Download Fiscal D DA

Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Index
Index ................................................................................................................................................1
1NC ..................................................................................................................................................2
1NC ..................................................................................................................................................3
**UQ**............................................................................................................................................4
UQ – Fiscal D now..........................................................................................................................5
UQ – Fiscal D now..........................................................................................................................6
**LINKS** .....................................................................................................................................7
Link – Infrastructure.....................................................................................................................8
Link – Spending .............................................................................................................................9
Link – Mass Transit .....................................................................................................................10
Link – High Speed Rail................................................................................................................11
Link – NIB ....................................................................................................................................12
Link- Port Deepening ..................................................................................................................13
**INTERNAL LINKS** .............................................................................................................14
Internal Link – Fiscal D key to Economy ..................................................................................15
Internal Link- Fiscal Cliff Kills Economy (1/2) ........................................................................16
Internal Link- Fiscal Cliff Kills Economy (2/2) ........................................................................17
**IMPACTS** .............................................................................................................................18
............................................................................................................19
.........................................................................................20
.........................................................................................21
**AFF ANSWERS** ...................................................................................................................22
Non-UQ – Fiscal D Not Happeneing ..........................................................................................23
Link Turn – Infrastructure Solves Econ ...................................................................................24
Alt Causes .....................................................................................................................................25
No Impact to Econ .......................................................................................................................26
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
1NC
Over the past four fiscal years, spending has only increased 0.4% annually. Nutting 5-22.
Nutting, Rex. “Obama Spending Binge Never Happened”. Marketwatch: Wallstreet Journal. 22 May 2012. Accessed 23 July 2012.
<http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor> zr
In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98
trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget. In fiscal 2010 — the first budget
under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion. In fiscal
2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was
agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3%
to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook. Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise
from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
[Insert Plan is exspensive]
Continued spending beyond our current fiscal needs collapses the economy
Roe 11
(Phil, member of the Education and Workforce Committee and Representative from Tennessee, “Cut, cap and balance: A fight toward fiscal
responsibility,” 5-18, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/05/navy_plebes_scale_herndon_monu.html)
On Monday, the United States reached the legal limit of its borrowing authority – further evidence that out-of-control spending is a
matter of national security. Serious reforms and government spending cuts need to be made to avoid severe economic
disruptions – both in the short and long-term. The national debt and deficits are rising at an unconscionable rate. The national debt
now exceeds $14 trillion, and the government is still piling up debt at the rate of $200 million an hour, $30 billion a week, $120 billion a month
and $1.6 trillion a year. It’s clear we don’t have a revenue problem – we have a spending problem. Raising the debt ceiling without these serious
reforms will only burden our future generations with outrageous debt. Worse, the president and Senate Democrats are saying they want a “clean”
debt ceiling increase, which means that they want to continue spending and borrowing more money with no strings attached. My view is we must
not raise the debt ceiling by $1 without simultaneously making deep cuts in spending and taking real steps towards a balanced budget. It is
imperative to the future of the country that we fight for an immediate shift toward fiscal responsibility. That is why I,
along with my colleagues in the Republican Study Committee (RSC), wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner asking him to “Cut, Cap and
Balance.” Specifically, we advocated for discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year; enacting
statutory, enforceable total-spending caps to reduce federal spending to 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); and a Balanced Budget
Constitutional Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal tax increases and including a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA).
This proposal will put us on a path to prosperity, and I will work to see provisions like this are included in any final agreement. I believe it is
prudent to limit the extension of borrowing authority as much as possible, in order to demand accountability from Senate Democrats and the
Obama Administration. Every day, we see more and more evidence of the need to confront the problem now. The International Monetary Fund
(IMF) report released in April adds urgency to the need for meaningful actions — both short and long-term — to confront the
nation's debt head-on. Additionally, Moody's Analytics released a report several weeks ago forecasting a downgrade in our
country’s bond rating. It’s clear that if we fail to stop the spending spree, our nation will face economic collapse in the
long-term.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
1NC
Economic decline during the current crisis causes nuclear conflicts in every region of the
world
Ferguson ‘9
(Niall, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, “The Axis of Upheaval,” Foreign Policy, February 16th,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/02/16/the_axis_of_upheaval)
The Bush years have of course revealed the perils of drawing facile parallels between the challenges of the present day and the great catastrophes
of the 20th century. Nevertheless, there is reason to fear that the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression could have
comparable consequences for the international system. For more than a decade, I pondered the question of why the 20th
century was characterized by so much brutal upheaval. I pored over primary and secondary literature. I wrote more than 800 pages on
the subject. And ultimately I concluded, in The War of the World, that three factors made the location and timing of lethal organized
violence more or less predictable in the last century. The first factor was ethnic disintegration: Violence was worst in areas of mounting ethnic
tension. The second factor was economic volatility: The greater the magnitude of economic shocks, the more likely conflict
was. And the third factor was empires in decline: When structures of imperial rule crumbled, battles for political power were most bloody. In at
least one of the world’s regions—the greater Middle East—two of these three factors have been present for some time: Ethnic conflict has been
rife there for decades, and following the difficulties and disappointments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States already seems likely to begin
winding down its quasi-imperial presence in the region. It likely still will. Now the third variable, economic volatility, has returned with a
vengeance. U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s “Great Moderation”—the supposed decline of economic volatility that he hailed in a
2004 lecture—has been obliterated by a financial chain reaction, beginning in the U.S. subprime mortgage market, spreading through the banking
system, reaching into the “shadow” system of credit based on securitization, and now triggering collapses in asset prices and economic activity
around the world. After nearly a decade of unprecedented growth, the global economy will almost certainly sputter along in 2009, though
probably not as much as it did in the early 1930s, because governments worldwide are frantically trying to repress this new depression. But no
matter how low interest rates go or how high deficits rise, there will be a substantial increase in unemployment in most economies this year and a
painful decline in incomes. Such economic pain nearly always has geopolitical consequences. Indeed, we can already see the first
symptoms of the coming upheaval. In the essays that follow, Jeffrey Gettleman describes Somalia’s endless anarchy, Arkady Ostrovsky
analyzes Russia’s new brand of aggression, and Sam Quinones explores Mexico’s drug-war-fueled misery. These, however, are
just three case studies out of a possible nine or more. In Gaza, Israel has engaged in a bloody effort to weaken Hamas. But whatever
was achieved militarily must be set against the damage Israel did to its international image by killing innocent civilians that Hamas fighters use as
human shields. Perhaps more importantly, social and economic conditions in Gaza, which were already bad enough, are now abysmal. This
situation is hardly likely to strengthen the forces of moderation among Palestinians. Worst of all, events in Gaza have fanned the flames
of Islamist radicalism throughout the region—not least in Egypt. From Cairo to Riyadh, governments will now think twice before
committing themselves to any new Middle East peace initiative. Iran, meanwhile, continues to support both Hamas and its Shiite counterpart
in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and to pursue an alleged nuclear weapons program that Israelis legitimately see as a threat to their very existence.
