TOPICALITY RESOLVEDIn policy debate there are five stock issues the affirmative team must defend. If the affirmative team loses any of these issues, then we as the negative win the round. Well be addressing the most important stock issue, that of topicality- or whether or not the affirmative team fits within the bound of the resolution:-------- Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its investment in transportation infrastructure. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF THE ROUND. If we can prove to you that the Aff isnt topical, we win this debate, regardless of how good their plan isA) Definition- ResolvedMeans: A Specific course of action AHD 6 (American Heritage Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolved)

INTRANSITIVE VERB:1. To reach a decision or make a determination: resolve on a course of action. 2. To become separated or reduced to constituents. 3. Music To undergo resolution.

B) Violation- the negative team does NOT give a specific course of action. They are simply affirming the resolution over again by restating it. Prefer our definition due to the simple fact that they dont resolve to do anything specific. The USFG spends money to improve infrastructure right this moment. This leads to massive amounts of abuse.

C) Standards-reasons you should vote on topicality right now

1. LIMITS- The affirmative teams inability to affirm a specific course of action explodes the limits into todays debate round. This is bad for debate because it gives the affirmative unlimited options to choose from on the fly for their plan, making it impossible for the negative to make solid and specific arguments against the affirmative. 2. GROUNDS- Due to the affirmative failing to define a specific plan, this also explodes the affirmative teams ground for the debate. Ground is the possible plans and agents that can be used in debate for each respective team. BUT WE DONT KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT THE AFFIRMATIVE IS CLAIMING THANKS TO THEIR PLAN TEXT. THIS IS ABUSE.3. EDUCATION- a) By failing to specify a plan, the education of this debate is harmed dramatically. We can only argue generics at best, because we cant make many solid arguments that directly link to their case. Also, depth is better than breadth, empirically proven.b) Attempts to discuss the whole resolution breed superficiality4. Time limits preclude discussing the resolution as a whole--the whole point of the time limits is to talk about what is most important in transportation infrastructure, such as what is most in need or will give the most benefits5. By contemporary convention we discuss the plan, but with this affirmative all we talk about is the resolution in general6. Framers Intent: Empirically we select topics with multiple case areas. Narrow topics are generally rejected. This implies topics are intended to serve as problem areas. This allows debaters to choose something small ON PURPOSE. There are many areas in need within Transportation infrastructure, the point of resolution is to talk about one.7. The ballot doesnt indicate endorsement of the resolution, only who won the debateD) Topicality is a voter for fairness, education, grounds, and limits, please vote negative on topicality.

CP: P3sTEXT:(insert affirmatives plan action) funded exclusively by private investment through a properly executed Public-Private Partnership contractP3s solvePrivate Investors have $200 Billion and are eager to fund public projectsished by the Corporate Communications and Brand Stewardship Department of theTHINK, 11 ( Issue 07, 2011 Infrastructure as an Asset, HNTB Companies, P.O. Box 412197, Kansas City, MO 64141.) LMC

Underpinning the improvement and maintenance of all infrastructure assets is money. With severe constraints on public funding, and no sign of a gas tax hike that might provide a fresh flow of revenue, infrastructure owners increasingly are looking to private investors for interest and support. As it happens, private investment is increasingly viewing public infrastructure as a safer bet than many other options, especially because private infrastructure in the form of commercial and residential real estate has been so troubled in recent years. Experts suggest that as much as $200 billion of private equity is looking for public infrastructure as a place to invest. Increasingly, typically risk-averse pension funds are eyeing these assets, as well. In fact, because pension funds have long-term obligations to retirees to provide paychecks perhaps decades down the road the enduring value of public infrastructure makes an attractive match. Many investment companies now are offering so-called infrastructure funds to meet the demand from these longhaul investors. While the U.S. is relatively new to this model, we need only to look at Australia for a game plan. Infrastructure funds made their appearance 15 years ago there in response to the governments mandate that a portion of public pensions be allocated to infrastructure projects. The result was significant improvement in the nations infrastructure without unduly taxing the citizens. Currently, the U.S. has significant regulatory and legal hurdles that make it more difficult for a range of private investments to proceed. For example, there may be specific rules that cap investor earnings, which add risk to the investors projections.

AFF stimulus and investment results in Job Poaching, NOT CREATIONVeronique de Rugy & Mitchell 11 is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Matthew Mitchell is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, WOULD MORE INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING STIMULATE THE ECONOMY? http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/infrastructure_deRugy_WP_9-12-11.pdfJob poaching, not creating: Unemployment rates among specialists, such as those with the skills to build roads or schools, are often relatively low. Moreover, it is unlikely that an employee specialized in residential-area construction can easily update his or her skills to include building highways. As a result, we can expect that firms receiving stimulus funds will hire their workers away from other construction sites where they were employed rather than from the unemployment lines. This is what economists call crowding out. Except that in this case, labor, not capital, is being crowded out. In fact, new data confirm that a plurality of workers hired with ARRA money were poached from other organizations rather than from the unemployment lines. 23

ONLY P3s Solve for the global recovery and increase innovation, this is a net benefit to the CPZoellick 12- (World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick WORLD BANK PRESIDENT ROBERT B. ZOELLICK ISSUES SPEECH AT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE PRESS CONFERENCE , 4/21/2012 US Federal News)

A key element of this is the development of infrastructure to boost future growth, including through Public-Private Partnerships. Shareholders endorsed the Bank's knowledge agenda - whether it be on safety nets, global public goods, or the South-South Agenda. The global recovery depends on proper incentives for private financing and the World Bank Group has been a leader in developing public policies to encourage private sector innovation, investment, and job creation. And our private sector arm, IFC did a particularly good job in innovative financing, technical assistance, investments and mobilizing others. At the end of the day, the best safety net is a job.

