Alejandres Gannon UC Berkeley

 The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.

 The 50 states and the US territories and Washington DC will do the plan

1. Politics 2. Elections 3. Federal spending 4. Federalism 5. Critical net-benny

 50 states act on their own  50 states do the plan cooperatively  50 states engage in a compact to do the plan  Single state counterplans  Federal devolution  Lopez (Interstate Commerce Clause)

 Solves most affs that don’t need to be federal dollars 1. Have aff specific evidence 2. Use fiat to overcome solvency deficits 3. Use generic 1AC evidence to prove cp sufficient 4. Fiat more than the aff

1. Budget – states don’t have money ◦ Add funding plank to the cp (SIB, taxes) ◦ Read spending DA ◦ States spend money more efficiently ◦ State budgets recovering uniqueness 2. Federal stimulus key ◦ States do same stimulus, still creates jobs ◦ Aff doesn’t solve stimulus

3. Uniformity key ◦ Fiat solves harmonization ◦ CP is a national policy implemented at state level 4. Permutation ◦ Difficult to explain why it doesn’t link to net-benny ◦ Involves federal action 5. Federal law prevents cp ◦ Best aff arg, may kill the cp vs certain affs

 Advantages about federal action ◦ Signal-based advantages ◦ International advantages ◦ Relations advantages  Federal law prevents solvency ◦ Best solvency deficit, states don’t have legal jurisidiction

 Theory ◦ CP is clearly cheating  States fail/inefficient ◦ Worst solvency deficit ◦ Difficult to quantify, good texts get around it  States budget DA ◦ Tricky if you have good ones with solid ev ◦ Have to outweigh the net-benny

 Permutation ◦ Solves ‘states are better’ arguments ◦ Uniform action by nation prevents Congressional backlash to Obama ◦ Contractor bid choice

 Have a private actor invest in transportation infrastructure investment instead of the USFG  Probably cheating, hard to find literature  Aff already includes action by a private actor  Same net-bennies as states cp but worse solvency

 Intrinsicness of global warming and the economy ◦ Jobs ◦ Stimulus ◦ Emissions ◦ Oil dependence ◦ Specific economic sectors

 Aff has to defend an increase in investment Anderson, ‘6 (Edward, Lecturer in Development Studies – University of East Anglia, et al., “The Role of Public Investment in Poverty Reduction: Theories, Evidence and Methods”, Overseas Development Institute Working Paper 263, March, Definitions We define (net) public investment as public expenditure that adds to the public physical capital stock. This would include the building of roads, ports, schools, hospitals etc. This corresponds to the definition of public investment in national accounts data, namely, capital expenditure. It is not within the scope of this paper to include public expenditure on health and education, despite the fact that many regard such expenditure as investment. Methods for assessing the poverty impact of public expenditure on social sectors such as health and education have been well covered elsewhere in recent years (see for example, van de Walle and Nead, 1995; Sahn and Younger, 2000; and World Bank, 2002).

 Mandates or incentives vs investments ◦ Mandates – requirements for transportation policy ◦ Incentives – tax cuts or benefits

 Federal law requires “Buy American” provisions  Why do they do this? ◦ American jobs ◦ American industry  Why shouldn’t we do this? ◦ International trade ◦ Hurts relations with other countries

 Competition ◦ Difficult to write this cp text ◦ Net-benny to states since don’t have Buy American requirements and countries not concerned about states’ trade policies  PIC out of “investment in the United States” in the plan  Get rid of current Buy American requirements  Careful answering “Buy American key to stimulus advantage”