the jobs of many more. And thats just the beginning. More and more, conventional
wisdom says that the responsible thing is to make the unemployed suffer. And while the benefits from
inflicting pain are an illusion, the pain itself will be all too real.
29

[File Name] [Name]
IL Pork Barrel
Pork barrel spending bad- hurts economy
James Smith- Senior management Financial Services firms and business consultant 2007
('Pork barrel spending' in Washington wastes tax dollars, Helium, http://www.helium.com/items/419378pork-barrel-spending-in-washington-wastes-tax-dollars) S
Pork barrel spending has been rampant in recent years as the Congress has created a process with a total
lack of transparency to circumvent spending due process review. Much of this "Pork" spending would not
stand up under any type of coherent review . As the Republican Congress has failed to restrain spending,
and President Bush has refused to veto any spending bill, "Pork barrel "spending has increased every year
from 1991 through 2006. So what defines "Pork Barrel" spending? The non profit, non-partisan group,
"Citizens against Government Waste" has a definition that uses common sense as follows: Requested by
one Chamber of Congress Not specifically authorized Not competitively awarded Not requested by the
President Greatly exceeds President's budget request or prior year funding Not subject to Congressional
hearings. Serves only a local or special interest. Using this definition, "Citizens against Government
Waste" identified 2658 projects in 2007 at a cost to the taxpayer of 13.2 billion in the Defense and
Homeland Security Appropriations actions. Since 1991, "Pork" identified under the above definition has
totaled 252 Billion dollars with Alaska and Hawaii being the biggest per capita beneficiaries. This "Pork
Barrel" spending in Washington comes at a time when the Federal budget is in deep deficit. The attitude in
Washington D.C. is that there is a virtually unlimited supply of tax-payer dollars to spend . Of course, when
the budget deficit gets large enough and the dollars begin to dwindle , then the only solution is to raise
taxes. While the Congressional career politicians were spending money on various " Pork projects" to
"bring home the bacon" for their home districts and states, laws passed for Education ( No child Left
behind ), Border Security and others were not being properly funded and the country was in deficit
spending. The obvious conclusion is that political reelection is more important to our career politicians than
properly funding Education, Border Security or the massive budget deficit regardless of what their
statements are during election campaigns. Finally, "Pork Barrel "spending in Washington wastes taxpayer
dollars that could be used for many other progressive projects or to reduce the budget deficit. During the
last several years, the Congressional political hogs have had a feast at the "Pork Barrel". The time has come
for voters to demand that politicians of both parties go on a "Pork-Free Diet " for the financial health of the
nation overall.
USAID- is pork barrel spending- food aid program proves

Charles Kenny- a fellow at the Center for Global Development and the New America Foundation March18- 2013
(Its time to reform USAID, Blomberg Buisiness- Global Economics,
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-18/its-time-to-reform-usaid)
Although as much as $1.7 billion might be slashed from the U.S. foreign assistance budget because of
sequester cuts, little outcry has emerged. Foreign aid has never been popular: In opinion polls, its often the
first expenditure suggested for the chopping block. Surveys suggest Americans feel a moral responsibility
to help the worlds worst off, but they believe the aid bureaucracy is bloated and doesnt work. That,
however, is a misperception. In practice, the foreign aid system, and in particular, the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), work very well in accomplishing what Washington politicians want
them to do. But that includes a range of purposes that have little to do with helping the worlds poor. When
it comes to buying friends at the United Nations, or buying crops in the Midwest, or creating jobs around
the Capital Beltway, the U.S. foreign aid system is a paragon of effectiveness. Take the goal of buying
friends. Eric Werker, a Harvard Business School associate professor, and Ilyana Kuziemko, now a
Columbia Business School associate professor and Harvard Ph.D., estimated in a 2006 Harvard paper that
countries rotating onto the UN Security Council were likely to see their U.S. aid increase by 59 percent.
The aid then fell as the countries finished their terms. In a 1999 study, Illinois State Universitys T.Y. Wang
found that U.S. aid successfully affects UN voting patterns on issues vital to Americas national interests.
30

[File Name] [Name]
The foreign aid budget is also a prime vehicle for pork barrel spending. The U.S. food aid program, for
instance, purchases about $1 billion worth of American crops a year. It spends roughly an additional $1
billion transporting the crops overseas, in most cases using U.S.-flagged ships. A study by the Center for
Economic and Policy Research looked at contracts issued by USAID for the relief effort in Haiti. It found
that while only 0.02 percent of these contracts went to Haitian firms, more than 75 percent were handed to
firms in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. Washington-based contractor Chemonics, with more
than 3,000 employees, received worldwide USAID program funds of nearly three-quarters of a billion
dollars in 2011. Its perhaps unsurprising that aid designed to maximize friends, crop purchases, and U.S.
contractors isnt the most effective at supporting development. Take food aid: Economics professors Nathan
Nunn of Harvard and Nancy Qian of Yale demonstrated in a 2010 paper that what determines the size of
U.S. food aid shipments isnt recipient need, but the size of the U.S. crop. And about half the funding is
used on shipping. That same money could buy supplies in local markets and help farmers in developing
countries. Many U.S. contractors bring years of technical experience and a real commitment to
development. Yet the considerable majority of U.S. aid doesnt appear anywhere on recipient country
budget plans, suggesting the money is buying what American suppliers want to sellnot what recipients
need to get. So whos to blame for the poor record of U.S. foreign aid as a tool of development? Its not
the fault of the long-suffering staff of U.S. aid agencies, who can deliver very effective programs if given
the chance. A global initiative backed by the U.S. and other donors supported delivery of 225 million
measles vaccine doses in 2011 alonepart of a campaign that has reduced measles deaths worldwide from
2.6 million in 1980 to 139,000 in 2010. The blame, instead, lies largely with members of Congress who
complain that aid is wasted because it doesnt lead to development, and then turn around and ensure hardly
any assistance is designed or delivered with development as the primary goal. Theres pressure for change.
USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah is trying to fix at least two of the problems that prevent aid from working
better to promote development. This agency is no longer satisfied with writing big checks to big
contractors and calling it development, said Shah in 2011. He has followed through with reforms designed
to ensure more companies in recipient countries can win some USAID contracts. The Obama
administration is also considering overhauling the food aid program so it delivers cash to hungry people or
local food buyers rather than shipping grain halfway around the world. USAIDs current contractors have
hired lobbyists from the Podesta Group to combat procurement reform, and an alliance of domestic
agricultural groups, shipping interests, and U.S. nongovernmental organizations that implement the food
aid program are also resisting change. The food aid lobby isnt shy about defending the idea that combating
malnutrition overseas should benefit American businesses at home: Growing, manufacturing, bagging,
shipping, and transporting nutritious U.S. food creates jobs and economic activity here at home, provides
support for our U.S. Merchant Marine, essential to our national defense sealift capability, and sustains a
robust domestic constituency for these programs not easily replicated in alternative foreign aid programs,
they note. If all we want is friends, jobs, and crops, we already have the aid program we need. But for
those who want our support to foster development and help the worlds poor, perhaps its time to overhaul
the way we provide foreign aid. Otherwise, well continue to funnel aid dollars down Beltway and Cornbelt
ratholes.
31

