Counterplans on the Topic

Alejandres GannonUC Berkeley

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

The Resolution

Section 1 – United States Federal

Government

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

States CP

1. Politics2. Elections3. Federal spending4. Federalism5. Critical net-benny

Net-bennies

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)

Versions

Solves most affs that don’t need to be federal dollars

1. Have aff specific evidence2. Use fiat to overcome solvency deficits3. Use generic 1AC evidence to prove cp

sufficient4. Fiat more than the aff

Winning on the neg

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

Answering aff arguments

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

Answering aff args

Advantages about federal action◦ Signal-based advantages◦ International advantages◦ Relations advantages

Federal law prevents solvency◦ Best solvency deficit, states don’t have legal

jurisidiction

Answering states

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

Answering states

Permutation◦ Solves ‘states are better’ arguments◦ Uniform action by nation prevents Congressional

backlash to Obama◦ Contractor bid choice

Answering states

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

Private Actor CP

Section 2 - Transportation

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

Advantage CP

Section 4 - Investment

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, http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/1786.pdf) 1.3 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).

Aff Burden

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

Neg Strategy

Section 5 – in the United States

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

Buy American

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”

Buy American