No one can say for sure what will happen next within Tehran’s complex political system, but it is likely that the radical faction around
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be strengthened by the Israeli onslaught in Gaza. Economically, however, Iran is in a hole
that will only deepen as oil prices fall further. Strategically, the country risks disaster by proceeding with its nuclear program, because even a
purely Israeli air offensive would be hugely disruptive. All this risk ought to point in the direction of conciliation, even accommodation, with the
United States. But with presidential elections in June, Ahmadinejad has little incentive to be moderate. On Iran’s eastern border, in
Afghanistan, upheaval remains the disorder of the day. Fresh from the success of the “surge” in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, the new head of
U.S. Central Command, is now grappling with the much more difficult problem of pacifying Afghanistan. The task is made especially
difficult by the anarchy that prevails in neighboring Pakistan . India, meanwhile, accuses some in Pakistan of having had a hand
in the Mumbai terrorist attacks of last November, spurring yet another South Asian war scare. Remember: The sabers they are rattling
have nuclear tips. The democratic governments in Kabul and Islamabad are two of the weakest anywhere. Among the biggest risks the world
faces this year is that one or both will break down amid escalating violence. Once again, the economic crisis is playing a crucial role. Pakistan’s
small but politically powerful middle class has been slammed by the collapse of the country’s stock market. Meanwhile, a rising proportion of the
country’s huge population of young men are staring unemployment in the face. It is not a recipe for political stability. This club is anything but
exclusive. Candidate members include Indonesia, Thailand, and Turkey, where there are already signs that the economic crisis
is exacerbating domestic political conflicts. And let us not forget the plague of piracy in Somalia, the renewed civil war in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, the continuing violence in Sudan’s Darfur region, and the heart of darkness that is Zimbabwe under President Robert
Mugabe. The axis of upheaval has many members. And it’s a fairly safe bet that the roster will grow even longer this year. The problem is that, as
in the 1930s, most countries are looking inward, grappling with the domestic consequences of the economic crisis and paying little attention to
the wider world crisis. This is true even of the United States, which is now so preoccupied with its own economic problems that countering global
upheaval looks like an expensive luxury. With the U.S. rate of GDP growth set to contract between 2 and 3 percentage points this year, and with
the official unemployment rate likely to approach 10 percent, all attention in Washington will remain focused on a nearly $1 trillion stimulus
package. Caution has been thrown to the wind by both the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. The projected deficit for 2009 is already soaring
above the trillion-dollar mark, more than 8 percent of GDP. Few commentators are asking what all this means for U.S. foreign policy. The answer
is obvious: The resources available for policing the world are certain to be reduced for the foreseeable future. That will be especially true if
foreign investors start demanding higher yields on the bonds they buy from the United States or simply begin dumping dollars in exchange for
other currencies. Economic volatility, plus ethnic disintegration, plus an empire in decline: That combination is about
the most lethal in geopolitics. We now have all three. The age of upheaval starts now.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
**UQ**
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
UQ – Fiscal D now
The congress is working on being more fiscally discipline now – forced cuts are a concern.
Bull 7/11/12
(Alister, White House Correspondent. Based in the United States for six years covering the economy and Federal Reserve before moving to the White House beat. Previously reported for Reuters from Germany, South Africa, the
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/11/us-usa-economycuts-idUSBRE86A16E20120711) T. Snider
(Reuters) - The White House said on Wednesday it would be ready if painful automatic spending cuts are triggered
next year, but urged Congress to take a "balanced approach" to tackle the federal budget deficit and avoid the
controversial sequesters. The United States faces what some economists are calling a 'fiscal cliff' on January 1 as
Bush-era tax cuts expire and $1.2 trillion in automatic spending reductions begin to bite, unless Congress agrees to
measures that curb the deficit over time. "While OMB (the White House Office of Management and Budget) has not yet engaged
Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Iraq, “White House says "will be prepared" if spending cuts bite”,
agencies in planning, our staff is conducting the analysis that is necessary to move forward should that be required," said White House press
secretary Jay Carney. Government agencies need instructions from OMB on how to implement the cuts, which fall
equally on defense and non-defense spending programs and were specifically designed to be painful in order to spur
Congress to agree to a deficit deal. The automatic cuts were part of an agreement last year to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, which
Republicans insisted be linked to deficit reduction measures. They oppose steps that involve raising taxes, while Obama's Democrats say deficit
reduction cannot come only through spending cuts. "Should it get to the point where it appears Congress will not do its job and the sequester may
take effect, OMB, the Defense Department and the entire administration will be prepared," Carney said. Analysts expect action will be
delayed until after the November 6 election, when lawmakers and the White House will use the lame duck weeks
remaining to the current Congress to confront the problem, before the next Congress takes office in January.
The United States is currently displaying fiscal discipline – spending has grown at a snail’s
pace
Baker 12
(Peter, “Obama More Conservative Than Hoover? Someone Thinks So,” 5-23-12, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/obama-moreconservative-than-hoover-someone-thinks-so/)
COLORADO SPRINGS — It’s not every day that a White House boasts of being more conservative than Herbert
Hoover. But there was Jay Carney, the presidential press secretary, on Wednesday telling reporters aboard Air Force One that Mr.
Hoover was a more profligate spender than President Obama. Clearly unimpressed by the questions he was getting from reporters, Mr.
Carney volunteered an extensive and robust answer to one that was not asked, defending Mr. Obama against
Republican charges of fiscal recklessness. He read a passage from Rex Nutting of MarketWatch stating that spending
under Mr. Obama had grown even more slowly than under Mr. Hoover. “The president has demonstrated
significant fiscal restraint” and applied a “balanced approach” to spending, Mr. Carney said as Mr. Obama headed
here for the Air Force Academy commencement. Mr. Carney added pointedly that any reporting to the contrary would
be the result of “sloth and laziness.” He added a familiar attack on former President George W. Bush’s “tax cuts for
the rich,” which “contributed significantly to the red ink that was gushing” when Mr. Obama took over . The
commentary cited by the White House concluded that spending is rising just 0.4 percent a year under Mr.
Obama. But such calculations depend on when you start counting. Mr. Nutting starts from the first full fiscal year under Mr. Obama,
which started Oct. 1, 2009, more than eight months after he took office, because that is the first budget the new president could fully
shape. His calculation also assumes that spending will fall in the next fiscal year as currently projected by the
Congressional Budget Office. Counting that way relieves Mr. Obama of any responsibility for any increased spending in his first
months in office, when he pushed through Congress a stimulus package of about $800 billion in spending and tax cuts. Between the 2008
fiscal year, the last in which Mr. Bush was president for the full year, and the 2009 fiscal year, when both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama were
president for part of the year, total federal spending increased to $3.5 trillion from $3 trillion, or 17 percent. Each president would like to
assign blame for that to the other.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
UQ – Fiscal D now
Congressional Budget Office predictions show a decreasing federal budget deficit over the next several years.
CBO 12.
“The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal years 2012 to 2022”. Congressional Budget Office. 31 January 2012. Accessed 23 July 2012.