[File Name] [Name]
IL AT: Keynesian Good

Stimulus doesnt improve the economy their ev doesnt assume the massive debt
weve already incurred
Mitchell, Senior Research Fellow at George Mason University, 13 (Matthew, Deficit
Spending Displaces Private Economic Growth, US News, http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/shouldbalancing-the-federal-budget-be-a-top-policy-priority/deficit-spending-displaces-private-economic-growth,
MWH)
First, the evidence that deficit spending yields lasting growth is nowhere near as clear as stimulus
proponents make it out to be. In fact, there is good reason to believe that deficit-financed spending
displaces private economic activity, even in the short run. Second, the data suggest that there are
diminishing marginal returns to stimulus spending: It is less effective the more you do it. And we've already
done it a lot. The data also suggest that stimulus is less effective in highly indebted nations. So as we pile
on debt today, we make future stimulus efforts that much less effective.
Keynesian spending fails empirics prove

Mitchell, Senior Research Fellow at George Mason University, 2013
(Matthew, Deficit Spending Displaces Private Economic Growth, US News,
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-balancing-the-federal-budget-be-a-top-policy-priority/deficitspending-displaces-private-economic-growth, MWH)
There is renewed talk in Washington about further spending measures to try and stimulate the weak
economy. That idea is remarkably nave and misguided. It is now more than two years after passage of the
$821 billion stimulus package in 2009, and it is obvious that that effort was a hugely expensive Keynesian
policy failure. The Obama administrations attempt to pump up aggregate demand in the economy
simply hasnt worked. In Keynesian theory, the total amount of deficit spending is the amount of stimulus
delivered to the economy. Well, weve had deficit spending of $459 billion in 2008, $1.4 trillion in 2009,
$1.3 trillion in 2010 and $1.4 trillion in 2011. Yet despite that enormous deficit-spending stimulus, U.S.
unemployment remains stuck at more than 9 percent and the recovery is very sluggish compared to prior
recoveries. Indeed, the current recovery appears to be slower than any since World War II, according to a
recent Joint Economic Committee study.
They dont boost the economy the multiplier is too small, and the government
mismanages empirics prove
Edwards, director of tax policy studies at Cato Institute, 2011,
(Chris, senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic Committee, a manager with
PricewaterhouseCoopers, and an economist with the Tax Foundation, Federal Spending Doesnt Work,
Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/federal-spending-doesnt-work, MWH)
Obama administration economists had claimed that the Keynesian multipliers from government spending
are large, meaning that spending would give a big boost to GDP. But other economists have found that
Keynesian multipliers are actually quite small, meaning that added government spending mainly just
displaces private-sector activities. Stanford University economist John Taylor took a detailed look at GDP
data over recent years, and he found little evidence of any benefits from the 2009 stimulus bill. Any sugar
high to the economy from recent increases in government spending was at best very small and shortlived. The reality is that Washington is very bad at trying to micromanage short-term economic
performance. Its failed stimulus actions have just put the nation further into debt, which will harm our longterm prosperity. Harvard Universitys Robert Barro calculated that any short-term benefit that the 2009
stimulus bill may have provided is greatly outweighed by the future damage caused by higher taxes and
debt.
32

[File Name] [Name]
Spending cuts provide more stimulus than spending

Alex Adrianson- editor for The Insider 2010
(Spending Cuts Are Good for the Economy, The Heritage Network,
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/16/spending-cuts-are-good-for-the-economy/)S
Reducing budget deficits by cutting government spending has a stronger record of economic stimulus than
either reducing the deficit with tax increases or increasing government spending. Thats what Harvard
economists Albert Alesina and Silvia Ardagna have found in their recent research. They examined 107
instances of large reductions (at least 1.5 percent in one year) in budget deficits as well as 91 instances of
large increases (over 1.5 percent in one year) in budget deficits over the past 40 years. They found that
when an economy expands following deficit reduction, spending cuts were the largest part of the
adjustment. At the same time, when recessions followed deficit reduction, tax increases were the
predominant policy. The authors also found that when budget deficits increased, tax cuts had a more
expansionary impact on the economy than spending increases. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Alesina
points to the reason for these findings: Spending cuts signal that tax increases will not occur in the future,
or that if they do they will be smaller. A credible plan to reduce government outlays significantly changes
expectations of future tax liabilities. This, in turn, shifts peoples behavior. Consumers and especially
investors are more willing to spend if they expect that spending and taxes will remain limited over a
sustained period of time.
Keynesianism theory fails-

Tino Sanandaji- The American- Economic Policy- December 1, 2011
(Why Keynesianism Works Better in Theory Than in Practice, The American,
http://www.american.com/archive/2011/november/our-two-keynes-problem) S
The second definition of Keynesianism is a policy recipe for coping with recessions, a cure for the
disease of recessions. The promise is that the public sector can bring the economy out of recessions through
deficit spending. It might seem natural that Keynesian theory implies Keynesian policy; indeed, the two
were intimately linked during the first decades of Keynesianism. However , decades of historic experience
alongside advances in macroeconomics have shown that Keynesian fiscal policy is not as effective as
predicted by Keynesian theory. The diagnosis may be correct, but the medicine most commonly associated
with it has been shown to be surprisingly impotent. The reason for this disconnect is that the economy
turned out to be more complex than assumed by simpler Keynesian models. One of the three motivations
for awarding Milton Friedman the Nobel Prize was for his demonstration of the complexity of
stabilization policy." Note that Friedman challenged the effectiveness of Keynesian fiscal policy, not
Keyness insight about the importance of aggregate demand for recessions. Thus Milton Friedman wrote,
"in one sense, we are all Keynesians now; in another, no one is a Keynesian any longerWe all use the
Keynesian language and apparatus; none of us any longer accepts the initial Keynesian conclusions." Not
the first disappointment of Keynesian fiscal policy Three-quarters of the public conclude that the stimulus
failed. By the late 1970s, the failure of Keynesianism in demand management led economists to become
increasingly skeptical of active fiscal stabilization policy. Macroeconomic theory advanced beyond the old,
simple Keynesian models by attempting to take into account the decision-making of individuals. In 2011,
some of this work was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. Economists did not turn against Keynesian
policy purely for theoretical or even ideological reasons, but rather because of the disappointing experience
from pervasive deficit spending over a long period in a large number of countries. An influential 2003 study
examined Keynesian policies in 91 countries in the postwar period and found that governments that use
fiscal policy aggressively induce significant macroeconomic instability.1,2 Economists still recognized
some use for Keynesian policies, but no longer viewed them as unambiguously beneficial. When asked if
fiscal policy can be an effective stabilizer, the majority of U.S. graduate students in economics agreed
with some reservation.3
33

[File Name] [Name]
Keynesianism economics still not working
Loren Heal- Freedom Works- on April 30, 2013
(Keynesian Economics: Still Failing After All These Years, Freedom Works,
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/lheal/keynesian-economics-still-failing-after-all-these )S
Keynesianism is still not working. The central idea of the dominant economic philosophy in Washington,
DC, is that when the private economy fails to produce enough demand, the government can and should step
in to take up the economic slack. It should have been long since discredited. But like other bad ideas,
people keep bringing it back. No sane person would say we have not tried government spending to
stimulate the economy. We've tried it over and over, and it does not work. But still, some will beat a straw
man until he cries for submission. Henry Blodgett, writing at Yahoo,noted that an important error had been
uncovered in an influential economics finding. Once the error was corrected, the "90% debt-to-GDP
threshold" instantly disappeared. Higher government debt levels still correlated with slower economic
growth, but the relationship was not nearly as pronounced. And there was no dangerous point-of-no-return
that countries had to avoid exceeding at all costs. The discovery of this simple math error eliminated one
of the key "facts" upon which the austerity movement was based. It also, in my opinion, settled the
"stimulus vs. austerity" argument once and for all. The argument is over. Paul Krugman has won. The only
question now is whether the folks who have been arguing that we have no choice but to cut government
spending while the economy is still weak will be big enough to admit that. The straw man is twofold.
First, debt is not just bad because it slows down the economy, which it does a little. Debt is bad because it
eventually piles up and the interest crushes the economic life out of a nation. Secondly, the 90% figure is
important to those who identified the problem as the deficit (and taxes being too low), rather than as too
much government that spends too much. Deficit and debt are symptoms of tring to spend our way out of a
slow economy. As governments try to cushion the people from the effects of bad decisions or to spend their
way to prosperity, they tend to develop high levels of debt.
Keynesian theories debunked: net loss on growth