Save your breathOur P3 Uses Private Money to Fund Public InfrastructureIt competes 100% without the planPittsburgh Post-Gazette 7/17/12 (Nikita Lalwani ,Pittsburgh Post-Gazette http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/transportation/law-allows-companies-to-help-with-road-repairs-645069/)A new transportation law lets private companies help fix and maintain ailing bridges, roads and other infrastructure -- a necessary step, proponents say, for a state that boasts nearly 5,000 structurally deficient bridges and 8,000 miles of poor roadway.Several firms already have expressed interest in financing transportation projects in Pennsylvania, said the bill's primary sponsor and chairman of the House Transportation Committee, state Rep. Rick Geist, R-Altoona.In a public-private partnership, known as a P3, the state retains ownership of the bridge or road while contracting with a private firm to develop, manage or finance a project.Firms receive a fixed return on their investment over time, most commonly through tolling, and any money collected above the agreed amount goes to the state for other transportation projects. Pennsylvania joins 32 other states and Puerto Rico in allowing these partnerships."The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is in woeful financial shape," Mr. Geist said. "Public-private partnerships are used all over the world as a method of financing transportation, and I think they will be a smashing success here."NET BENEFITS:CHINA DEBTChina Debt DAFiscal discipline ahead- new Secretary of TreasuryGoldman and Bernstein 1/10/13, (Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg News and Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.), Obama Taps Chief of Staff Jack Lew to Be Next Treasury Secretary, PBS newshour, google, online. AP http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june13/lew_01-10.html