<http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42905> zr
CBO projects a $1.1 trillion federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2012 if current laws remain unchanged. Measured as a
share of the nation’s output (gross domestic product, or GDP), that
shortfall of 7.0 percent is nearly 2 percentage points below
the deficit recorded in 2011, but still higher than any deficit between 1947 and 2008. Over the next few years, projected deficits
in CBO's baseline decline markedly, dropping to under $200 billion and averaging 1.5 percent of GDP over the 2013–
2022 period. Revenues Much of
the projected decline in the deficit occurs because, under current law, revenues are
projected to shoot up by almost $800 billion, or more than 30 percent, between 2012 and 2014 —from 16.3 percent of
GDP in 2012 to 20.0 percent in 2014. That increase is mostly the result of of the recent or scheduled expirations of tax provisions, such as those
initially enacted in 2001, 2003, and 2009 that lower income tax rates and those that limit the number of people subject to the alternative minimum
tax (AMT). Under current law, CBO projects that revenues will continue to rise relative to GDP after 2014 largely because increases in
taxpayers’ inflation-adjusted income will push more income into higher tax brackets and subject more of it to the AMT. Spending.
Outlays
in CBO’s baseline projections decline modestly relative to GDP over the next several years before turning up again later in
the decade.
The modest declines are the result of an expanding economy and statutory caps on discretionary
appropriations. The aging of the population and rising costs for health care drive increases in spending in later years.
Spending rates are at a two decade low, and the trend is continuing. Ungar 5-24.
Ungar, Rick. “Who is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower? Would you believe it's Barack Obama?” Forbes. 24 May 2012.
Accessed 23 July 2012. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-wouldyou-believe-its-barack-obama/> zr
Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever
suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any
United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower. Who knew? Check out the chart – Annualized growth of
federal spending. Reagan '82-85, 8.7%. Reagan '86-89, 4.9%. Bush I '90-93, 5.4%. Clinton'94-97, 3.2%. Clinton '9801, 3.9%. Bush II '02-05, 7.3%. Bush II '06-09, 8.1%. Obama '10-13, 1.4%. So, how have the Republicans managed
to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative? It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama
presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the
result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong. The first year of any
incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant
of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect
four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office. Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in
2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President
Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013. So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look? Courtesy of Marketwatch- In
fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. In fiscal 2011, spending rose
4.3% to $3.60 trillion. In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional
Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August. Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s
term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
**LINKS**
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Link – Infrastructure
Transportation infrastructure is pointless and kills job growth
Harding 11
(Jeffrey, Adjunct Professor at Santa Barbara City College in Real Estate Investment, "The Hoax That Is The Infrastructure Bank," http://dailycapitalist.com/2011/09/18/the-hoax-that-is-theinfrastructure-bank/)
Does anyone seriously believe that the reason we have high unemployment in America is because we have a
substandard infrastructure? Apparently the politicians in Washington believe that is so because they are trying to make a
case for massive infrastructure spending in order to “create jobs” and to “prepare our economy for the 21st Century.” I was
watching that fountain of conventional wisdom, Fareed Zakaria tonight and he seems to buy into this proposition. He interviewed Senator Kay
Baily Hutchison about her proposal for an infrastructure bank: The Kerry-Hutchison Bipartisan Infrastructure Bank also known as the BUILD
Act. It won’t cost the taxpayers any money, she says, because it is a one-time $10 billion funding of this bank which will lend money for
projects. As she says on her web site: The idea of a national infrastructure bank is an innovative way to leverage private-public partnerships and
maximize private funding to address our water, transportation, and energy infrastructure needs. In our current fiscal situation, we must be creative
in meeting the needs of our country and spurring economic development and job growth, while protecting taxpayers from new federal spending
as much as possible. This is viewed as a “sensible and business-like approach” to solving this “problem.” When anyone does reporting on
this topic you see shots of China’s high speed trains zooming along as well as Brazil’s new super port that will be
“the road to China.” We don’t need any of these things because we have an excellent infrastructure despite what the
“experts” say. Most of these experts want to cash in on this spending boondoggle. Let me be clear: not one new job
will be created by this infrastructure bank. The truth is, we don’t need it. Our freeways, trucks, railroads, and aircraft do just
fine getting around delivering people and goods. I’m not arguing that some things need repair, but that is minor compared
to what this Infrastructure Bank envisions. As we all know, like all things run by government, they have let some of our bridges, roads, and
schools go into disrepair because they manage it incompetently. While I am sure some kids go to run-down government schools, it’s not the
buildings that are the problem, it’s the unions. I haven’t heard that our water supply is unsafe or that anyone has been poisoned by drinking out of
the tap (spare me the occasional example, please). Our ports are fine despite the longshoremen’s union. We don’t need high speed trains because
they are expensive and inefficient and people will fly instead. Please see Bob Poole’s work at the Reason Foundation if you need confirmation of
this fact or on any matter dealing with public transportation. Here are some things to think about when the politicians spout this nonsense: 1.
Jobs aren’t created by government. That is not to say that government employees or contractors do not work; they do. What it means is
that government does not create wealth-creating jobs that are self-sustaining as would a private business. This should be
fairly simple to understand. Taxes fund government operations. Only the private sector creates wealth that pay taxes. We can have
an argument about whether or not government should provide much of the services that they do. For example, we know that private schools do a
far better job at providing an education because they are not controlled by unions who control politicians. But, that is not the topic here. 2.
Government spending known as fiscal stimulus, or Keynesian stimulus, as a cure for unemployment is another matter.The idea
here is that since consumers aren’t spending all we need to do to revive the economy is to start spending somewhere in the economy and
magically things will revive and take off. Unfortunately such stimulus never works to “jump start” the economy. It never has and
never will. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 pushed $840 billion into the economy under this theory and it failed. No one
(especially our politicians) asks where the money comes from to stimulate the economy. It comes from us, whether through taxes today or taxes
tomorrow. And, the more you take out of the private economy, the less capital is available for businesses to create real
jobs. Politicians never seem to see this. Right now the Keynesians are pushing on a string with this idea . Until we clean up all the
excess houses, commercial real estate and related debt, no amount of spending or tax cuts will work. 3. Then there is the “quality” issue.
Assuming that such infrastructure spending worked, the projects chosen are those favored by government politicians
and bureaucrats and we know how well they do competing with the private sector. Need I mention the $535 million
government loan guarantee to the soon to be bankrupt Solyndra? These folks shouldn’t be handing out your money; they don’t know what
they are doing.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Link – Spending
Government spending fails miserably and causes a recession
Calhoun 4/29
(Joe, Alhambra Investment Partners' money management services, Weekly Economic & Market Review, http://www.alhambrapartners.com/2012/04/29/weekly-economic-market-review-26/)
Now some will certainly say that Keynesianism hasn’t failed but has rather not been tried; if the stimulus had been targeted better,
we would have gotten a different result. Others will say that if the “stimulus” is running out – and with interest rates so low – we should just
borrow and spend more, that Keynes will eventually be proven correct. Given the success of Solyndra, the first argument leaves a
lot to be desired. Given the results of Japan’s 25 year spending binge, the second fares no better . In any case, any
stimulus funded through continued deficits is by definition temporary. Contrary to Dick Cheney’s voodoo economics,
deficits do matter. There is a limit to how deeply in debt bond markets will allow governments to get , as Europe is
discovering now. So the economy continues its ragged recovery and absent an inexplicable surge of investment appears headed for, at best, a
continuation of PIMCO’s new normal. At worst, one of the many challenges facing the global economy – from a slowing China to a
fresh round of debt denouement in Europe – causes a return to outright recession. With an election and another debt ceiling debate
on tap, further government spending measures seem highly unlikely and as we’ve just seen, ineffective in any case. Those who
make their living punting on the stock exchange seem to be placing their faith in further emanations from the Fed’s printing press but betting on
further impoverishment of the lower classes is so declasse as to earn one the dreaded moniker of speculator.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Link – Mass Transit
Rail lines and mass transit have high up-front costs – up to 1 billion
O’Toole 10
(senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of Gridlock: Why We’re Stuck in Traffic and What to Do about It (Randal, “Defining Success The Case against Rail
Transit”, Cato Institute, 24 March 2010, http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/28813060)
\The
most obvious candidate for testing the success of rail transit is profitability: does rail transit cover its
costs? There are many valid reasons why profitability should be used as a test of the value of rail transit.