Peter Ferrara- public policy at Forbes- 4/4/13(Progressive Keynesian Myths Debunked: The Coming Redistribution of Political and Economic Power
Among the States, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/14/progressive-keynesianmyths-debunked-the-coming-redistribution-of-political-and-ec)S
The myth of Keynesian economics is based on a failure to take into account basic double entry
bookkeeping. If the government spends more, where does the money for that increased spending come
from? Either from increased borrowing, or increased taxes, which both take an equal amount of resources
and spending out of the private economy as they finance in increased government spending. So not only
can there not be a net increase in aggregate, or total, demand from these policies, the spending is in truth a
net drag on growth, as the private economy spends money more productively and efficiently than the
government. That is why this Keynesian nostrum never worked in the 1930s, as the recession of 1929
extended into the decade long Great Depression, and it hasnt worked anywhere else since.
Keynesian economics weaken the economy:

Tim Worstall- a Senior Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London- 2012(Failed Keynesianism caused the economic crisis, The Telegraph,
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100018262/failed-keynesianism-caused-the-economiccrisis/)S
Professors Paul Krugman and Richard Layard have launched a manifesto - they are trying to get
economists to sign up to their version of what went wrong with the world economy and what we should do
about it. I can't sign it as I'm not an economist. But even if I were, I wouldn't because they've made a very
bad error in the analysis of the basic cause of the crisis. Leave entirely aside their advice on what should
34

[File Name] [Name]
be done now; I'd argue that what went wrong is the perfect proof of why Keynesian demand management
of the economy will never work. Here's an extract from Krugman and Layard: The causes. Many policy
makers insist that the crisis was caused by irresponsible public borrowing. With very few exceptions
other than Greece this is false. Instead, the conditions for crisis were created by excessive private sector
borrowing and lending, including by over-leveraged banks. The collapse of this bubble led to massive falls
in output and thus in tax revenue. So the large government deficits we see today are a consequence of the
crisis, not its cause. Think back to what basic Keynesianism demands: fiscal policy, the gap between what
the government collects in taxes and what it spends, should be counter-cyclical. When demand is weak, as
now, there should be a big deficit to compensate. However, it is also true that when demand is strong, the
same theory insists that there should be a large surplus. Nigel Lawson's Public Sector Debt Repayment
should be going on. These are two halves of the same theory. If you want a budget deficit in a slump then
you must also want a budget surplus in a boom.
35

[File Name] [Name]
36

[File Name] [Name]
*** Impact Debate
37

[File Name] [Name]
MPX War
Economic decline leads to conflict multiple warrants
Mansfield and Pollins, 03 (Edward Deering, Hum Rosen Professor of Political Science, Chair of the
Political Science Department, and Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics
at the University of Pennsylvania, Brian M, Associate Professor of Political Science at Ohio State
University and a Research Fellow at the Mershon Center, Economic Interdependence and International
Conflict: New Perspectives on an Enduring Debate, University of Michigan Press,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=L53fR-TusZAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=
%22economic+engagement%22+
%2B+economy&ots=Ew9trq6DvC&sig=9t0FLFv90VxA0Tc4xsiBBrpCYVg#v=onepage&q=
%22economic%20engagement%22%20%2B%20economy&f=false, MWH)
Central to much of the literature on interdependence and conflict is the long-standing claim that open
international markets and heightened economic exchange inhibit interstate hostilities, liberals have been the
most forceful advocates of this thesis and have stressed a variety of different causal mecha-nisms in
developing it: One argumentcast primarily at the level of the nation-stateis that economic exchange
and military conquest are substitute means of acquiring the resources needed to promote political security
and eco-nomic growth (e.g., Staley t939). As trade and foreign investment increase, there are fewer
incentives to meet these needs through territorial expansion, imperialism, and foreign conquest (Rosecrance
1986). Conversely, barriers to international economic activity stimulate conflicts of interest that can contribute to political-military discord Winer 1951, 259). Another liberal argu-mentcast largely at the level
of the country-pair. or dyadis that economic intercourse increases contact and promotes communication
between private actors in different countries, as well as between governments. Rising contact and
communication, in turn, are expected to foster cooperative political rela-tions (Doyle 1997, chap. 8;
Hirschman 1977, 61; Stein 1993; Viner 1951, 261). Still another theme stressed by many liberals is that
commercial openness generates efficiency gains that, in turn, render private traders and consumers
dependent on foreign markets. Because political antagonism risks disrupting economic relations among
participants and jeopardizing the gains from trade, these actors have reason to press public officials to avoid
military conflicts. For their part. public officialswho rely on societal actors for political support and have
an interest in bolstering their country's economic performancehave reason to attend to such demands.
This argument, which is addressed at length in the following chapters, has been a centerpiece of liberal
views on war for cen-turies. Montesquieu, for example, claimed that "the natural effect of commerce is to
lead to peace. Two nations that trade together become mutually depen-dent: if one has an interest in buying,
the other has an interest in selling; and all unions are based on mutual needs" (quoted in Hirschman 1977,
So). Whereas Montesquieu's claim centers on bilateral relations, the argument that height-ened economic
dependence inhibits belligerence has also been cast at the sys-temic level of analysis. As Barry B117.311
(1984, 598) mentions, a colt element of the liberal position is that "a liberal economic order makes a
substantial and positive contribution to the maintenance of international security."
38

[File Name] [Name]
MPX AT: US Not K2 Global ECON

U.S economy key to global economy
Michael Schuman- Time- Wall Street Journal and a staff writer for Forbes- University of Pennsylvania
and a master of international affairs from Columbia. 2011
(What the U.S. debt deal means for the global economy, Time- business and money
http://business.time.com/author/michaeljschuman/#ixzz2YfgcUuvp)S
But just as a default by the U.S. would have had an outsized impact on the global economy, due to the
unique position of America in the world, a deal struck to alter the direction of fiscal policy will also have a
tremendous effect. The decisions made (or in this case, not made) by Washington in the debt agreement will
reverberate through the world economy for years to come. First of all, in the short term, we can all forget
about U.S. fiscal policy being employed to stimulate the anemic recovery in the worlds largest economy.
The debt deal, by capping annual appropriations and imposing $2.4 trillion in spending cuts over the next
decade, takes any hope of further stimulus off the table. We can debate whether or not thats a good idea,
With U.S. GDP growth at an annualized rate of a mere 1.3% in the second quarter, and unemployment still
astronomical at 9.2%, some economists have been arguing the U.S. needs more spending, not cutting, to
keep the recovery alive. But Washington has chosen fiscal repair over economic repair. That means a lot to
Americans especially those millions still looking for work but it also means a lot to the rest of the
world. Companies and workers from southern China to southern Africa depend on the giant U.S. economy,
so a slow recovery in the U.S. eats into growth prospects everywhere else, even roaring emerging markets
like China. (The HSBC purchasing managers index for China fell below 50 for the first time in a year in
July, a sign that its manufacturing sector is slowing.)
U.S future growth key to worlds economies

