Updated Tsunami Warning Neg

Cap Links

Link Shock Doctrine

Their approach to STOPPING the disaster is rooted in shock
doctrine of fixing and rebuilding their attempt to erase
disaster will fail and re-creteates the structures they criticize
Klein 07 (Naoimi, Klein contributes to The Nation, In These Times, The Globe and Mail, This Magazine,
Harper's Magazine, and The Guardian. She once lectured as a Miliband Fellow at the London School of Economics as
an award-winning journalist, writer on the anti-globalisation movement She ranked 11th in an internet poll of the
top global intellectuals of 2005, a list of the world's top 100 public intellectuals compiled by the Prospect magazine
in conjunction with Foreign Policy magazine She was involved in a protest condemning police action during the G20
summit in Toronto, ON. She spoke to a rally seeking the release of protesters in front of police headquarters on June
28, 2010. In May 2011, Klein received an honorary degree from Saint Thomas University., The Shock Doctrine: The
Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Book -- http://infoshop.org/amp/NaomiKlein-TheShockDoctrine.pdf)

Most people who survive a devastating disaster want the opposite of a

clean slate: they want to salvage whatever they can and begin repairing
what was not destroyed; they want to reaffirm their relatedness to the
places that formed them. "When I rebuild the city I feel like I'm rebuilding
myself," said Cassandra Andrews, a resident of New Orleans' heavily damaged Lower Ninth Ward, as she
cleared away debris after the storm. 1 9 But disaster capital ists have no interest in
repairing what was . In Iraq, Sri Lanka and New Or leans, the process
deceptively called " reconstruction " began with finishing the job of the
original disaster by erasing what was left of the public sphere and rooted
communities , then quickly moving to replace them with a kind of
corporate New Jerusalem all before the victims of war or natural disaster
were able to regroup and stake their claims to what was theirs . Mike Battles puts
it best: " For us, the fear and disorder offered real prom ise." 2 0 The thirty-four-yearold ex-CIA operative was talking about how the chaos in postinvasion Iraq had helped his unknown and
inexperienced pri vate security firm, Custer Battles, to shake roughly $100 million in contracts out of the federal
government. 21 His words could serve just as well as

the slo gan for contemporary

capitalism fear and disorder are the catalysts for each new leap forward.
When I began this research into the intersection between superprofits and
megadisasters, I thought I was witnessing a fundamental change in the
way the drive to "liberate" markets was advancing around the world . Having
been part of the movement against ballooning corporate power that made its global debut in Seattle in 1999, I was
accustomed to seeing similar business friendly policies imposed through arm-twisting at World Trade Organization
summits, or as the conditions attached to loans from the International Mon etary Fund. The three trademark
demandsprivatization, government deregulation and deep cuts to social spendingtended to be extremely
unpopular with citizens, but when the agreements were signed there was still at least the pretext of mutual
consent between the governments doing the negotiating, as well as a consensus among the supposed experts.

Now the same ideological program was being imposed via the most baldly
coercive means possible: under foreign military occupation after an
invasion, or im mediately following a cataclysmic natural disaster . September
11 appeared to have provided Washington with the green light to stop asking
countries if they wanted the U.S. version of "free trade and democracy"