Profits are a proxy for net social benefits, and while the proxy is imperfect, it provides an important discipline to
public spending. Once the idea of earning a profit disappears, transit agencies might just as well invest $1
billion as $1 million in transit improvements, because there is no particular reason to consider the former any
worse than the latter. In fact, politically it is likely to be much better. As it turns out, no rail transit line in the
country comes close to covering its operating costs, much less its total cost (see Appendix B for information on data
sources). In 2008 New York City subways had the best financial performance of any rail transit system in the nation, yet subway fares covered
just two-thirds of operating costs (Table 1). Average light-rail fares cover less than 30 percent of operating costs. Transit
fares have not contributed a single penny to rail capital costs for at least 60 years (see Appendix C for calculations of
capital costs). One reason for transit’s lack of profits is that most transit systems in the United States are
publicly owned and tax subsidized, and thus have no profit motive. While privatization of transit could improve the
efficiency of transit service, it is unlikely that even private operators would ever choose to build rail transit lines in the United States. Once
existing lines were worn out, they would probably replace most of them with buses. Transit advocates argue that rail transit loses money
everywhere in the world, and the United States should not expect to do any better. In fact, rail transit earns a profit in Hong Kong and Tokyo, two
cities that are far denser than anywhere in the United States outside of Manhattan. Beyond that, the idea that taxpayers in France, Germany, and
other countries are foolish enough to subsidize what may be an obsolete form of travel does not justify America doing the same.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Link – High Speed Rail
Expanded high speed rail costs billions, previous packages prove
Glaeser,09
Harvard Professor of Economics (Edward, “Is High-Speed Rail a Good Public Investment?”, New York Times, 7/28, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/is-high-speed-rail-a-goodpublic-investment/)
Last Thursday, the
House of Representatives voted another $4 billion for high-speed rail projects, on top of the $8
billion that was part of the stimulus package. President Obama has described a vision of “whisking through towns at speeds over 100
miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination.” The administration is
imagining 10 high-speed rail networks scattered throughout America, not only in the Northeast, but in California,
Texas, Florida and Wisconsin. There is a powerful magic in the president’s vision of fast, sleek trains carrying Americans at dazzling
speeds. Why shouldn’t the transport technology that hauled Americans during the glory days of American industry also bring us to a brighter
future? Older cities, like New York and Boston, were built around rail lines: A move from cars to rail would certainly help other cities develop.
Europe’s fast trains, like the speedy connection between Madrid and Barcelona, are marvels that show the progress that trains have made since
the plodding trip I first took on that route in 1985. Personally, I almost always prefer trains to driving. Yet the public must be wary every
time our leaders decide to spend billions of our tax dollars. The Government Accountability Office’s comprehensive report on
high-speed rail that reminds us that: While some U.S. corridors have characteristics that suggest economic viability, uncertainty associated
with rider and cost estimations and the valuation of public benefits makes it difficult to make such determinations on
individual proposals. Research on rider and cost has shown they are often optimistic and the extent that U.S. sponsors quantify and value public benefits vary. The founders of
transportation economics, like John Meyer and the deeply missed John Kain, found that the benefits of passenger rail rarely exceeded the costs. Their views were caricatured by generations of
Harvard graduate students as “Bus Good, Train Bad.” Is money really better spent on fast trains than on educating our children? I would be delighted to share the president’s optimism about
high-speed rail, but if benefits do not exceed the costs, then America will just be living through a real-life version of “Marge vs. the Monorail,” where the residents of the Simpsons’ Springfield
were foolishly infatuated with a snazzy rail project oversold in song by Phil Hartman’s character. Economics doesn’t have any inherent opinion on trains, but it does strongly suggest the value of
cost-benefit analysis, which may be the best tool ever created for evaluating public investments. Large infrastructure projects are complicated things that all have hundreds of consequences, some
good and some bad. It is easy to come up with good and bad side effects of high-speed rail: More people coming into a centralized train station might reduce long car trips associated with
sprawling airports (that’s good), but increase congestion in the city (that’s bad). These ideas are so cheap that unless they are seriously quantified they have no place in the debate. Serious
accounting, not clever debating points or soaring rhetoric, is the critical ingredient in good public decision-making. I will spend the next three blog posts on the major costs and benefits of highspeed rail. The costs include up-front construction and operating costs. The benefits include direct benefits to riders, indirect benefits include reductions in carbon emissions and traffic
congestion, and any indirect aid that rail gives to local economies and to national economic recovery. The up-front costs of rail are primarily the cash outlays, and these are perhaps easiest to
quantify. The Government Accountability Office’s summary of building costs in Europe range from $37 million to $53 million a mile. The Japanese lines cost from $82 million to $143 million a
Cost estimates in the United States range from $22 million a
mile, for a Victorville, Calif., to Las Vegas route, to $132 million a mile for connecting Baltimore and Washington.
mile. (Higher costs in Japan reflect difficult earthquake-prone terrain and expensive land.)
These figures are all debatable, but anyone who thinks that the G.A.O. got it wrong needs to come up with alternative figures that are equally
plausible. As such, the cost of a 240-mile line, like the one that could connect Dallas and Houston, would probably run
about $12 billion, but it could be as cheap as $6 billion or as expensive as $24 billion, and these are the numbers that we
have most confidence about. Next week, I’ll turn to operating costs and the direct benefits to riders.
National level high speed rail would cost billions, California proves
Vranich, Cox, Moore 08
Policy Research Writers for the Reason Foundation (Joseph, Wendell, and Adrian, “The California High-Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report”, The Reason Foundation Blog, 09/01,
http://reason.org/news/show/the-california-high-speed-rail)
With the high costs of building in California and the history of cost overruns on rail projects, the final price tag for the complete highspeed rail system will actually be $65 to $81 billion, according to the Reason Foundation report. And while the Rail Authority
forecasts between 65 and 96 million intercity riders by 2030, the due diligence report finds these projections are
dramatically inflated. After compiling numerous ridership studies previously conducted for California rail systems, the study demonstrates
the state can expect 23 million to 31 million riders a year in 2030. Any failure to meet the Rail Authority's lofty ridership
projections would force ticket-price increases, further cutting ridership, or require taxpayer subsidies to cover the financial
shortfall, adding to future budget deficits. The due diligence report finds "the San Francisco-Los Angeles line alone by
2030 would suffer annual financial losses of up to $4.17 billion."