Don Lee, Tribune Washington Bureau- 2010(Global economy again depending on the American consumer, Chicago Tribune Business,
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-20/business/ct-biz-0620-global-economy20100620_1_consumer-debt-global-economy-american-consumer)S
WASHINGTON With Europeans cutting back their spending and China again flooding the world
with low-cost goods, a familiar and ominous pattern is re-emerging in the global economy: Americans are
again being cast as the world's consumers of last resort. And, with unemployment still pushing 10 percent
and workers' incomes largely flat, that may be a prescription for new trouble. Although Europe's debt crisis
has quieted and the U.S. and global economies are projected to rebound this year, future growth will
depend on changing the spending patterns of the world's biggest economies none more so than
America's.
U.S economy crucial to stability of the world economy

European Central Bank- March 2009
(The Role of the United States in the Global Economy and its evolution over time, European Central Bank,
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1034.pdf)S
The U.S Economy is often seen as the engine of the world economy. As a result any sign of slowdown in
the United States raises concerns about harmful spillovers to the other economies. The current economic
recession in the United States has questioned the ability of the global economy to decouple from U.S
cynical developments. While there were some signs of decoupling in the first quarters following the U.S
downturn, they disappeared rapidly towards the end of 2008, when the crisis became more global and the
economic cycles turned out to be more synchronous across the world.
39

[File Name] [Name]
40

[File Name] [Name]
MPX Poverty
Economic downturn causes deep poverty
Sharon Parrott- 2008 Secretary Sebelius Counselor for Human Services Policy at the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Vice President for Budget Policy and Economic Opportunity, (Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, Recession Could Cause Large Increases in Poverty and Push Millions into
Deep Poverty, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1290)S
Like previous recessions, the current downturn is likely to cause significant increases both in the number of
Americans who are poor and the number living in deep poverty, with incomes below half of the poverty
line. Because this recession is likely to be deep and the government safety net for very poor families who
lack jobs has weakened significantly in recent years, increases in deep poverty in this recession are likely
to be severe. There are a series of steps that federal and state policymakers could take to soften the
recessions harshest impacts and limit the extent of the increases in deep poverty, destitution, and
homelessness.[1] Goldman Sachs projects that the unemployment rate will rise to 9 percent by the fourth
quarter of 2009 (the firm has increased its forecast for the unemployment rate a couple of times in the last
month). If this holds true and the increase in poverty relative to the increase in unemployment is within the
range of the last three recessions, the number of poor Americans will rise above its 2006 level by 8.4-10.9
million, the number of poor children will rise by 2.6-3.9 million, and the number of children in deep
poverty will climb by 1.5-2.4 million. (This increase will not take place in a single year, but will occur over
several years.)
Poverty is the deadliest form of structural violence it is equivalent to an ongoing

nuclear war.
Gilligan, 96
[James, Former Director of Mental Health for the Massachusetts Prison System, Violence, p.]
In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would
be killed in a nuclear that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many
people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a sixyear period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unenending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear
war, or genocide, perpetuated on the weak and poor ever year of every decade, throughout the world.
41

[File Name] [Name]
42

[File Name] [Name]
*** AFF Answers
43

[File Name] [Name]
NU Economy Low
US and global economy are declining IMF proves
Lee and Puzzanghera, 7/9 (Don, writer for Chicago Tribune, Jim, writer for Chicago Tribune, IMF
lowers U.S. and global economic growth forecasts, Chicago Tribune,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/la-fi-imf-world-economy-20130710,0,5885679.story, MWH)
The slowdown in developing economies has been building for some time but has captured greater attention
recently because of China's credit crunch and the prospects of monetary policy tightening by the U.S.
Federal Reserve. On Tuesday, the International Monetary Fund cut its U.S. and global economic forecasts
for this year and next, citing primarily slower growth in key developing nations as well as a deepening
recession in the Eurozone. The IMF also noted that federal spending reductions in the U.S. were weighing
on the recovery. The world economy will grow 3.1% this year, the Washington-based IMF said, down from
its April projection of 3.3%. Growth also will be slower next year 3.8% compared with an earlier 4%
forecast. The IMF estimated that the U.S. economy would expand at a modest 1.7% rate this year and pick
up next year to 2.7%. Both figures also are down 0.2 percentage points from the organization's projections
in its April World Economic Outlook. Although part of the reason for the change in the U.S. forecast is the
automatic federal spending cuts, known as the sequester, the U.S. economy and particularly American
export manufacturers are likely to feel a pinch from slower growth in developing and emerging market
economies.
Even if they win that the economy is recovering now, its bad compared to its state
before the recession
of Bard, 13
The Federal Reserve, for one, just reduced its growth outlook to 2.8 percent at most for 2013. The shallow
recovery we're seeing may indeed continue through 2014 and beyond. Since employment now consistently
lags well behind GDP, we'll have a long slog before we reach pre-crisis unemployment levels (below 4.6
percent). Some Federal Reserve officials believe it might take three years just to get from today's 7.6
percent down to 6.5 percent. Full employment would still be nowhere in sight.
44

[File Name] [Name]
NU Spending Low
U.S. Government cutting spending now- multiple sectors
Calmes, 5-5, (Jackie, Obama Budget to Include Cuts to Programs in Hopes of Deal, NY Times, JH,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/social-programs-face-cutback-in-obama-budget.html?hp&_r=1&
President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing cuts to Social Security and
Medicare in his annual budget in an effort to demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans
and revive prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal, administration officials say. In a significant shift
in fiscal strategy, Mr. Obama on Wednesday will send a budget plan to Capitol Hill that departs from the
usual presidential wish list that Republicans typically declare dead on arrival. Instead it will embody the
final compromise offer that he made to Speaker John A. Boehner late last year, before Mr. Boehner
abandoned negotiations in opposition to the presidents demand for higher taxes from wealthy individuals
and some corporations. Congressional Republicans have dug in against any new tax revenues after higher
taxes for the affluent were approved at the start of the year. The administrations hope is to create cracks in
Republicans antitax resistance, especially in the Senate, as constituents complain about the across-theboard cuts in military and domestic programs that took effect March 1. Mr. Obamas proposed deficit
reduction would replace those cuts. And if Republicans continue to resist the president, the White House
believes that most Americans will blame them for the fiscal paralysis.
Spending Low now and falling- the sequester

Economist, 7-6, (Squeezing the Pentagon, The Economist, JH, http://www.economist.com/news/unitedstates/21580460-wrong-way-cut-americas-military-budget-squeezing-pentagon?
zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e)
Those cuts$500 billion over the next nine years, on top of $487 billion already under waywere
designed to be so painful that they would force Republicans to do a budget deal with Barack Obama to
avoid them. But it turns out that Republicans hate taxes even more than they love the armed forces. No deal
was reached. On March 1st the sequester began. Struggling to find savings of $37 billion in the rest of this
fiscal year, the Pentagon is at last making serious plans. This month it is expected to produce a report
outlining the impact of the $52 billion-worth of cuts that are heading its way for the next fiscal year, which
begins in October. The presidents 2014 defense budget request, published in April, made no concession to
the spending caps demanded by the BCA. Unrevised, it would mean that the cuts would either be applied
by Congress (highly unlikely) or imposed across the board. That would make it impossible for the Pentagon
to set priorities: outdated programs would be over-funded and vital new ones starved of cash.
Government spending is falling, the sequester is expected again next year