and to start im posing it with Shock and Awe military force. As I dug deeper into
the history of how this market model had swept the globe, however, I discovered that the idea of
exploiting crisis and disaster has been the modus operandi of Milton Friedman's
movement from the very beginning this fundamentalist form of capitalism has
always needed disas ters to advance . It was certainly the case that the facilitating disasters
were getting bigger and more shocking, but what was happening in Iraq and New Orleans
was not a new, post-September 11 invention. Rather , these bold ex
periments in crisis exploitation were the culmination of three decades of
strict adherence to the shock doctrine. Seen through the lens of this doctrine, the past
thirty-five years look very different. Some of the most infamous human
rights violations of this era, which have tended to be viewed as sadistic acts carried out by
antidemo cratic regimes, were in fact either committed with the deliberate intent
of terrorizing the public or actively harnessed to prepare the ground for
the introduction of radical free-market "reforms." In Argentina in the
seventies , the junta's "disappearance" of thirty thousand people, most of
them leftist activists, was integral to the imposition of the country's Chicago
School poli cies, just as terror had been a partner for the same kind of economic meta morphosis in Chile.
In China in 1989 , it was the shock of the Tiananmen Square massacre and
the subsequent arrests of tens of thousands that freed the hand of the
Communist Party to convert much of the country into a sprawling export
zone, staffed with workers too terrified to demand their rights. In Russia in 1993 , it was Boris
Yeltsin's decision to send in tanks to set fire to the parliament building
and lock up the opposition leaders that cleared the way for the fire-sale
privatization that created the country's noto rious oligarchs. The
Falklands War in 1982 served a similar purpose for Margaret Thatcher in the U.K.: the disorder
and nationalist excitement resulting from the war al lowed her to use
tremendous force to crush the striking coal miners and to launch the first
privatization frenzy in a Western democracy. The NATO at tack on Belgrade in 1999 created
the conditions for rapid privatizations in the former Yugoslaviaa goal that predated the war. Economics
was by no means the sole motivator for these wars , but in each case a
major collective shock was exploited to prepare the ground for economic
shock therapy.

The traumatic episodes that have served this "softening-up" purpose have not always

been overtly violent. In Latin America and Africa in the eighties, it was a debt crisis that forced countries to be
"privatized or die," as one for mer IMF official put it. 2 2 Coming unraveled by hyperinflation and too in debted to
say no to demands that came bundled with foreign loans, governments accepted "shock treatment" on the promise
that it would save them from deeper disaster. In Asia, it was the financial crisis of 1997-98 almost as devastating
as the Great Depressionthat humbled the so-called Asian Tigers, cracking open their markets to what The New
York Times de scribed as "the world's biggest going-out-of-business sale." 2 3 Many of these countries were
democracies, but the radical free-market transformations were not imposed democratically. Quite the opposite: as
Friedman under stood,

the atmosphere of large-scale crisis provided the

necessary pretext to overrule the expressed wishes of voters and to

hand the country over to eco nomic "technocrats." There have, of course,

been cases in which the adoption of free-market policies has taken place
democraticallypoliticians have run on hard-line platforms and won elections, the U.S. under Ronald
Reagan being the best example, France's election of Nicolas Sarkozy a more recent one. In these cases,

however, free-market crusaders came up against public pressure and

were invariably forced to temper and modify their radical plans ,
accepting piecemeal changes rather than a total conversion. The bottom line is
that while Friedman's economic model is capable of being partially imposed
un der democracy, authoritarian conditions are required for the implementa tion of its true vision. For
economic shock therapy to be applied without restraintas it was in Chile in the
seventies, China in the late eighties, Rus sia in the nineties and the U.S. after September 11, 2001 some sort
of ad ditional major collective trauma has always been required, one that
either temporarily suspended democratic practices or blocked them
entirely. This ideological crusade was born in the authoritarian regimes of South America, and in its largest
newly conquered territories Russia and China it coex ists most comfortably, and most
profitably, with an iron-fisted leadership to this day.

Link Capital First

Capitalism is the only reason that natural fluctuations of the
environment become DISASTEROUS
Morton 12 (Timothy Morton, University of California, Davis, Romanticism and Disaster "Romantic Disaster
Ecology: Blake, Shelley, Wordsworth", http://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/disaster/HTML/praxis.2012.morton.html)

Our world appears to be on the brink of disaster, an appearance that is

itself disastrous. The disaster of disaster is that disaster is everywhere , all
the time: while on the one hand it appears obvious that disaster should be
the exception that proves the rule of a generally non-disastrous world, in actuality no
1.

non-disastrous moment arrives . Like a deer in the headlights, thinking is

paralyzed by disaster.