High Speed Rails are extremely expensive
White 1/27- Margaret Byrne Professor of American History at Stanford University, Author of “Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America”(Richard, “A
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/26/does-californianeed-high-speed-rail/high-speed-rail-is-a-waste-of-money-for-decades-to-come accessed July 22, 2012)
Waste of Money, for Years to Come”, The New York Times, 1-27-12,
The projected cost of high-speed rail has risen from roughly $33 billion to $100 billion or more even as the promised system
has shed Sacramento and San Diego. There is so far no private investment in the project and no federal contribution beyond
the initial grant. The state auditor is only the latest to slam the California High-speed Rail Authority as a tool of its consultants
and contractors. By all signs, California taxpayers will take the risks; private corporations will reap the gains; and
California will either be left with what it can now fund — a white elephant running between Merced and Bakersfield — or a
monstrous leech of a project sucking away needed revenue.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Link – NIB
A National Infrastructure Bank would destroy fiscal discipline
Mica 11
(John L. Mica is the U.S. Representative for Florida's 7th congressional district, serving since 1993. He is a member of the Republican Party. He is the chairman of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, starting January 3, 2011. (John L. Mica, " MICA: STATES WILL HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY WITHOUT A NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE BANK", Roll Call,
July 25, 2011, http://transportation.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1362)
After years of deficit spending, the United States finds itself in dire economic straits. One need look no further than the current
debate over the nation’s budget and debt limit. When the economy was stronger, it was easier for the government to spend money it did not have
on programs it could not afford. But as the economy continues to struggle, unemployment remains high, and Americans across the country
tighten their belts more every day. Congress must act responsibly to get our fiscal house in order . A framework released by
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Republicans in July to reauthorize federal surface transportation
programs is a fiscally responsible proposal to increase the value and effect of our limited infrastructure resources
while holding to spending levels that are supported by the amount of transportation user fees actually collected . This
proposal is the only initiative offered that protects the Highway Trust Fund and ensures its future solvency. This trust
fund is maintained by user fees — gas taxes paid by motorists at the pump — dedicated specifically for transportation improvements. The trust
fund provides guaranteed long-term funding to states for critical infrastructure planning and projects. However, in recent years the
government has been overspending from the trust fund. Last year, we spent about $50 billion from the trust fund but
collected only $35 billion in revenue. Consistent overspending has necessitated the transfer of $35 billion from the
general fund into the trust fund over the past three years. The Republican proposal restores accountability to federal transportation
spending and puts the “trust” back in the trust fund by aligning spending with revenues. Other proposals would either continue the current
practice of deficit spending for transportation, which would bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund in less than two years; rely on a gas tax increase
that will never pass through an increasingly conservative Congress; or create a national infrastructure bank to fund projects. Our initiative
protects the trust fund. Ensuring the viability of this reliable source of funding will allow states to plan major multiyear projects. Significant
reforms and improvements for transportation programs will increase the investment value of available infrastructure resources. By leveraging
limited funds more effectively, the level of infrastructure investment is increased . But a national infrastructure bank is
not the best way to achieve this leverage. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every federal dollar
invested in state infrastructure banks, $9.45 in loans for transportation projects can be issued. To encourage states to better
utilize SIBs, the Republican proposal increases the percentage of federal highway funding that a state can dedicate to a SIB from 10 percent to 15
percent, and states will receive a specific amount of funding that can be used only to fund SIBs. Many states
cur¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬rently have infrastructure banks. The proposal builds upon this existing SIB structure rather
than increasing the size of the bloated federal bureaucracy, as some advocate, by creating a national infrastructure bank.
States will have more flexibility to make project decisions. The proposal also expands the successful Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act program. By dedicating $6 billion to TIFIA, $60 billion in low-interest loans to fund at least $120 billion in transportation projects
will be generated. Additional TIFIA funding will help meet demand for credit assistance for projects, enabling increased leveraging of Highway
Trust Fund dollars with state, local and private-sector investment. The new fiscally responsible initiative streamlines the federal bureaucracy in
other ways as well. There are more than 100 federal surface transportation programs, many of which are duplicative or do not serve a national
interest. An unprecedented consolidation and elimination of about 70 of these programs under this proposal will decrease the size of the federal
bureaucracy, freeing up funds that can be invested in infrastructure instead of siphoned off to maintain unnecessary programs. States are provided
more authority and flexibility to address their most critical infrastructure needs. However, new performance measures and transparency
requirements will hold states accountable for their spending decisions. As this responsible Republican proposal moves forward, we welcome
suggestions and ideas for a final bill that protects the Highway Trust Fund, reforms programs, downsizes the bureaucracy, cuts red tape and more
effectively leverages our limited resources.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Link- Port Deepening
The Cost of port deepening/dredging is extremely expensive
Associated Press 12’ (the associated press, 6/21/2012 “Price tag to dredge Eastern ports for big ships: $5
billion” http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-06-21/southern-ports-
expansion/55746890/1 accessed July 22, 2012)
The report, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is in response to Congress' request to examine
improvement needs among the nation's ports as local governments scramble for federal funds to deepen their
harbors to make room for a growing fleet of giant commercial ships. The East
Coast has only three ports —
New York, Baltimore and Norfolk, Va. — with waterways deep enough to accept the fully loaded ships regardless
of tides. The Southeast, forecast to undergo the nation's biggest growth in population and trade, remains too shallow
from Virginia to South
Florida and across the Gulf to Texas. The need for expanding port capacity "is likely to be
most critical along the U.S. Southeast and Gulf coasts," the report said. That's because no shipping channels are at
least 50 feet deep, which will be required for the ships — many from China and other Asian countries — that will
begin using the Panama Canal after a major expansion is completed by the end of 2014. Savannah, Ga., Charleston,
S.C., and Miami on the Southeast coast, as well as several ports in the Gulf, are already undertaking harbordeepening projects. None have advanced beyond studies to actual dredging, however. In April, the Corps
completed a 12-year study on the Port of Savannah — the nation's fourth busiest container port — which wants
$652 million in taxpayer funds to deepen more than 30 miles of river. The Corps said 17 such projects are
being studied overall, and the cost of harbor expansions across the Southeast would likely be $3 billion to $5
billion.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
**INTERNAL LINKS**
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Internal Link – Fiscal D key to Economy
Fiscal discipline is key to economic recovery
Hunt 5/17
(Lacy H, executive vice president of Hoisington Investment Management Company - investment adviser specializing in the management of fixed-income portfolios
for large institutional clients, "Economic Recovery Via Shared Sacrifice, Cutting Government Spending, Deficit and Debts,"
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34706.html)
LH: It may occur sooner than we think. If interest rates in the marketplace were to go up 200 basis points, it would add approximately
$350B a year to the federal budget deficit. Of course, you'd have to borrow that, and then borrow more and more in succeeding years. So the
interest expense is really a potential time bomb. I don't think a rise in long-term rates is at hand, but it's very problematic as we go
forward. TGR: You also write about a negative risk premium—when the total return of the S&P 500 is less than the return on long-term
Treasuries and thus equity investors aren't being rewarded for the risks they take. It seems to contradict the concept that we're marching toward
this bang point. Will the negative risk premium continue until we reach the bang point? LH: First of all, let me explain a bit more about the
negative risk premium. We know that over very long periods of time investors in stocks have received a premium over investors in long-term
Treasuries. If that didn't hold true over the long run, people wouldn't take the risk. But there have been significant exceptions. Following the
build-up of debt in the 1860s and 1870s, we had a 20-year span during which the S&P 500 return was lower than long-term Treasury returns.