Bartel, Staff writer at the Virginian-Pilot, 7-4,
(Bill, Admiral: Brace for similar sequester impact in 2014, PilotOnline, JH,
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/07/admiral-brace-similar-sequester-impact-2014
Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, told gatherings of Hampton Roads-based sailors and
regional business and political leaders Wednesday that unless Congress intercedes, he's preparing for 2014
to be much like this year, with reductions in some military operations and ship construction and repairs, and
the possibility of more civilian furloughs. During a one-day visit to the region, Greenert, the Navy's top
officer, voiced strong support for Oceana Naval Air Station, which several years ago was considered for
closing because of urban encroachment, and for Newport News' nuclear shipbuilding operations. In a
morning all-hands meeting with about 950 sailors and Marines at Oceana and a noon Hampton Roads
Chamber Commerce luncheon in Virginia Beach, the admiral acknowledged he expects that a divided
Congress won't approve an annual budget before the new fiscal year starts Oct. 1. He also said he doubts
lawmakers will stop the second year of automatic defense budget cuts known as sequestration.
45

[File Name] [Name]
AC QE
Alt cause quantitative easing
Hwang, reporter for Bloomberg, 6-25, 2013,
(Inyoung, U.S. Stocks Rebound From Nine-Week Low on Economic Data, Bloomberg,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-25/u-s-stock-futures-gain-indicating-s-p-500-rebound.html,
MWH)
QE lifted all boats, Witold Bahrke, who helps oversee $55 billion as a senior strategist at PFA Pension
A/S in Copenhagen, wrote in an e-mail. Equally, its removal will shake all markets. The recent comments
from central-bank officials show that they are a bit scared about the consequences of their own words and
do not want to see a cold-turkey reaction in markets in the context of a still-fragile world economy.
46

[File Name] [Name]
Keynes Good
Stimulus is key to the economy - jobs
of Bard, 13 (Dimitri, What the economy needs is even more deficit spending, Deseret News,
Despite prevailing notions in the capital and throughout the nation, those of us at the Levy Economics
Institute along with many other analysts and economists have concluded that the deficit should be
increased. Why add to the deficit right now? Jobs. Our economic models clearly show that without
increased government outlays we'll be unable to generate enough GDP growth to seriously attack
unemployment. If we tried to balance the budget through tax hikes, our still-recovering economy would be
hurt. That leaves a temporarily bigger deficit as an important option. A mutation in the link between
growth and jobs makes the issue urgent. While we are seeing some economic growth, the unemployment
rate is not responding as strongly to the gains as it did in the past. This slow job growth today's "jobless
recovery" isn't an outlier. It's a phenomenon that has been increasing over the last three decades, with
jobs coming back more and more slowly after a downturn, even when GDP is increasing. The weak
employment response has been an almost straight-line trend for more than 30 years.
Stimulus is good empirics prove

of Bard, 13
The Federal Reserve, for one, just reduced its growth outlook to 2.8 percent at most for 2013. The shallow
recovery we're seeing may indeed continue through 2014 and beyond. Since employment now consistently
lags well behind GDP, we'll have a long slog before we reach pre-crisis unemployment levels (below 4.6
percent). Some Federal Reserve officials believe it might take three years just to get from today's 7.6
percent down to 6.5 percent. Full employment would still be nowhere in sight. The quantitative data are
telling us that without a stimulus, we can't expect a strong employment lift. But instead of stimulus, we're
devising federal budgets that cut spending and lay off workers. The sequester is expected to depress GDP
growth by perhaps half a percentage point when we know that more growth than ever will be needed to
raise employment and cost anywhere from 700,000 to more than 1 million jobs. Slower government
spending is one reason that post-recession growth has been below par compared with other recoveries, Fed
Vice Chair Janet Yellen has argued. As government outlays and employment have shrunk, the contribution
of public funds to national growth has also fallen. By our estimates, that contribution now stands at about
zero. That's another data point indicating that federal deficits need to be increased.
Spending stimulates the economyThe Week: 2/24/09 (How Spending Stimulates the Economy, The Week,
http://theweek.com/article/index/93614/how-spending-stimulates) S
will the Obama deficit-spending plan work? Will throwing $800 billion$500 billion in extra
government spending, and $300 billion in tax cutsat the economy produce a world in which
production and employment are higher and unemployment lower than would otherwise have been the
case? The short answer is yes. The short reason is that spending workseras in which some group or
other gets excited about future prospects and starts madly spending money are eras in which
production and employment are high and unemployment is low. And the government, in this respect,
is just like any other group of starry-eyed optimists whose eagerness to spend pulls the economy into a
47

[File Name] [Name]
high-employment, high-pressure boom. Consider the engines of previous boosts to production and
employment. Between 2003 and 2005 the assembled investors of the world discovered the American
housing market. Low interest rates produced by the Federal Reserve allowed them to borrow and
leverage up cheaplyand the promise of financial engineering that would greatly help them diversify
risk made them think investing in new construction and new homeowners moves into new
construction was a profit opportunity. Spending on home construction rose. And the adult civilian
employment to population ratio rose from 62 percent to 63.5 percent while the unemployment rate fell
from 6.0 percent to 4.8 percent. Between 1996 and 1998 the assembled investors of America
discovered the Internet and spent enormous sums to exploit and expand it. And the adult civilian
employment to population ratio rose from 63 percent to nearly 65 percent as the unemployment rate
fell 5.6 percent to 4.3 percent. In August, 1982, Paul Volckers Federal Reserve released the interestrate chokehold it had been using to strangle the economy. Lower interest rates induced homebuilders
to spend massively, since for the first time in nearly half a decade they could obtain financing for
construction. At the same time, the Reagan administration ramped up defense spending for the second
cold war, and luxury spending rose as the Reagan tax cuts gave money back to Americas rich. The
adult employment-to-population ratio rocketed up from 57.2 percent to 59.9 percent in the short order
of two years while the unemployment rate fell from 10.8 percent to 7.3 percent. These are just three
examples of a general principle: each major business-cycle expansion we have seen has been driven
by a leading wave of spendingby some group that became enthusiastic about their prospects and
decided to greatly increase its spending. And that pulled employment and production up. Now we are
attempting to do the same thing once againbut this time with the government as the leading spender.
Obamas stimulus spending increases are bigger, as a share of the economy, than Reagans defense
increases were, while Obamas tax cuts are smaller. Unlike 1983, when the Fed cut interest rates to
help Reagans economic recovery, it cannot do so to help Obama. The Fed has done all the cutting it
can. Still, a boost to spending by the government should have the same effects as boosts to spending
by luxury consumers and the defense department and homebuilders in the early 1980s, by the hightech sector in the late 1990s, and by homebuilders in the mid-2000s. The governments money, after
all, is as good as anybody elses. So there is little question about the likely impact of the Obama
deficit-spending program: production and employment are going to be higher than they would have
been otherwise. As Greg Mankiw, the former chief economic adviser to George W. Bush, said back in
1983: There is nothing novel about this. It is very conventional short-run stabilization policy: You
can find it in all of the leading textbooks.
Spending key to economic growthEzra Klein columnist at the Washington Post, as well as a contributor to MSNBC-January 2013
(Government is hurting the economy by spending too little, The Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/30/government-is-hurting-the-economy-byspending-too-little/) S
Youve heard this before: The government is holding the economy back. And its true. The newly released
numbers for economic growth in the fourth quarter, which show the economy shrinking at an 0.1 percent
annual rate, prove that. But exactly what the government is doing to hold the economy back might surprise
you. Typically, when people say the government is hurting the recovery, they mean that deficits are too
high and uncertainty over future policy is scaring businesses. But theres little evidence of that. The main
reason to worry about deficits is that theyll hike interest rates, as government borrowing crowds out
private borrowing, and that makes it harder for businesses to grow and individuals to invest. But interest
rates are about as low as theyve ever been. After accounting for inflation, the federal government has been
able to borrow at an unprecedented negative inflation-adjusted rate so, the market is, essentially, paying
us to keep their money safe since 2011. As such, most deficit hawks warn that the problem with our
deficits is that markets might, at some point in the future, move unpredictably and swiftly to punish us for
our deficits. Perhaps thats true. But implicit in that argument is that theres no real evidence that deficits
are hurting the economy now. Nor is there strong evidence that businesses are holding back on investment
for any reason save lack of demand. The general factoid you hear in support of this argument is that
48