I think one is that the president wants Jack Lew there for these upcoming fiscal deadline debates, the sequestration, the debt ceiling, things like that. He knows that Jack is not just a tough negotiator. And I think this next point has gotten mixed in some of the reviews over the last few hours. He's also a very successful negotiator. I know that Republicans are complaining because he took a tough line back in 2011 with a lot of Tea Party folks, but in fact he's been closing deals for 30 years. The second thing is Jack understands what it means -- and very important part of the president's second-term agenda -- he understands what it means to get our debt on a sustainable trajectory. There's a lot that has to happen for that to occur. We have gotten a good chunk of the way there, but in order to kind of complete the deal so that our debt stabilizes over the budget window, that's something that Jack Lew knows how to do. And I think the president wants a treasury secretary with that on his agenda.it's been pointed out by Republicans and others that his experience on Wall Street and the business community is minimal. He only spent a few years. Most of his life, his adult life has been in Washington. What does the White House think about that? Do they view that as a strength? Are they concerned? Well, they have definitely been hearing from top business executives that it's a concern that he doesn't have particularly the international financial experience that Tim Geithner has, so to deal with Europe and to deal with China.And so that's something where you could look to see a deputy named who would have that kind of experience to fill that void. But on the other hand, it does send a signal to the Europeans, to other countries around the globe that the president does want to see somebody who does have that sense of fiscal discipline and a budget expertise as the United States confronts the looming spending fights. Well, look, I think all of that is very much a part of his job and important, but one thing that I think needs to happen and soon that's right in the treasury -- new treasury secretary's bailiwick is to do the financial reform that is part of implementing the Dodd-Frank legislation. The next treasury secretary must implement those rules in such a way as to provide the oversight, the regulation that our financial markets have lacked for so many years. And if we don't do that, we will be right back in the soup sooner than later.Infrastructure spending kills fiscal disciplineHarding 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-the-infrastructure-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 wont 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 Chinas high speed trains zooming along as well as Brazils new super port that will be the road to China. We dont 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 dont need it. Our freeways, trucks, railroads, and aircraft do just fine getting around delivering people and goods. Im 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, its not the buildings that are the problem, its the unions. I havent 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 longshoremens union. We dont need high speed trains because they are expensive and inefficient and people will fly instead. Please see Bob Pooles 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 arent 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 arent 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 shouldnt be handing out your money; they dont know what they are doing.Increasing debt leads to a trade war with China and destroys the economyRumbelow 12 Helen [staff writer] Pentagon prepares for economic warfare The Australian 8/20/12 accessed: 9/18/12 DR http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/pentagon-prepares-for-economic-warfare/story-e6frg6so-1226118380617Yet this was no traditional battle game, but rather the Pentagon's first economic war game, and the authorities are loath to talk about it. Economic war? It sounds preposterous. Except it gets less so with every dollar of debt run up by the US. Behind the scenes, the military are worried about the market. For who owns much of this debt? China, the US's most powerful rival and threat. And that makes America vulnerable to a new kind of bloodless but ruthless war. Rickards is not a soldier but a banker. He was joined in the war game by dozens of his Wall Street colleagues, flown in from Manhattan to this bunker at the Applied Physics Laboratory in Maryland for the two-day event in 2009, when the Pentagon started to get really alarmed. The group was split into five teams: America, Russia, China, Pacific Rim, and a "grey team", representing shady outfits such as terrorist organisations. They were sent into "bunker rooms" and told to use financial or economic tools - currency, debt, stocks, gold - to bring their enemies to their knees. Everything was conducted via computer, and they could be as devious and ruthless as they liked. The bankers liked. "These people would normally never come together. But there is nothing more fun than to take a Wall Street guy and tell him to be a bad guy," says Mr Rickards, a former senior executive who was involved in planning and executing the war game. When the game was halted, the result left the military men quiet and sobered. Why did the bankers scare the soldiers? The answer lies in the way the world is now interconnected as never before. Over the past few years, China has been buying up US government debt and is now its biggest holder. If China were to dump this debt, it would totally screw with the economy. China could, hypothetically, win any number of foreign policy objectives by making it impossible for you to pay your mortgage. Paul Bracken is a professor and expert in private equity at the Yale School of Management who serves on government advisory committees at the US Department of Defence. He was one of the key players behind the 2009 economic war game, and the smaller versions that have been played out since. "The atmosphere that day was one of surprise at the magnitude of the threat," he says. "The Pentagon people were used to dealing in terms of military battles: how many ships, how many missiles. This opened up whole new strategies." Of course, economic warfare is not new. God's plagues on the Egyptian pharaoh's crops, as reported in the Book of Exodus, were an early skirmish. Winston Churchill created a Ministry of Economic Warfare, to run as a "new instrument of war" against Hitler. Embargoes and sanctions have been targeted at dozens of countries, from South Africa to the former Soviet Union. But this is different. The markets are now global, the holdings in each other's finances deep, and the technical ability to manipulate them instantaneous. In the 1970s the West feared that its enemies had their fingers on a nuclear button. The modern equivalent may be China's ability to press the button on US Treasury bills. China is, Professor Bracken says, "the huge threat", but Russia, with its oil and gas, has shown no compunction in waging economic war on its neighbours, and could do so on a larger scale. Another possibility is that major oil-producing countries could destabilise America by switching to euros instead of dollars as the currency in which oil is priced - so-called "petro-dollar warfare". Or a terrorist organisation might trigger a financial crash via some kind of shady hedge fund or computer attack. What the economic war game showed Professor Bracken was that military and economic decision-making has to be more unified. Banks and bonds are now weapons, just as much as bombs. "That makes the military nervous, as they had always been in charge of operations. That's why they know they need to understand this," Professor Bracken says. Mr Rickards says that, "If you're going to confront the US military, you would spend billions.But if you can do so just as effectively in financial space, and it would cost less, why not?" Perhaps Britain felt a taste of this last year, with some stockmarket shocks that wiped millions off three British companies. BT lost pound stg. 969 million ($1.5 billion) on one afternoon in August, Next lost pound stg. 275m. Security services had to probe the possibility that it was not technical faults, as initially supposed, but a concerted attack by a nation state. John Bassett, a fellow of the Royal United Services Institute, says the British government is just waking up to the new order. "If those were deliberate attacks on the London stockmarket, it was highly unlikely to be a criminal gang, much more likely an economic rival," he says. "This is a ruthless competition for global economic supremacy, and the West isn't winning." At the end of that Pentagon session, the 80-odd players returned from their bunkers and assessed the damage. China won, without so much as reaching for a gun. And the soldiers looked at each other and wondered if it was still only a game.US-China trade war escalates to conflict and collapses global tradeDroke 10 (Clif, Editor Momentum Strategies Report, America and the Next Major War, Green Faucet, 3-29, http://www.greenfaucet.com/technical-analysis/america-and-the-next-major-war/79314)In the current phase of relative peace and stability we now enjoy, many are questioning when the next major war may occur and speculation is rampant as to major participants involved. Our concern here is strictly of a financial nature, however, and a discussion of the geopolitical and military variables involved in the escalation of war is beyond the scope of this commentary. But what we can divine from financial history is that "hot" wars in a military sense often emerge from trade wars. As we shall see, the elements for what could prove to be a trade war of epic proportions are already in place and the key figures are easily identifiable. Last Wednesday the lead headline in the Wall Street Journal stated, "Business Sours on China." It seems, according to WSJ, that Beijing is "reassessing China's long-standing emphasis on opening its economy to foreign business....and tilting toward promoting dominant state companies." Then there is Internet search giant Google's threat to pull out of China over concerns of censorship of its Internet search results in that country. The trouble started a few weeks ago Google announced that it no longer supports China's censoring of searches that take place on the Google platform. China has defended its extensive censorship after Google threatened to withdraw from the country. Additionally, the Obama Administration announced that it backs Google's decision to protest China's censorship efforts. In a Reuters report, Obama responded to a question as to whether the issue would cloud U.S.-China relations by saying that the human rights would not be "carved out" for certain countries. This marks at least the second time this year that the White House has taken a stand against China (the first conflict occurring over tire imports). Adding yet further fuel to the controversy, the U.S. Treasury Department is expected to issue a report in April that may formally label China as a "currency manipulator," according to the latest issue of Barron's. This would do nothing to ease tensions between the two nations and would probably lead one step closer to a trade war between China and the U.S. Then there was last week's Wall Street Journal report concerning authorities in a wealthy province near Shanghai criticizing the quality of luxury clothing brands from the West, including Hermes, Tommy Hilfiger and Versace. This represents quite a change from years past when the long-standing complaint from the U.S. over the inferior quality of Chinese made merchandise. On Monday the WSJ ran an article under the headline, "American Firms Feel Shut Out In China." The paper observed that so far there's little evidence that American companies are pulling out of China but adds a growing number of multinational firms are "starting to rethink their strategy." According to a poll conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce in China, 38% of U.S. companies reported feeling unwelcome in China compared to 26% in 2009 and 23% in 2008. As if to add insult to injury, the high profile trial of four Rio Tinto executives in China is another example of the tables being turned on the West. The executives are by Chinese authorities of stealing trade secrets and taking bribes. There's a touch of irony to this charge considering that much of China's technology was stolen from Western manufacturing firms which set up shop in that country. It seems China is flexing its economic and political muscle against the West in a show of bravado. Yet one can't help thinking that this is exactly the sort of arrogance that typically precedes a major downfall. As the Bible states, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." In his book, "Jubilee on Wall Street," author David Knox Barker devotes a chapter to how trade wars tend to be common occurrences in the long wave economic cycle of developed nations. Barker explains his belief that the industrial nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China will play a major role in pulling the world of the long wave deflationary decline as their domestic economies begin to develop and grow. "They are and will demand more foreign goods produced in the United States and other markets," he writes. Barker believes this will help the U.S. rebalance from an over weighted consumption-oriented economy to a high-end producer economy. Barker adds a caveat, however: if protectionist policies are allowed to gain force in Washington, trade wars will almost certainly erupt and. If this happens, says Barker, "all bets are off." He adds, "The impact on global trade of increased protectionism and trade wars would be catastrophic, and what could prove to be a mild long wave [economic] winter season this time around could plunge into a global depression." Barker also observes that the storm clouds of trade wars are already forming on the horizon as we have moved further into the long wave economic "winter season." Writes Barker, "If trade wars are allowed to get under way in these final years of a long wave winter, this decline will be far deeper and darker than necessary, just as the Great Depression was far deeper and lengthier than it should have been, due to growing international trade isolationism. He further cautions that protectionism in Washington will certainly bring retaliation from the nations that bear the brunt of punitive U.S. trade policies. He observes that the reaction from one nation against the protectionist policies of another is typically far worse than the original action. He cites as an example the restriction by the U.S. of $55 million worth of cotton blouses from China in the 1980s. China retaliated by cancelling $500 million worth of orders for American rain. "As one nation blocks trade, the nation that is hurt will surely retaliate and the entire world will suffer," writes Barker.LunConflict with China will escalate to global nuclear warLee Hunkovic (Professor of Political Science at the American Military University) 2009 The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict: Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America, http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/ Hunkovic.pdf)A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a third world war, therefore, many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict, including Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the war, as well as all other countries in the world that participate in the global economy, in which the United States and China are the two most dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility exists that they could then plan to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India, which could in turn create an international standoff and deployment of military forces to contain the threat. In any case, if China and the United States engage in a full-scale conflict, there are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it. However, China, Taiwan and United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine its eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered in this study.