Whether this is strictly a function of modernity, beginning with the Romantic

period, or whether it is a function of disaster as such remains to be seen. But what Naomi Klein accurately, but not
thoroughly, calls the

shock doctrine is the capitalist norm : the state of

exception is capitalist reality. For Klein, capitalists fleece the rest of us when
they need a whip-round. For Marxism, this is the normal state of affairs, the
deep structure of capitalism as such, which must keep on accumulating more
money in order to exist. And perhaps it is also the reality of actually existing socialism: to avert the
imminent disaster in capitalism, a socialist emergency must be declared. 2. It is possible, argue iek and Badiou,

ecology is simply the latest version of capitalist disaster ideology at

work. [1] For instance, to ward off what is still seen (weirdly) as an imminent disaster
of global warming, it is entirely likely that a green bubble based on derivatives of
the existing carbon trading market will eventually eclipse the recent
implosion of global capital. ( This is weird because science keeps telling us
that

that the disastrous climate change has already occurred and that we are
now living in its aftermath .) Nevertheless, truly to think what I call the
ecological thought (and I believe that there is a thinking that is truthful here) is to recalibrate
what we mean by disaster, such that ecological thinking and practice
must entail dropping the imminence of disaster , with its resulting states
of exception. This thinking would be non-disastrous both in content and in
form. 3. Take plutonium for instance: a disaster that has already occurred, and one that will continue for at least
24 100 years. Just how many of those years do we think will be capitalist? Do we seriously imagine
that the end of the world is more likely than the end of capitalism? Or consider global warming, the
cause of the Sixth Mass Extinction Event (there have been five since the beginning of life on
Earth). This is not a disaster waiting to happen . Atmospheric CO levels are now well above the
safety ceiling of 350 parts per million (ppm). Since Neolithic times, humans have lived under about 275ppm.
Current levels are around 387ppm and climbing by about 2ppm annually (350.org). Percy Shelley was already
talking about pollution in 1813: the putrid atmosphere of crowded cities; the exhalations of chemical processes
(Note 17 to Queen Mab, 1.40623 (411)). Or take petroleum: the product of whatever disaster wiped out the
dinosaurs (iek, Defense, 441442). Thinking

of past disasters causes thinking to leak

out around the threat of imminent disaster , like water seeping through a

badly constructed dam. In the language of fighter pilots, disaster cones down our
attention to focus on a singularity that is strictly unthinkable. 4. We can
visualize a time before and a time after disaster, in which disaster remains
as a fundamental category of our visualization. What about thinking
beyond disaster , or is thinking forever caught in disaster's shadow ? Art
imagines post-apocalyptic worlds: Romanticism in particular is full of them, from
Byron's "Darkness" to The Last Man. Is poetry, as Allen Grossman puts it, the postponement of the end of the

is there another way

to think, without disaster , a non-disastrous thinking, that isn't just
postponement? And is there any Romantic literature that can help us think this way? In this essay, I shall
world, and how Romantic is this postponement (Grossman and Halliday 336)? Or

consider three writers who adopt three quite different positions concerning disaster. Percy Shelley, argues the
essay, is fundamentally disaster-prone: despite his proclaimed anti-capitalism, and indeed his objective usefulness
to progressive and socialist thinking, his poetry even anticipates some of the more recent moves of global capital. I
shall argue that Shelley did, to his credit, eventually figure out (at least on the level of artistic form) that his poetic
language was trapped in disaster mode. William Blake satirizes the subject position from which disaster becomes
visible, in his special mode of ideology critiquepart of his larger project of trying to change the attitudes that
come bundled with ideas such as disaster. William Wordsworth emerges as a genuine poet of non-disaster, or postdisaster: his poetry is perhaps the only one of the three still capable of performing something like thinking while
caught in disaster's headlights.

Link Disaster as Ecological

Representing disaster as only ecological represents an
ontological firewall as we alienate ourselves from nature, this
is the psychology of capital accumulation
Morton 12 (Timothy Morton, University of California, Davis, Romanticism and Disaster "Romantic Disaster
Ecology: Blake, Shelley, Wordsworth", http://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/disaster/HTML/praxis.2012.morton.html)

ecology is a discourse of non-disaster.