[File Name] [Name]
corporations are sitting on more than $2.5 trillion in cash, with the implication being that theyd be
spending that cash if not for the paralyzing effects of federal policy.But the build-up of cash reserves or,
to be more technical (and more accurate), liquid assets is a long-term trend that hasnt accelerated
since the recession. The Federal Reserve keeps data on liquid assets held by non-financial corporations, and
the build-up was faster from 1997 to 2000 than it was from 2008 to 2011. Why corporations are holding so
much more cash is an interesting mystery, but its not one that began with the passage of Obamacare. A big
reason for this is cutbacks on the state and local level, which have been much larger than cutbacks at the
federal level. In 2010, for instance, federal spending took 0.23 percentage points off GDP, while state and
local spending took 0.43 percentage points off. As such, Washington often misses the overall contraction in
government spending, as the bulk of that contraction has been at the state and local levels. But federal
spending has been contracting too.Another way of looking at this data is to compare the contribution of
private spending and public spending to economic growth. Here are those numbers since 2009: Economists
expect that to continue. Mark Zandi of Moodys Analytics projects the sequester alone will cut 0.5
percentage points off growth in 2013 if its allowed to go into effect. Add that to the expiration of the
payroll tax cut and assorted other belt-tightening measures at the federal level and total fiscal drag, he says,
is likely to be more than one percentage point of GDP in 2013 a significant hit when total GDP growth
isnt expected to be above three percentage points. These numbers, by the way, only measure the most
direct contribution of government spending. They dont measure indirect contributions, as when a defense
contractor uses money from his federal contract to buy a house. His house purchase wouldve shown up in
private investment, not public investment, but its absence doesnt show up anywhere at all.So yes, the
government is hurting the recovery. But its not because of deficits or uncertainty, or at least, its hard to
find evidence for either theory. The real, provable damage the government has done to economic growth in
recent years has been in cutting back on spending and investment since 2010.
49

[File Name] [Name]
No Link FA
Foreign Aid isnt deficit spending
AMFAR- foundation for making aids history- for aids research March 2013
(The Evidence on U.S Investments in Foreign Aids, amFAR,
http://www.amfar.org/uploadedFiles/_amfarorg/Articles/On_The_Hill/2013/IB%20Foreign%20Aid.pdf)
Cuts in foreign aid spending would not make a meaningful contribution to deficit reduction. Foreign aid
accounts for only about one percent of U.S. government spending,1 with poverty focused development
and humanitarian spending representing roughly 0.5 percent of federal outlays.2 The share of the federal
budget allocated to foreign assistance has substantially declined over time, falling by almost 80 percent
since 1965. peace in strife-torn regions and helps countries recover from conflict.14 Foreign aid programs
support counterterrorism efforts, destroy dangerous weapons (such as mines, small arms, or shoulderfired missiles), and train law enforcement agents.13 The powerful security potential of U.S. foreign aid
is illustrated in Vietnam, where it has helped convert a former enemy into a genuine partner in one of the
worlds most strategically important regions.
50

[File Name] [Name]
AT: Biz Con

Turn business leaders view Latin America as a valuable investment
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, 13 (Business Prospects in Latin
America, ICAEW, http://www.icaew.com/members/resources-for-business/businessmanagement/customers-and-markets/overseas-markets/latin-america-promotion?
utm_source=website&utm_medium=rhc&utm_content=apr13&utm_campaign=latinamerica, MWH)
Business optimism is high not just in Brazil but in Peru, Chile and Mexico. A Grant Thornton survey
conducted in 2012 puts Peru at number one globally for business confidence. The firms research also
reports that 22% of businesses surveyed worldwide are considering expansion into the region this year.
Across Latin America as a whole, there are strong expectations for increased investment in plant,
construction and R&D in 2013. Colombia is the fourth largest economy in Latin America and might be
worth considering too. The country is rich in natural resources and analysts predict strong growth in the
light of improved security, an increase in mining activity and strong commodity prices. Mexico is one of
the top five global emerging economies. It offers a large internal consumer market and, with its proximity
to the US, is an attractive alternative to China as a manufacturing base.
Turn business leaders view Latin America as a valuable investment

Welber, president and CEO of Chevy Chase Trust Co., 11 (Peter, CEO of ASB Capital
Management and a director of Chevy Chase Trust Co. and ASB Capital Management, member of the
Economic Club of Washington, board chairman of the Montgomery County Community Foundation, Why
there's investment potential in Latin America, Washington Business Journal,
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/2011/02/why-theres-investment-potential-in.html, MWH)
A couple of weeks ago, while lamenting the onset of cold weather here in Washington, I discussed the
investment potential of Latin America. Since winter does not appear to be ending any time soon, thinking
about Latin America still has appeal. While our current local climate in the Washington DC area may not be
sunny, the business climate in Latin America is certainly heating up. One of the more telling economic
statistics is the GDP per capita number. The international experience is that once this number hits the $3000
level, countries typically will begin to see the development of a middle class. Once $5000 is achieved, a
critical mass develops and middle class growth takes off. The latest World Bank data - using a constant year
2000 US$ - shows that Chile achieved this middle class growth phase in 2002 and Brazil, ending 2009 at
$4419, will soon be there. Meanwhile, Colombia with a GDP per capita of $3102 is at the beginning stages
of developing a domestic middle class consumer economy and Peru is not far behind at $2913 (as a
comparison, the two emerging market headliners of China and India have GDP per capita levels of $2206
and $757, respectively). With the burgeoning middle class, the region's domestic economies are beginning
to take shape and business confidence is increasing. In an investment world fraught with uncertainty and
risk, Latin America, with its growth potential, could contain some unique opportunities for investors
51