2NC/On CaseInherency

Transportation bill worth $100 billion passed this JulyEverett and Snider 12Burgess Everett and Adam Snider, Politico, June 29, 2012, Transportation bill gets congressional approval, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/78032.htmlCongress passed a transportation bill Friday worth over $100 billion, sending the bill to the presidents desk after months of brinksmanship. The massive majorities by which the package passed 373-52 in the House and 74-19 in the Senate do not capture the weeks of wrangling ahead of the votes. The bill was in doubt until the last minute, with current transportation policy set to expire. The bill also capped federal student loan interest rates, which were expected to jump on Sunday. And it extended federal flood insurance programs. But the House was able to rush the legislation through after a Thursday night Rules Committee meeting. Meanwhile, supporters in the Senate fended off dissenters who argued the bill violated Senate rules. There was a trio of procedural votes to get to final passage as outside groups like Heritage Action for America decried the rushed process. Any of the amendments were to kill the bill. And I couldnt let that happen, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) told POLITICO of overcoming objections from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who wanted the upper chamber to have more time to read the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had tried to push through the measure by unanimous consent Thursday to allow lawmakers to go home early for the recess week, but leadership decided to kick the vote until Friday to allow for a consent agreement and give the upper chamber time to review a score from the Congressional Budget Office. Lawmakers from both parties and chambers say the bill is imperfect, but most agree it represents an improvement over current policy. House Republicans dropped insistence on including the Keystone XL pipeline and other environmental provisions as the Senate Democrats moved toward the House position on environmental streamlining and dropped funds for conservation. Congress put some battles on the shelf to work out what many believe is this sessions big jobs bill, upsetting some green groups but heartening the construction industry and many state departments of transportation. Nobody likes the bill. But weve got to have a bill, one GOP lawmaker told POLITICO. And Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), who along with other House Democratic negotiators withheld signatures on the conference report over complaints of being frozen out of the information pipeline, said he and others reluctantly voted for the bill. Before the vote, Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) took to the House floor to applaud among other things a streamlining process that is unprecedented. He said conferees have joined together to get the peoples work done." The committees ranking member Rahall was more subdued. The bill is what it is, he said with a shrug, adding that ultimately it means jobs. White House press secretary Jay Carney called the legislation a good bipartisan bill that will create jobs, strengthen our transportation system and grow our economy, adding that President Obama looks forward to signing it. Obama devoted his most-recent weekly radio address to rally Congress to pass the infrastructure bill and student loan legislation. The new transportation bill comes just in time the gas tax was set to expire Sunday without congressional action. But getting here wasnt easy. The last long-term transportation bill expired more than 1,000 days ago, necessitating nine separate extensions of the law that first took effect in 2005. The bill is the second big breakthrough in the sector this year: In February, Obama signed a four-year FAA bill after more than four years of extensions and one high-profile two-week shutdown in 2011.Money allocated for High Speed RailCentre Dailey Times, news source, 6/29/2012 (Associated Press, Obama signs stop-gap highway, student loan bill, 6/29/2012, http://www.centredaily.com/2012/06/29/3247086/obama-signs-stop-gap-highway-student.html, Access: 7/2/12) AGI