Then, even though World War II interrupted, another period of negative risk premiums lasted from 1928 to 1948. In both instances, 20 years was
a long time to wait for risk to be rewarded. Certainly there were quarters, even years, during those spans when the S&P 500 returns were better
than the Treasuries, but when you stand back and you look at the entire period, risk was not rewarded. We've had another massive build-up of
debt over the last 20 years, and since 1991 we've been in another negative risk premium cycle. We've past the 20-year point already, and if we
continue along the path toward increased indebtedness, we'll extend the negative risk premium interval this time around. I think it will be
very difficult for the normal economic conditions to prevail. A lot of the pioneering work on the role of debt was done by Irving
Fisher. He thought the economy operated on a normal business cycle model, one to two bad years, four to five good years. The one to two got a
little testy, but it was over and you went on. That's why he was fooled by the Great Depression. He freely admitted he was fooled. He made some
outrageous statements about the health of the economy in 1929, but he did his mea culpa, reexamined what he thought and concluded that the
normal business cycle doesn't work in highly over-indebted situations. In those situations, the indebtedness controls nearly all other
economic variables—including the risk premium. The normal bounds don't work, just as they did not work after the panics of 1873, 1929,
and 1989, when risk was not rewarded. So by trying to solve this over-indebtedness problem by getting further in debt, the
standard of living will not rise and, in the final analysis, the stock market will reflect how well our people are doing. And
our people are not doing well. Of course, the bang point is a point of calamitous development, but it would mark the
climax of a prolonged period of underperformance and financial risk management . It's not at hand. We have the ability to
control it, but we have to have the political will to do so. At present, it doesn't appear to be forthcoming. TGR: You've indicated that the only
way for developed nations to get out from under this debt burden is austerity, not inflation or more Quantitative Easing
(QE). With the income of average American citizens stagnant, at best, for a decade already, what would spark the political will to force austerity
measures on a beleaguered populace? LH: No one wants austerity. Neither the politicians nor the public want it. The McKinsey Global Institute
did an outstanding study of what happens to highly overleveraged countries that get into crisis situations. It found 32 cases that have fully
played out, starting with the 1930s. In 16 cases of the 32—or half—austerity was required. Only eight cases were resolved by
higher inflation, but they were all very small, emerging economies. A small country with no major role in world
markets can get away with debasing its currency, but a major player cannot do that.
The deficit should be the center of debates on the economy – it spills over into all other economic indicators
US Action News 5/17
("Bachmann: Debt too big to wait," http://usactionnews.com/2012/05/bachmann-debt-too-big-to-wait/)
In 2004 Obama said the “monstrous” deficits were “an enormous problem” when the deficit was $413 billion. In 2008 he said increasing the debt
would burden our children and was unpatriotic. Every year of his term deficits have been over a TRILLION dollars. By the end of his first term
he will have increased the debt more than all other presidents combined. Can we afford four more years of two faced, self serving fiscal
insanity? “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a
sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial
assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies . … Increasing America’s debt
weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad
choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve
better.” – Barack Obama “Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, its time to try something new.
Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt.” – President Barack Obama on his Office of Management and Budget
website. “We’re spending twice as much money as we did in 2001. If you go back 15 years our deficit this year is bigger than what our entire
budget was. That’s how out of control the federal government is. … There is a political reason we’re not having a budget. Everybody understands
that. Nobody’s going to say it. .. “because we don’t want to make the hard choices in an election year.” – Senator Dr. Tom Coburn “Whether
one believes leaves in a large, very active government or something more limited, mathematically, the amount of
debt we already have and the terrifying rate at which it is accumulating will lead to national ruin,” Gov. Mitch Daniels
“Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.” -Alan Greenspan
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Internal Link- Fiscal Cliff Kills Economy (1/2)
1. Bernanke says debt and deficit reduction key to improving economy. Otherwise, we hit the fiscal cliff which
means more recession. Williams 7-21.
Williams, Patricia. “Fed Chairman: Focus on Need for Debt Reduction”. PoliticalNews.me (PoliticalNews.me is a free press release and news
distribution service. Our founders have over 25 years of experience working for news organizations such as the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and
the Associated Press. Submitted press releases and news items are all reviewed by one of our 4 staff editors before being published) 21 July 2012.
Accessed 23 July 2012. <http://politicalnews.me/?id=15835&keys=FEDERAL-DEBTS-DEFICIT-REDUCTION> zr
U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
says reducing federal debts and deficits are important factors in improving
the nation’s economic recovery and the creation of new jobs. Testifying before the Senate Banking Committee, of which Idaho
Senator Mike Crapo is a member, Bernanke
warned Congress that it is important to develop a long-term plan to reduce
U.S. government debt levels while avoiding massive tax increases or spending cuts. “Chairman Bernanke told us that
significant, comprehensive debt-reduction efforts are necessary to improve our economy,” Crapo said following the hearing. “With
across-
the-board tax increases looming at the end of this calendar year for every single American family and for many
small businesses, we need to reach consensus as soon as possible to avoid these sharp tax increases that will stifle
job creation and growth at a time when our economy cannot afford it. We need to send the message to private-sector
job creators and the world markets that the U.S. has a plan to reduce its debt and spur economic recovery. This is not
about more government spending; it is about reducing the debt and implementing tax reform that will encourage
investment and job creation.” Crapo said it is important for members of Congress to hear Chairman Bernanke’s call to
establish fiscal responsibility. The Chairman noted in his opening testimony, that if Congress does not act legislatively to deal
with the coming “fiscal cliff,” it could lead the country back into a recession . Bernanke said, “The Congressional Budget
Office has estimated that, if the full range of tax increases and spending cuts were allowed to take effect—a scenario
widely referred to as the fiscal cliff—a shallow recession would occur early next year and about 1.25 million fewer
jobs would be created in 2013.” He continued, “The most effective way that the Congress could help to support the economy right now
would be to work to address the nation’s fiscal challenges in a way that takes into account both the need for long-run sustainability and the
fragility of the recovery.”