[File Name] [Name]
AT: Impact ECON Decline Doesnt => War

Studies prove economic decline doesnt produce war
Miller 00 Morris, economist, adjunct professor in the University of Ottawas Faculty of Administration,
consultant on international development issues, former Executive Director and Senior Economist at the
World Bank, Winter, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 25, Iss. 4, Poverty as a cause of wars? p.
Proquest
The question may be reformulated. Do wars spring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis that exacerbates poverty and
growing disparities in wealth and incomes? Perhaps one could argue, as some scholars do, that it is some dramatic event or sequence of such events
leading to the exacerbation of poverty that, in turn, leads to this deplorable denouement. This exogenous factor might act as a catalyst for a violent
reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership who would then possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need
be, fabricating an enemy and setting in train the process leading to war. According
to a study undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik

Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis. After
studying ninety-three episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries in Latin America and Asia in the years since
the Second World War they concluded that:19 Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of
economic crises may be wrong ... The severity of economic crisis - as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... (or, in democratic states, rarely) to an outbreak of violence ... In the
of the Carnegie
cases of dictatorships and semidemocracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort
another).
Economic decline doesnt lead to war democracy checks

Rajan, IMF Chief Economist and Professor of Finance at the University of
Chicago, 13 (Raghuram, chief economic adviser in Indias finance ministry, Chairman of Indias
Committee on Financial Sector Reforms, Conflict Management and Economic Growth, Project Syndicate,
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/underdevelopment-and-the-institutions-of-social-peace-byraghuram-rajan#BVLpZ7vjOebdrhZZ.99, MWH)
NEW DELHI One of the most interesting aspects of the prolonged economic crisis in Europe, and of
the even longer crisis in Japan, is the absence of serious social conflict at least thus far. Yes, there have
been strikes, marches, and growing anger at political leaders, but protests have been largely peaceful.
While that may change, the credit for social peace must go to institutions such as elections (throwing
the rascals out is a non-violent way to vent popular anger), responsive democratic legislatures, and
effective judiciaries. All of these institutions have successfully mediated political conflict during a
time of great adversity in advanced countries.
52

[File Name] [Name]
AT: Impact ECON Resilient

Americas economy is resilient a free market can easily adjust to shocks
Connerly, Ph.D. in economics from Duke University, 12 (Bill, Senior Vice President at
First Interstate Bank, awarded the Chartered Financial Analyst designation in 1999, on-line contributor to
Forbes and the author of Businomics, a book about economics for business leaders, chairman of the board
of Cascade Policy Institute, a member of Oregon Governor John Kitzhabers Council of Economic
Advisors, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, Americas Resilient Economy: What
Happens When Things Go Wrong, Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2012/07/23/americasresilient-economy-what-happens-when-things-go-wrong/, MWH)
Americas economy is certainly in a tender state. But the pessimism of the presidential slanging-match
misses something vital. Led by its inventive private sector, the economy is remaking itself (see article).
Old weaknesses are being remedied and new strengths discovered, with an agility that has much to
teach stagnant Europe and dirigiste Asia. The point that The Economist is close tobut does not quite
reachis that the measure of an economy is not whether they get the decisions right. Those important
decisions are about how to use their resources, what to make, in what methods, and for what markets. The
measure of an economy is what happens when they get their decisions wrong. As an example, we got
housing wrong a few years back. The private sector believed that housing prices would rise steadily, and
thus that loans backed by housing could not go wrong, even if the borrowers had poor credit. Having
learned a lesson, we reacted. The Economist notes that we have a huge natural gas production
increase. Our private, profit-motivated energy sector reacts quickly to opportunities. One reason the
world is not awash in petroleum is that in many countries, governments have taken over oil and
natural gas production. Decisions are slow and politically motivated. A profit-motivated economy
adjusts quickly. Who would have thought that the iPhone would revolutionize communications?
What did our economy do after the iPhone? Google developed the Android operating system,
Microsoft developed smart phone software, and Blackberry improved their Internet capabilities.
These decisions were not all correct. However, they are part of a self-correcting system. In contrast, the
most politicized parts of our economy are the least self-correcting. For example, even though private sector
lenders are now cautious about home buyers with bad credit, the Federal Housing Administration has
increased its role in helping people who dont qualify for conventional financing. When the price of oil and
natural gas was highly regulated, back in the 1970s, petroleum production failed to respond to rising prices.
No impact to US economic decline social safety nets check conflict

Rajan, IMF Chief Economist and Professor of Finance at the University of
Chicago, 13 (Raghuram, chief economic adviser in Indias finance ministry, Chairman of Indias
Committee on Financial Sector Reforms, Conflict Management and Economic Growth, Project Syndicate,
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/underdevelopment-and-the-institutions-of-social-peace-byraghuram-rajan#BVLpZ7vjOebdrhZZ.99, MWH)
Societies with well-functioning institutions allocate the burden of distress in predictable ways. For
example, people who suffer the most adversity can fall back on an explicit social safety net a
minimum level of unemployment insurance, for example. In the United States in recent years, federal
and state legislatures prolonged unemployment benefits as joblessness persisted. Similarly, debtors
and creditors can rely on credible bankruptcy proceedings to determine their relative shares. With an
explicit institutional mechanism in place to dictate the division of pain, there is no need to take to the
streets.
53

[File Name] [Name]
Turn War
Economic growth necessitates the government to expropriate minorities
property rights; that leads to armed conflict.
Lawson-Remer, Fellow of Council on Foreign Relations, assistant professor of
international affairs at The New School, fellow of Harvard Law School, 11
(Terra, Property Insecurity, Conflict, and Long-Run Growth, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2000036m, MWH)
Yet, historically, economic development has often involved the expropriation of land and resources
from ethno-cultural minorities, and the reallocation of these resources into the hands of elites. The
widespread establishment of small freehold farms for white settlers across the United States in the
18th and 19th centuries required displacing the Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, and Choctaw tribes,
who were either killed or forced into marginal land. Dispossession was official government policy.
Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830; by 1840 over 50,000 Native Americans had been
forcibly relocated from the American Southwest, opening 25 million acres for settlement (Thornton 1984).
The widely lauded security of property rights enjoyed by yeoman American farmers in the 19th century
(Engerman and Sokoloff 1997, 2002) was made possible by insecure property rights for Native
Americans. At the same time, expropriation of land and resources from marginalized groups can
increase the likelihood of armed conflict. Insecure property rights are often the source of antigovernment grievances, motivating dispossessed groups to rebel. Chiapas provides the rest of Mexico
with essential resources, including oil, timber, cattle, corn, sugar, coffee, and beans (Collier and Quaratiello
1999). The Zapatista uprising in Chiapas throughout the 1990s may be traced in part to the
accelerating loss of communal land tenure rights and displacement of indigenous groups by more
politically connected local caudillos, who were seeking to exploit these valuable resources
commercially (Collier and Quaratiello 1999; Harvey 2005, 1998).
Economic growth requires the government to allocate resources to societys

elite that leads to instability and armed conflict
When heterogeneity of property rights enjoyment is considered, the historical data shows that property
insecurity of ethno-cultural minorities does not reduce long-run economic development. Economic growth
can occur when the property rights of elites are secure but marginalized minorities face high a risk of
expropriation, because land is reallocated into the hands of investors with access to capital. At the
same time, the severity of property insecurity for the worst-off group in a country is strongly
correlated with the onset of armed conflict, suggesting that severe property insecurity for
marginalized minorities tends to precipitate armed conflict. Finally, controlling for civil war, property
insecurity is associated with higher long-run growth. Taken together these finding suggest that
reallocating resources and property into the hands of more efficient investors through forced displacement
and resettlement is potentially growthenhancing, but this growth effect is mitigated because property
insecurity also generates conflict, which reduces growth. In other words, property insecurity of nonelites
can be compatible with or even enhance economic growth, but also encourages conflictwhich can
undermine long-run growth and economic development. Whose property rights are secure and insecure
matters fundamentally for the political and economic implications of expropriation risk.
54