{WASHINGTON President Barack Obama has signed a short-term bill that avoids interest rate increases on new loans to millions of college students and maintains jobs on transportation projects across the nation. Obama signed a one-week extension of the measure to give time for the full legislation, approved Friday by Congress, to reach his desk. The president is expected to sign the full law in the coming days. The bill allows more than $100 billion to be spent on highway, mass transit and other transportation programs during the next two years. Those projects would have expired Saturday.}The recent FAA reautorization bill allocated 13.4 billion dollars to AIP ATW 6/23 ( FAA battle ends with new 4-year reauthorization, Air transport world 2012-06-23 http://proxy.lib.umich.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1021787258?accountid=14667) KYThe long fight over reauthorizing FAA - which had been operating for more than four years via a series of 23 temporary funding extensions - finally came to an end last month with the US Senate's passage of a bill allocating $63.3 billion to the agency through Sept. 30, 2015. After years of controversial votes on the issue, the Senate passed the compromise FAA legislation previously cleared by the House of Representatives by a strong 75-20 tally. President Barack Obama signed it into law Feb. 15. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said, "I think there's general support in the aviation community for this bill . Nobody got all they wanted, but that's the nature of compromise and compromise was particularly difficult in this bill." While various industry players quibble with certain components of the legislation, most appear pleased that years of uncertainty over airport construction projects and the government's commitment to transitioning to a NextGen ATC system have finally ended. "We commend Congress for passing a responsible bill that recognizes that commercial aviation is central to America's global competitiveness and a key enabler of job growth and US productivity," Airlines for America (A4A) president and CEO Nicholas Calio said."The bill will help accelerate deployment of the most cost-beneficial NextGen air traffic management system technologies." US Aerospace Industries Assn. (AIA) said in a statement that the bill "is critical to FAA operations and offers stability and predictability to the aviation industry instead of the uncertainty fueled by one short-term extension after another." The passed-bill was rooted in a compromise over airline unionization voting rules reached in late January between Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). The most contentious issue in recent negotiations revolved around efforts by House Republicans to overturn a 2010 rule change by the National Mediation Board (NMB) lowering the threshold for an airline employee groups to unionize. Republicans backed away from that demand, accepting that airline unionization votes will require a majority of those voting (not a majority of all workers in an employee group, as had been the case before 2010). In return, Senate Democrats accepted a provision increasing the percentage of workers needed to formally request a unionization vote. "We wrote a four-year [FAA] bill in 2003 that expired [Sept. 30] 2007," House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) said during the debate on the bill in the House. "These extensions cost the taxpayers millions of dollars Enough is enough. This is about putting people to work and defining federal policy for [aviation]." House aviation subcommittee top Democrat Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.) said the bill passed was far from perfect, but he emphasized the US "desperately" needed a multiyear FAA reauthorization and therefore he supported it. The new law will fund FAA through Sept. 30, 2015. It allocates $13.4 billion for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), $38.3 billion for FAA operations, $10.9 billion for FAA facilities and equipment, and $672 million for research and development. It also outlines goals for implementing a satellite-based, NextGen ATC system, including creating a "chief NextGen officer" position at FAA.

Port security funding high now Customs and Border Protection, 2006 [ No author given, "An Overall Picture of Port Security", CBP.gov, 07/12/2006, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/port_security/securing_us_ports.xml, 18/06/2012] Port security has been dramatically strengthened since 9/11. Funding has increased by more than 700 percent since September 11, 2001. Funding for port security was approximately $259 million in FY 2001. DHS spent approximately $1.6 billion on port security in FY 2005. Following 9/11, the federal government has implemented a multi-layered defense strategy to keep our ports safe and secure. New technologies have been deployed with additional technologies being developed and $630 million has been provided in grants to our largest ports including $16.2 million to Baltimore; $32.7 million to Miami; $27.4 million to New Orleans, $43.7 million to New York/New Jersey; and $15.8 million to Philadelphia.