Disaster is literally an unfortunate star (dis plus astron), an astrological misfortune. This
accident is a portent of things to come on Earth: Stars with trains of fire and dews of
The Disaster of Disaster 5. Strictly speaking,

blood, Disasters in the sun; and the moist star, Upon whose influence Neptunes empire stands, Was sick almost to

In order to have disasters such as this, one

needs an integrated world in which certain astral phenomena are interpreted
according to a stable key. The stars spatter the edges of this world, illuminating it with their obscure
but significant tracery, patterned in recognizable constellations that are given rules for conjunction and disjunction .
Ecology is the collapse of astrology, and not simply because it belongs to a secular era.
Ecology abolishes the star-studded dome of the world insofar as ecological
science and ecological awareness force upon humans the collapse of any
significant background or horizon against which human activity can be
placed and measured (Heidegger 39122; Morton, Ecology 94101). Astrology turns the
stars into significant documents , legible texts. Ecological disasters are
dooms-day with eclipse. (Hamlet 1.1.118)

precisely not caused by the action of a beyond , for in ecology, there is no

beyond, no elsewhere, no yonder, however remote. Life forms are made
from their environments, including sunshine and chemicals from exploding stars. There is no
way rigidly to separate the biosphere and the non-biosphere. If the Earth
had no magnetic field, for instance, life forms would be sizzled by solar
winds: one good sign of extra-terrestrial life is planets with magnetic fields. As if life, once it gets going, includes
all that goes around it and before it: terrestrial oxygen and iron are bi-products of bacterial metabolism, and hills

In the technical literature of disaster

management , an ecological disaster is precisely an event for which
are made of crushed shells and bones. 6.

inside resources do not suffice to provide a remedyhelp from

outside must be brought in

(European Environmental Agency, disaster). [2]

This rather

elegantly encapsulates the problem there remains no inside, or

everything is inside in the sense that there is no longer a beyond,
since the beyond is only legible on the horizon of a here and now. 7. We can
only conclude, then, that ecological disaster is an oxymoron. To what purpose? Paul
Virilio predicted a long while ago that environmental threats would allow the
state to stage rehearsals for military and industrial displays of power (Virilio).
This is not congruent with ecological reality. The trouble with ecological awareness is that it
is

drastically non-teleological . Life science has demonstrated that life as such has no

fixed, rigid origin: this is the lesson of the ironically titled The Origin of Species, in which Darwin
successfully undermines every possible biological distinction (species versus species, species versus variant,

The rhetoric of
disaster is the tropology of an absolute end , a sudden misfortune. How sudden
is the half-life of plutonium: what is the span of that disaster? Does it have peaks
and troughs? When did the disaster called global warming begin ? Is it at
all possible to say with a straight face that on a certain date at a certain
time, a threshold will have been crossed that guarantees the arrival of
apocalyptic catastrophe? 8. There is a rhetoric of catastrophe in which the
narrator overleaps apocalypse altogether . It is as if one could watch a
video of one's own funeral. Of course, literature enables us to fantasize this all the time: the act of
narrating in the first person is just this kind of doubling. But the totality of global ecological
disaster, of which one consequence might be human extinction (as in Mary Shelley's The Last Man), means
that there is strictly no one around in the future to watch any videos
whatsoever. The ghostly presence of ourselves , spectators to a future in
variant versus monstrosity, and so on) (Darwin, Origin, 34, 94, 100, 109, 131, 133, 141).

which we do not strictly exist , can only be vicarious at best and is often
sadistic . Elegies for deaths that have not yet occurred, they mourn for the
still living in a way that only repeats the dreaded dualism of subject and
object that many environmentalists see as public enemy number one. For
the subject who is reading the elegy is different from the subject whose
death is being witnessed , even if they have the same name, and are to some
separated by an ontological firewall, indeed, such
that ecological elegy is a form of the Cretan liar paradox (I am lying). [3] Byron's
extent the same person. Radically different:

"Darkness" manages this uncanny doubling by staging disaster as a dream. Shelley's The Last Man imagines a

part of the
pleasure of works such as these is that one can't help thinking for a
moment that one is voyeuristically privy to a future in which one does not
exist. 9. The ideology and the rhetoric of ecological disaster , then, have
further future in which some people come across the story. Nevertheless, in both cases,

nothing to do with actual ecology. They are environmentalist in the

same sense as some ideas about gender are sexist. That is, they set up the
environment as a metaphysical construct on a pedestal, torn down, built
up, worshipped, admired as an aesthetic object, and so on. Aesthetic images
of the environment are predicated on disaster: we are shown we want to
avert it; we are compelled to imagine it vividly. This seems like a truism: recordings of
whale sounds and Douglas Adams's book Last Chance to See would not have appeared if human-caused extinction
were not on the cards (see Works Cited). It is always unfortunate when reality coincides with fantasy. The trouble is