[File Name] [Name]
Government abuses underlie economic growth that reverses all gains and
makes poverty inevitable PNG proves
The link between property insecurity, growth and conflict is apparent in the violent separatist
conflict that engulfed Bougainville, Papua New Guinea (PNG) from 1988- 1997. Traditionally, land in
Bougainville was collectively owned through matrilineal clan lineages, with use rights shared by all
members, and ownership inalienable and nontransferable. Copper was discovered in Bougainville in
the mid-1960s, and the PNG government claimed the minerals - selling the Panguna copper mining
concession to Bougainville Copper Ltd., a subsidiary of Rio Tinto Ltd.. The government forcibly
relocated entire villages, and excluded Bougainville from the revenue-sharing agreements it
negotiated with Rio Tinto. The prioritization of the states and the corporations property rights at
the expense of the Boungainvilleans initially generated high economic returns: from 1972 to 1989 the
Panguna mine contributed 16% of Papua New Guinas GDP and 44% of its exports. However, in 1988, the
convergence of grievances regarding the effects of mining, the inequitable allocation of revenues,
and long-standing political exclusion provoked a group of marginalized Bougainvilleans to attack a
number of Rio Tontos buildings, destroying the mines power supply. Seeing the economic lifeline of
the country as under an existential threat, and believing a strong preemptive response would deter
further opposition, the PNG government responded with a military crackdown. The indiscriminate
violence polarized the Bougainvillean population, fueling a widely supported ethno-nationalist
rebellion with separatist aims. The mine was closed in 1989 due to the uprising and the conflict
intensified through the 1990s. By 1996 between 15,000 and 20,000 civilians and combatants had been
killed in the conflict, and another 60,000 people displaced. The war also resulted in the cessation of
all economic activity: roughly 10,000 mining jobs and 10,000 more in the cocoa and copra sectors were
lost, and significant mining and transportation infrastructure destroyed. The economic impact of the
mines closure, the direct costs of the conflict, and the indirect costs of lost growth opportunities
incited a severe fiscal crisis in PNG by the mid-1990s (Regan 2003). In Bougainville the growth
enhancing prioritization of elites property rights were undermined by violent conflict.
55

[File Name] [Name]
Turn Trade Bad

Increasing trade produces asymmetrical relationships that leads to war
Mansfield and Pollins, 03 (Edward Deering, Hum Rosen Professor of Political Science, Chair of the
Political Science Department, and Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics
at the University of Pennsylvania, Brian M, Associate Professor of Political Science at Ohio State
University and a Research Fellow at the Mershon Center, Economic Interdependence and International
Conflict: New Perspectives on an Enduring Debate, University of Michigan Press,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=L53fR-TusZAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=
%22economic+engagement%22+
%2B+economy&ots=Ew9trq6DvC&sig=9t0FLFv90VxA0Tc4xsiBBrpCYVg#v=onepage&q=
%22economic%20engagement%22%20%2B%20economy&f=false, MWH)
However, the liberal view has been criticized by mercantilists and many realists who insist that unfettered
economic exchange can undermine national security. Albert 0. Hirschman (119451 1980), for example, has
pointed out that the gains from trade often do not accrue to states proportionately and that the distribution
of these gains can affect interstate power relations.' Shifting power relations, in turn, are widely regarded as
a potent source of military conflict (Gilpin 1981; Levy 1989; Mearsheirner 199o). In the same vein, the
extent to which trade partners depend on their commercial relationship often varies substantially among the
constituent states. If one partner depends on a trading relationship much more heavily than another partner,
the costs associated with attenuating or severing the relationship are far lower for the latter than the for-mer
state. Under these circumstances, trade may do little to inhibit the less dependent state front initiating
hostilities.
Another challenge to the liberal thesis emphasizes that states have political reasons to minimize their
dependence on foreign commerce and that military expansion offers one way to achieve this end. Hence, as
trade flows and the extent of interdependence increase, so do the incentives for states to take mili-tary
actions to reduce their economic vulnerability (Gilpin 198440-41; Liber-man 1996). Consistent with such
arguments. Alexander Hamilton asserted in 1796 that protecting the industrial sector from foreign
Competition would enhance the United States' "security from external danger and give rise to less frequent
interruption of their peace with foreign nations" than open trade policies (quoted in Earle 1986, 235).
Furthermore, as commerce rises, so does the range of economic issues over which disputes can emerge. In
this vein, Ken-neth Waltz (1970, 205, 222) maintains that since "close interdependence means closeness of
contact and raises the prospect of at least occasional conflict ... the [liberal] myth of interdependence ...
asserts a false belief about the conditions that may promote peace." As such, heightened interdependence
may actually stimulate belligerence. Finally, a wide variety of studies conclude that international economic
rela-tions have no systematic bearing on political conflict (Buzan 1984; Gilpin 1987; Ripsman and
Blanchard 1996-97). Many of them hold that hostilities stem largely front variations in the distribution of
political-military capabilities and that power relations underlie any apparent effect of economic exchange
on military antagonism. That economic ties among the major powers were significant prior to World War I
but far less extensive prior to World War II is frequently presented as evidence that such tics have little
systematic impact on armed conflict when core national interests are at stake.
56

Spending Disadvantage - GMU 2013

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

Spending Disadvantage - GMU 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

George Mason 2012-13

[File Name] [Name]

George Mason 2012-13

George Mason 2012-13

George Mason 2012-13

Link Economic engagement involves spending

C. Impact Deficit spending causes economic decline

George Mason 2012-13

Economic collapse causes global nuclear war.

George Mason 2012-13

George Mason 2012-13

*** Uniqueness Debate

George Mason 2012-13

US economy increasing steadily- markets and investors driving it up

George Mason 2012-13

US stocks set to make record highs again- the economys up

The stock markets up all round- many factors

Economy is improving stock market proves

George Mason 2012-13

George Mason 2012-13

UQ Econ High Stocks

U.S. economy rising; stocks leading the way

George Mason 2012-13

The US economy is on the brink fears of Fed tapering and sequestration

George Mason 2012-13

UQ No Deficit Spending Now

No deficit spending now- the government has a surplus

The governments in surplus- no deficit spending

George Mason 2012-13

George Mason 2012-13

UQ Deficit Decreasing Now

George Mason 2012-13

George Mason 2012-13

*** Link Debate

George Mason 2012-13

Link Cuba BizCon

George Mason 2012-13

George Mason 2012-13

Economic engagement involves spending money

George Mason 2012-13

Link EE Pork Barrel

George Mason 2012-13

Link Energy Deficit $

George Mason 2012-13

George Mason 2012-13

Link Trade Deficit $

George Mason 2012-13

George Mason 2012-13

*** Internal Link Debate

George Mason 2012-13

George Mason 2012-13

Spending causes economic decline

Deficit spending causes economic downturn

Spending cuts only deepens economic downturn

George Mason 2012-13

George Mason 2012-13

USAID- is pork barrel spending- food aid program proves

George Mason 2012-13

George Mason 2012-13

IL AT: Keynesian Good

Keynesian spending fails empirics prove

George Mason 2012-13

Spending cuts provide more stimulus than spending

Keynesianism theory fails-