Solvency/Economy Advantage

Spending Bad for economy:

60 years of economic data prove youre wrongAntony Davies et. al 12 is an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University, Bruce Yandle isdistinguished adjunct professor of economics at George Mason, Derek Thieme is a Mercatus Center MA Fellow, and Robert Sarvis is a Mercatus Center MA Fellow, Working Paper, No. 12-12, April, THE U.S. EXPERIENCE WITH FISCAL STIMULUS: A Historical and Statistical Analysis of U.S. Fiscal Stimulus Activity, 1953- 2011, http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/US-Experience-Fiscal-Stimulus.pdfHistorical data call into question the efficacy of stimulus spending. Although factors other than government spending influence economic growth, unless Keynesians are prepared to claim that those factors have conspired to counteract government spending on a consistent basis and over many decades, Keynesians are left having to explain why 60 years of economic data do not show, at least on average, economic growth accompanying increased government spending. Furthermore, even if increased government spending did stimulate the economy, evidence suggests that, as pointed out earlier in this paper, politicians are unable to get their timing right so as to enact the stimulus spending when it is needed and to shut it off when the need passes. Since 1950, the median recession has lasted 4.5 quarters and the median expansion has lasted 21 quarters. Following Keynesian theory, successful stimulus spending should then follow the pattern shown in figure 14. In fact, stimulus spending has followed the pattern shown in figure 14. This figure shows average federal spending during and immediately after the starts of recessions since 1950. The first vertical bar shows average federal spending in the quarter in which the recessions begin. The last vertical bar shows average federal spending 12 months after the recessions started. Since the median recession lasts 4.5 quarters, the red curve shows the stimulus spending pattern that Keynesian theory advises. On average, the pattern of federal spending during and immediately after recessions has been laggedfederal spending peaks six quarters after the starts of recessions rather than after 2.25 quarters. Rather than continuing to decline after the peak until the next recession, federal spending accelerates again 11 quarters after the recession. The result is destabilization. As the economy naturally moves from recession to expansion, federal spending continues to increase and pressures the economy to move beyond full employment.

The multiplier effect goes in favor of the negative. For every dollar invested by the USFG, they believe that the investments return, but federal money comes from taxes, which has a negative multiplier. You should vote negative immediately because of that.Veronique de Rugy & Debnam 10 is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Jakina Debnam is a research analyst at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Does Government Spending stimulate economies? July 2010, http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/MOP77_SBI_Spending%20Multiplier_web%20(2).pdfBarro and Redlicks research estimates that the multiplier for changes in defense spending that people think will be temporaryspending for the Iraq war for exampleis between 0.4 and 0.5 at the time of the spending and between 0.6 and 0.7 over two years. If the change in defense spending becomes permanent, then these multipliers increase by 0.1 to 0.2. 11 Over time, this is a maximum multiplier of 0.9. Thus even in the governments best-case spending scenario, all of the estimated multipliers are significantly less than one. This means greater government spending crowds out other components of GDP, particularly investment. In addition, they calculate the impact on the economy if the government funds the spending with taxes. They find that the tax multiplierthe effect on GDP of an increase in taxesis 1.1. This means that if the government raises taxes by $1, the economy will shrink by $1.1. When this tax multiplier is combined with the effects of the spending multiplier, the overall effect is negative. Barro and Redlick write that, Since the tax multiplier is larger in magnitude than the spending multipliers, our estimates imply that GDP declines in response to higher defense spending and correspondingly higher tax revenue. 12 Thus, they conclude that greater government spending financed by tax increases hurts the economy. Other economist have also calculated defense spending multipliers of less than or equal to 1. 13 Economists Bob Hall and Susan Woodward recently examined spending increases from World War II and the Korean War and found that the government spending multiplier is about 1. 14 Economist Valerie Rameys work on how U.S. military spending influences GDP gives a multiplier estimate of 1.2 in the short term, but in the long term, she finds that consumer and business spending fall after a rise in government purchases, offsetting the initial effect of the government spending. 15

Stimulus sucks---3 reasonsAntony Davies et. al 12 is an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University, Bruce Yandle isdistinguished adjunct professor of economics at George Mason, Derek Thieme is a Mercatus Center MA Fellow, and Robert Sarvis is a Mercatus Center MA Fellow, Working Paper, No. 12-12, April, THE U.S. EXPERIENCE WITH FISCAL STIMULUS: A Historical and Statistical Analysis of U.S. Fiscal Stimulus Activity, 1953- 2011, http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/US-Experience-Fiscal-Stimulus.pdfTo be effective as a policy tool, stimulus spending must overcome three hurdles. The first is whether Keynesian economic theory is sound. There is considerable debate as to whether the multiplierthe core mechanism on which stimulus spending is basedis greater than one, or even positive. If the multiplier is less than one, then a dollar of stimulus spending would generate less than a dollars worth of economic growth. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the long-run multiplier associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was between 0.63 and 1.8. 91 The second hurdle is timing. Even if Keynesian theory were sound, if policy makers cannot time stimulus spending correctly, then their efforts will actually destabilize the economy by reducing spending during recessions and increasing spending during expansions. Evidence suggests not only that policy makers cannot get their timing right, but that this inability has been common knowledge among policy makers for decades. The third hurdle is reversing the stimulus spending. Even if Keynesian theory were sound and even if policy makers could get the timing right, they would need the political will to shut off the stimulus spending at the ends of the recessions. By definition, stimulus spending is meant as a temporary boost to a flagging economy. When the economy picks up, the stimulus spending should be reversed. Evidence suggests that, either from lack of political will or from a desire to use stimulus spending as an excuse for permanent expansion of government, government spending tends to increase more often than it decreases. Since 1950, annual per capita real federal outlays have declined 23 times but increased 39 times, and each increase has been, on average, 2.5 times the size of each decrease. Certainly, the government did not intend all of these increases as stimulus spending, but the fact remains that the clear tendency is to increase rather than to decrease spending. Focusing on discretionary spending only produces a similar story. Since 1962, federal per capita real discretionary spending has increased 27 times but decreased only 22 times. On average, each increase was 1.34 times the size of each decrease.