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Internal Link- Fiscal Cliff Kills Economy (2/2)
2. Going over the Fiscal Cliff destroys the global economy as well.
Scott in 2012 (Heather, “IMF's Blanchard: US Fiscal Cliff Potentially 'Enormous Shock' By --Fiscal Cuts Would
Shave 1.5 Points Off Advance Economies' Growth 2013 --IMF's Vinals: LIBOR Scandal Underscores Need for
Financial Reg Reforms” MNI - MONDAY, JULY 16, 2012 - 11:24 https://mninews.deutscheboerse.com/index.php/imfs-blanchard-us-fiscal-cliff-potentially-enormous-shock?q=content/imfs-blanchard-usfiscal-cliff-potentially-enormous-shock
The coming U.S. fiscal cliff could cause an "enormous shock" to other advanced economies,
slashing 1.5 points off their projected growth next year, IMF chief economist Olivier Blanchard said Monday. Blanchard
WASHINGTON (MNI) -
echoed the warning given in two reports released Monday -- the quarterly updates of the World Economic Outlook and the
Global Financial Stability report -- which highlighted the potential to cut four points off U.S. growth next year if the
government fails to reach an agreement to soften the fiscal blow. And the fiscal cliff -- which refers to the need to
raise the debt ceiling, and the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts -- will have significant spillovers to the global
economy, the IMF said. Blanchard said at a press conference that IMF calculations assume the effect on advanced economies
would be one-third of the hit to U.S. GDP "so this would be a decrease in growth relative to our baseline of 1.5 (points) for
advanced economies as a whole. "We're talking about potentially an enormous shock. So if it were to happen it would
be a major, major event," said Blanchard, head of the IMF Research Department. The WEO said recent slowing in the
United States has been partly due to seasonal payback from the mild winter but also reflects an "underlying loss of momentum,"
and cut the U.S. growth forecast by a tenth this year and next, to 2.0% in 2012 and 2.3% 2013. The report stressed that
"avoiding the fiscal cliff, promptly raising the debt ceiling, and developing a medium-term fiscal plan are of the
essence." And the GFSR cautioned of the risk of political ploys with regards to the U.S. debt ceiling. "As year-end
approaches and uncertainty increases, another bout of political brinksmanship -- similar to that seen in August 2011
in discussions of the U.S. debt ceiling -- could trigger increased market volatility." While the market consensus is that "the
bulk of fiscal tightening will be deferred until later and that the debt ceiling will be raised in time to avert a default," the GFSR cautioned that
"there is clearly the potential for a significant adverse market reaction." Jose Vinals, director of the fund's Monetary and Capital Markets
Department, said the LIBOR scandal affects confidence and also highlights the need for continued reform of financial regulation and supervision,
as agreed by the Group of 20. "Most serious consequence of this scandal which is under investigation is that it undermines the certainty and the
trust that markets have in benchmarks which are key to price many contracts," Vinals told reporters. "But this is why its important that efforts
that are currently underway regarding the regulation of financial institutions be completed, that these regulations be implemented right away, and
that there is also together with regulation there is also good supervision," he said, to prevent these things happening in the future. ** MNI
Washington Bureau: 202-371-2121 **
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
**IMPACTS**
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Economic collapse ensures nuclear resource wars
Broward 9
((Member of Triond) http://newsflavor.com/opinions/will-an-economic-collapse-kill-you)
Now its time to look at the consequences of a failing world economy. With five official nations having nuclear
weapons, and four more likely to have them there could be major consequences of another world war. The first thing that
will happen after an economic collapse will be war over resources. The United States currency will become useless and will have
no way of securing reserves. The United States has little to no capacity to produce oil , it is totally dependent on foreign oil. If the
United States stopped getting foreign oil, the government would go to no ends to secure more, if there were a war
with any other major power over oil, like Russia or China, these wars would most likely involve nuclear weapons.
Once one nation launches a nuclear weapon, there would of course be retaliation, and with five or more countries with
nuclear weapons there would most likely be a world nuclear war. The risk is so high that acting to save the economy is the
most important issue facing us in the 21st century.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Structural violence in the form of poverty kills more people than actual violence; structural
violence is the biggest impact in the round
Gilligan 97 James Gilligan, 1997, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence - Harvard Medical School,
Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic p. 195-6
The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths
per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the
frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an
estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide - or about
eight million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the
Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the
U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with
structural violence, which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the
average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war 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 six-year
period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear
war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the
world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and
epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to
which of the two forms of violence—structural or behavioral—is more important, dangerous, or lethal is
moot, for they are inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Economic downturn destroys heg
Pape 9
(Robert , poli sci @u of Chicago, Chicago Tribune, 3.8.9, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-perspec0308diplomacymar08,0,4785661.story)
For nearly two decades, the U.S. has been viewed as a global hegemon—vastly more powerful than any major country in the
world. Since 2000, however, our global dominance has fallen dramatically. During the Bush administration, the self-inflicted
wounds of the Iraq war, growing government debt, increasingly negative current account balances and other internal
economic weaknesses cost the U.S. real power in a world of rapidly spreading knowledge and technology. Simply
put, the main legacy of the Bush years has been to leave the U.S. as a declining power. From Rome to the United
States today, the rise and fall of great nations have been driven primarily by economic strength. At any given
moment, a state's power depends on the size and quality of its military forces and other power assets. Over time,
however, power is a result of economic strength—the prerequisite for building and modernizing military forces. And
so the size of the economy relative to potential rivals ultimately determines the limits of power in international politics. The power position
of the U.S. is crucial to the foreign policy aims that it can achieve. Since the Cold War, America has maintained a
vast array of overseas commitments, seeking to ensure peace and stability not just in its own neighborhood , the
Western hemisphere, but also in Europe, Asia and the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Maintaining these commitments requires enormous resources, but
American leaders in recent years chose to pursue far more ambitious goals than merely maintaining the status quo.
Hegemony decline causes war
Fogg 9
(Erik, Department of Political Science, MIT, Generalizing Power Transitions as a Cause of War, June 2009,
http://web.mit.edu/efogg/Public/Thesis/ErikFoggThesis.pdf)
In this thesis, I ask three questions about the nature of power transition theory. First, I ask whether power transition theory can be generalized
beyond identification of great powers or regional hierarchies. Lemke and Werner introduce the concept of a multiple hierarchical order, in which
mutually relevant regional powers can go to war over dissatisfaction with a regional status quo. I submit that this concept can be generalized into
a continuous concept to include all states within the umbrella of the theory. Second, I ask how often status quo states initiate war in power
transition cases. Jack Levy explains that status quo states have a motive to launch a preemptive war against a revisionist
state, before it becomes too powerful to defeat. I submit that these motivations lead to a high incidence of status quo actorinitiated war in power transitions. Finally, I ask whether the rate of change of relative power matters during a transition period. I
hypothesize that quick changes in the relative difference in power between two states would create a fast-closing window of
opportunity. This closing window creates a crisis and motivates leaders to move quickly, leading to a higher probability of
avoidable war. Incorporation of rate of power transition could explain war in power transition cases yet to achieve true parity, or even explain
peace in a period of parity and revisionism. To test these questions, I create a large, inclusive (571,000+ N) dataset of nearly all dyads between
1821 and 2001, using the Correlates of War Composite Index of National Capabilities as the basis of power independent variables, and a
composite of distance and power measurements to determine the relevance independent variable. I run a number of regressions of the power and
relevance independent variables against the onset of war. I reach decisive conclusions about the nature of power dynamics in the international
system, and propose their incorporation into the power transition literature. Generalized, continuous measurements of relevance, parity, and rate