Government investment projects fail---Optimism biasVeronique de Rugy 11 is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING: NEITHER A GOOD STIMULUS NOR A GOOD INVESTMENT, Nov 16, http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Federal%20Infrastructure%20Spending%20-%20Neither%20a%20Good%20Stimulus%20Nor%20a%20Good%20Investment.pdfSection 2. Federal infrastructure spending rarely makes for good investments Economists have long recognized the value of building highways, bridges, airports, and canals as they are the conduits through which goods are exchanged and hence a source of economic growth. This explains the general support for federally funded infrastructure on both sides of the political aisle. Unfortunately, government funded infrastructure projects dont often make for good investments either. First, infrastructure spending by the federal government tends to suffer from massive cost overruns, waste, fraud, and abuse. As a result, many projects that look good on paper turn out to have much lower return on investments than planned. A comprehensive 2002 study by Danish economists Bent Flyvbjerg, Mette K. Skamris Holm, and Sren L. Buhl examined 20 nations on five continents and found that nine out of ten public works projects come in over budget. 19 For rail, the average cost is 44.7 percent greater than the estimated cost at the time the decision is made. For bridges and tunnels, the equivalent figure is 33.8 percent, and for roads 20.4 percent. 20 These cost overruns dramatically increase infrastructure spending. On average, U.S. cost-overruns reached $55 billion per year. 21 Even if they lead to localized job growth, these investments are usually inefficient uses of public resources. According to the Danish researchers, American cost overruns reached on average $55 billion per year. This figure includes famous disasters like the Central Artery/Tunnel Project (CA/T), better known as the Boston Big Dig. 22 By the time the Beantown highway projectthe most expensive in American historywas completed in 2008, its price tag was a staggering $22 billion. The estimated cost in 1985 was $2.8 billion. The Big Dig also wrapped up 7 years behind schedule. Unfortunately, studies have shown that project promoters routinely ignore, hide, or otherwise leave out important project costs and risks to make total costs appear lower. 23 Researchers refer to this as the planning fallacy or the optimism bias. Scholars have also found that it can be politically rewarding to lie about the costs and benefits of a project. The data show that the political process is more likely to give funding to managers who underestimate the costs and overestimate the benefits. In other words, it is not the best projects that get implemented but the ones that look the best on paper. 24 In addition, inaccurate estimates of demand contribute to consistent underestimation of public projects: A study of 208 projects in 14 nations shows that 9 out of 10 rail projects overestimate the actual traffic. 25 Moreover, 84 percent of rail-passenger forecasts are wrong by more than 20 percent. Thus, for rail, passenger traffic averages 51.4 percent less than estimated traffic. 26 This means that there is a systematic tendency to overestimate rail revenues. For roads, actual vehicle traffic is on average 9.5 percent higher than forecasted traffic, and 50 percent of road traffic forecasts are wrong by more than 20 percent. 27 In this case, there is a systematic tendency to underestimate the financial and congestion costs of roads. 2NC/1NR

A) Resolved Means a specific Course of Action

Their Answer is probably another definition, just say its all about the best interp

B) They still violate the definition, look at the debate so far, its consisting mostly of off case such as Disadvantages and a counterplan, Keynesian/stimulus is bad arguments, and random arguments on inherency. This entire round is a prime example of the abusiveness of the affirmative teams plan.C) Standards: These are all of the reasons to vote on topicality, and you should do that right now for the negative

1. Limits: The limits within this round have been blown out of proportion. We have no clue They can simply change their minds due to the lack of specificity on the side of the negative. For example, we can say that railroads are bad, and theyll just say they arent building railroads when they invest in Transportation Infrastructure. This is extremely abusive and is a reason to vote them down right now.

2. Grounds: The affirmative team has the USFG because of the resolution, and is supposed to also have whatever specific form of transportation infrastructure they choose to propose, leaving every other form to the negative to use. BUT THIS ISNT POSSIBLE DUE TO THEIR PLAN TEXT. We cant be sure of what disadvantages, counterplans, solvency, or inherency arguments to make since we have no clue what theyre doing specifically. THIS IS ABUSIVE. This makes it impossible for us to be 100% sure when we try to link to their case. This also makes it hard for us to claim Counterplans and Disadvantages to their plan. BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE A SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT. We cant say that we should do inland waterways instead of bridges, or railroads instead of airports because they dont specify anything. DO NOT LET THEM COME IN THE NEXT SPEECH AFTER THIS ONE SAYING WE DID HAVE STUFF TO ANSWER THEM. The fact of the matter is that most of our arguments are shots in the dark because we cant make specific claims to their plan and again, this IS ABUSIVE TO THE NEGATIVE TEAM.