of change of power transition increase the explanatory power of the model; the revisionist state does not always or even usually provoke power
transition war; finally, higher rates of power transition lead to a higher probability of war . The thesis ends with a number of
shortfalls with the model I propose, and a number of further revisions and expansions of power transition theory.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
**AFF ANSWERS**
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Non-UQ – Fiscal D Not Happeneing
US economy failing now – fiscal discipline is collapsing, unemployment is high, and
recovery is unlikely
Portman 6/13
(Senator Rob Portman,(R-Ohio) serves on the Budget Committee, Director of the Office of Management and Budget from May 2006 - June 2007
under President George Bush, “We Can Do Better on Economy”, Politico News, June 13, 2012,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77389_Page2.html#ixzz1yS3sieyN)
We are living through the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression. More than 20 million Americans
cannot find work, have given up searching or have been forced to accept part-time jobs. We must do better. The
unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for more than three years — the longest stretch since the Great
Depression. The average unemployed worker spends nearly 40 weeks looking for a job. That’s nine months of
stress, uncertainty and wondering how to make ends meet. President Barack Obama correctly points out that he inherited this recession. But the question
is: What did he do with it? His policies, unfortunately, have failed to turn things around. Typically, the steeper a recession, the stronger the recovery. In recoveries, millions of unemployed
Americans return to work and idled factories, and resources are put in use again, giving the economy lots of room to grow. This is what occurred after the 1981-82 recession. In terms of
unemployment, that recession was as deep as the most recent one was. The unemployment rate peaked at 10.8 percent, which is higher than the 10 percent peak in the recent recession. But the
1980s recession was followed by five consecutive quarters of strong economic growth rates of between 7 percent and 9 percent. The economy gained more than 1.1 million net jobs in a single
month. By this point after the beginning of that recession, the economy had recovered all jobs lost in the downturn and gained 7 million new jobs. Obama promised his policies would bring a
similarly steep recovery. However, in contrast to Ronald Reagan — who encouraged the recovery by reducing tax rates, cutting red tape and limiting government, Obama spent more than $800
billion on a stimulus bill, has supported far higher tax rates, jammed through Congress a government health care takeover and expanded regulation. Obama and his team promised the
unemployment rate would fall below 6 percent by now with his stimulus bill. He also pledged to cut the budget deficit in half in his first term and reduce annual family health costs by up to
the unemployment rate remains above 8 percent, $4 trillion has been added to the debt, this year’s budget
deficit remains at well over $1 trillion and health care costs continue to rise. Rather than follow a steep recession
with a steep recovery, the economy grew only 1.7 percent last year. Perhaps worst of all, we’re still 5 million net
jobs down since the recession began. By this point after the 1981-82 recession, the economy was 92 percent of the
way back to what economists call its potential performance. After the recent recession, it’s only 27 percent of the
way back. It won’t return to its potential level until 2018, according to Congressional Budget Office projections. By then, the recession and weak recovery will have cost $6.7 trillion in
$2,500. Instead,
lost output. That’s $55,000 per household. Remarkably, Reagan’s recovery took place even as the Federal Reserve was strongly contracting the money supply. Obama’s policies have failed
despite the Federal Reserve loosening the money supply. Part of the lesson is that government policies matter. Between 1969 and 1982 — a period dominated by high tax rates, expanded
government and excessive red tape — the economy was in recession 32 percent of the time. Since then, with lower tax rates and restrained government, the economy has been in recession less
than 10 percent of the time — including this past recession. Rather than follow Obama’s 1970s-era vision of ever-rising taxes to chase ever-rising spending, we need a pro-growth, pro-jobs
agenda. We should pursue pro-growth tax reform by lowering marginal tax rates and pay for it by closing loopholes that only complicate the Tax Code and slow growth. We should also provide
regulatory relief to small businesses, open up more export markets to better reach the 95 percent of the world’s consumers who live abroad and encourage domestic energy production to create
jobs and lower prices. We should replace the president’s health care law with a policy that lowers costs by putting consumers in control of their health care and forcing insurance companies to
compete for our business. We must also rein in runaway spending to close this staggering budget deficit before we have a fiscal crisis. We can do better. These pro-growth policies would
unshackle the economy and encourage hiring. They would bring long-term sustainability to the budget and new revenues through growth. There is no reason the economy cannot return to the
higher growth that occurred in past recoveries. We have the blueprint; we just need the will.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Link Turn – Infrastructure Solves Econ
Transportation infrastructure development solves short-term economic growth
New America Foundation, 10
(“The Case for an Infrastructure-Led Jobs and Growth Strategy”, New America Foundation, 23 February 2010,
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/the_case_for_an_infrastructure_led_jobs_and_growth_strategy)
As the Senate takes up a greatly scaled down $15 billion jobs bill stripped of all infrastructure spending, the nation should consider the compelling case for public infrastructure investment
offered by Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and Ed Rendell (D-PA). Appearing on ABC’s "This Week" on Sunday, the bipartisan Co-Chairs of Building America's Future explained
Rather than go from one
negligible jobs bill to the next, the administration and Congress should, as the governors suggest, map out a multi-year plan of
infrastructure investment and make it the centerpiece of an ongoing economic recovery program. Here is why: With
American consumers constrained by high household debt levels and with businesses needing to work off overcapacity in many sectors, we need a new, big source
of economic growth that can replace personal consumption as the main driver of private investment and job creation. The most promising new source of
growth in the near to medium term is America’s pent-up demand for public infrastructure improvements in
everything from roads and bridges to broadband and air traffic control systems to a new energy grid. We need not only to
repair large parts of our existing basic infrastructure but also to put in place the 21st-century infrastructure for a more energy-efficient and
technologically advanced society. This project, entailing billions of dollars of new government spending over the
next five to ten years, would generate comparable levels of private investment and provide millions of new jobs for
American workers.
why rebuilding America’s infrastructure is the key to both job creation in the short and medium term and our prosperity in the longer term.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
Alt Causes
Alt causes: Health care is the source of deficits and only by controlling health care costs can
we stabilize the economy.
Barber ’12
CEPR Writer (Alan, “New Calculator Shows Long-Run Deficit is Entirely Due to Health Care Costs”, Center for Economic and Policy Research,
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/new-calculator-shows-long-run-deficit-is-entirely-due-to-health-care-costs)//MZ
the projections of explosive long-term deficits are
entirely dependent on projections of exploding health care costs. If the United States had per person health care costs that
were comparable to costs in other wealthy countries (all of whom enjoy comparable or better health outcomes), then we would be looking at
long-term budget surpluses not deficits. The updated CEPR Health Care Budget Deficit Calculator simply and easily shows what our
The debate over budget and economic policy is overwhelmingly focused on deficits and debt. However,
long term budget deficits would look like if we did not pay as much for healthcare. By allowing the user to choose the per person health care costs of other advanced nations, the calculator
shows that deficits would not continue to rise uncontrollably if we did not pay as much in healthcare . At the same time, it
illustrates how hard it will be to keep deficits from exploding if nothing is done to reduce healthcare costs. As well, a new CEPR infographic compares some recently
proposed budget cuts to potential savings by lowering healthcare costs, in the process showing how little effect the cuts would
have. Together, the calculator and infographic make it clear that any meaningful talk of long-term budget deficits has to center on healthcare
costs. The country faces a health care cost crisis. If it addresses this crisis, it does not have a deficit problem. If it
doesn’t address the health care cost crisis, there is no plausible way to address the problem of the deficit.
Baker-Wehle
Fiscal Discipline DA
No Impact to Econ
Studies and empirics prove no war impact
Miller, 2k
(Morris, economist, adjunct professor in the University of Ottawa’s 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)
Do wars spring from
sudden economic crisis
The question may be reformulated.
a popular reaction to a
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
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 of the Carnegie 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:1 9
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 cases of dictatorships and semidemocracies, the ruling elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of
denouement.
violence to abort another).