3. Education: We can shout random facts too! Thomas Jefferson had a pet bear, and Teddy Roosevelt had a pet badger and a Gator he used to terrify foreign ambassadors. Just because we know a new fact on something doesnt means its education. More importantly, we arent go in depth for transportation infrastructure investment, due to the fact we cant argue something specific in the first place. Instead weve been arguing random stimulus bad arguments along with random forms of infrastructure. We can only argue generics at best, because we cant make many solid arguments that directly link to their case, thus arguing the impacts, consequences, and other scenarios their plan creates, allowing for in depth analysis of whether or not their plan is a good idea. Also, by being extremely generic they hurt education, since depth is better than breadth in topics and allows for more education.

Depth is more educational than breadth --- studies proveWP 9 (Washington Post, Will Depth Replace Breadth in Schools? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2009/02/will_depth_replace_breadth_in.html)

The truth, of course, is that students need both. Teachers try to mix the two in ways that make sense to them and their students. But a surprising study certain to be a hot topic in teacher lounges and education schools is providing new data that suggest educators should spend much more time on a few issues and let some topics slide. Based on a sample of 8,310 undergraduates, the national study says that students who spend at least a month on just one topic in a high school science course get better grades in a freshman college course in that subject than students whose high school courses were more balanced. The study, appearing in the July issue of the journal Science Education, is Depth Versus Breadth: How Content Coverage in High School Science Courses Relates to Later Success in College Science Coursework. The authors are Marc S. Schwartz of the University of Texas at Arlington, Philip M. Sadler and Gerhard Sonnert of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Robert H. Tai of the University of Virginia. This is more rich ore from a goldmine of a survey Sadler and Tai helped organize called Factors Influencing College Science Success. It involved 18,000 undergraduates, plus their professors, in 67 colleges in 31 states. The study weighs in on one side of a contentious issue that will be getting national attention this September when the College Boards Advanced Placement program unveils its major overhaul of its college-level science exams for high school students. AP is following a direction taken by its smaller counterpart, the International Baccalaureate program. IB teachers already are allowed to focus on topics of their choice. Their students can deal with just a few topics on exams, because they have a wide choice of questions. APs exact approach is not clear yet, but College Board officials said they too will embrace depth. They have been getting much praise for this from the National Science Foundation, which funded the new study. Sadler and Tai have previously hinted at where this was going. In 2001 they reported that students who did not use a textbook in high school physicsan indication that their teachers disdained hitting every topic achieved higher college grades than those who used a textbook. Some educators, pundits, parents and students will object, I suspect, to sidelining their favorite subjects and spending more time on what they consider trivial or dangerous topics. Some will fret over the possibility that teachers might abandon breadth altogether and wallow in their specialties. Even non-science courses could be affected. Imagine a U.S. history course that is nothing but lives of generals, or a required English course that assigns only Jane Austen. Depth Versus Breadth analyzes undergraduate answers to detailed questions about their high school study of physics, chemistry and biology, and the grades they received in freshman college science courses. The college grades of students who had studied at least one topic for at least a month in a high school science course were compared to those of students who did not experience such depth. The study acknowledges that the pro-breadth forces have been in retreat. Several national commissions have called for more depth in science teaching and other subjects. A 2005 study of 46 countries found that those whose schools had the best science test scores covered far fewer topics than U.S. schools.

Especially for high school studentsSD 9 (Science Daily, Students Benefit From Depth, Rather Than Breadth, In High School Science Courses, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090305131814.htm)

A recent study reports that high school students who study fewer science topics, but study them in greater depth, have an advantage in college science classes over their peers who study more topics and spend less time on each. Robert Tai, associate professor at the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education, worked with Marc S. Schwartz of the University of Texas at Arlington and Philip M. Sadler and Gerhard Sonnert of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics to conduct the study and produce the report. The study relates the amount of content covered on a particular topic in high school classes with students' performance in college-level science classes. "As a former high school teacher, I always worried about whether it was better to teach less in greater depth or more with no real depth. This study offers evidence that teaching fewer topics in greater depth is a better way to prepare students for success in college science," Tai said. "These results are based on the performance of thousands of college science students from across the United States." The 8,310 students in the study were enrolled in introductory biology, chemistry or physics in randomly selected four-year colleges and universities. Those who spent one month or more studying one major topic in-depth in high school earned higher grades in college science than their peers who studied more topics in the same period of time. The study revealed that students in courses that focused on mastering a particular topic were impacted twice as much as those in courses that touched on every major topic. The study explored differences between science disciplines, teacher decisions about classroom activities, and out-of-class projects and homework. The researchers carefully controlled for differences in student backgrounds. The study also points out that standardized testing, which seeks to measure overall knowledge in an entire discipline, may not capture a student's high level of mastery in a few key science topics. Teachers who "teach to the test" may not be optimizing their students' chance of success in college science courses, Tai noted. "President Obama has challenged the nation to become the most educated in the world by having the largest proportion of college graduates among its citizens in the coming decade," Tai said. "To meet this challenge, it is imperative that we use the research to inform our educational practice." The study was part of the Factors Influencing College Science Success study, funded by the National Science Foundation.