The
problem is in the attitude engendered in the disaster narratives we keep
telling ourselves. For at least one of these attitudes happens to provide
some strong cement for the maintenance of an oppressive status quo. 10. If
we are going to think ecology beyond capitalism, we shall need to think
not so much the quite legitimate wish to preserve species from dying out through human misuse.

beyond disaster and beyond disaster speak.

It would be preferable to refer to ecological

difficulty as a drag, in both performative and work-related senses. Ecological difficulty will beset us for the long
run, perhaps forever (whatever that means). And ecology is profoundly a view that accommodates display,
performance, sheer aesthetic illusion (for example in Darwin's theory of sexual selection), and so on (Darwin,
Descent). Take the evolutionary notion of satisficing. A rabbit is not really a rabbit. It is not that a rabbit by any
other name would act as nose-twitchy. All the way down, there is no rabbit, no rabbit flavored DNA. And all the way
up: rabbits act like rabbits, and thus pass on their genome. This is called satisficing, a form of performativity
(Dawkins 156). If a life form does its thing without dying, its descendant can keep whatever it does. The fact that
homosexuals exist across a vast array of sexually reproducing life forms, for instance, indicates that evolution has
no problem with them. In fact, heterosexual behavior floats on top of a vast ocean of cloning, transgender
switching, homosexuality and intersexuality (Roughgarden). A genome could not care less if its vehicle acts like
someone else's idea of a rabbit. This includes having mutations that not all rabbits might have. There is no essence
called race, or gender, or speciesor environment. Thus there is no fixed gender against which deviations are

thinking ecology beyond disaster means

thinking ecology without nature ; and even thinking ecology without

measured as disastrous. 11. Ultimately,

environmentalism. Looked at one way , evolution is a long history of disasters,

such as extinction: which is to say, since disaster is everywhere, it is of no
cosmic significance . Ecological awareness demands that we care for
ourselves and nonhumans on time and space scales far in excess of the
usual parameters , even if the parameters are based on modified forms of
self interest that include greater numbers under the umbrella of kith and
kin (Parfit, 355357, 361, 371377; Morton, "Hyperobjects" ). It just does not make sense to try and find selfinterest-based reasons to care for a hyperobject such as plutonium 239, which has a half-life of 24 100 years:
what a drag. The kind of excitement demanded by disaster tropology will not serve us well. We need something like
Wordsworth with his adverse reaction to the gross and violent stimulants of his literary age (Wordsworth,
"Preface," 746).

Alt Embrace Catastrophe

We should cease believing in the approach of an ideal future
the world is collapsing around us and only moderate rejections
of the militarized squo can create change
iek 12 (Slavoj, Once met Brad Bolman, Signs From The Future from
forthcoming book The Year of Dreaming Dangerously, http://www.odbor.org/signsfrom-the-future/)

So what about

apocalyptic tones we often hear, especially after a catastrophe

occurs? The ultimate paradox here is that the very excessive

catastrophism (the end of the world is near mantra) is a defense, a way to obfuscate
the true dangers, not to take them really seriously. This is why the only
appropriate reply to an ecologist who tries to convince us of the
impending threat is that the true target of his desperate arguing is HIS
OWN non beliefconsequently, our answer to him should be something like
Dont worry, the catastrophe will come for sure ! And the catastrophe is
coming , the impossible is happening all around us but watch patiently, dont get
caught in precipitous extrapolations, dont let yourself go to the properly perverse
pleasure of: This is it! The dreaded moment has arrived! In ecology, such apocalyptic
fascination arrives in many diverse forms: global warming will drawn us all in
a couple of decades; biogenetics will bring the end of human ethics and responsibility; bees will
disappear soon and unimaginable starvation will follow Take all these treats seriously, but dont be seduced by
them and enjoy too much the false sense of guilt and justice (We offended Mother Earth, so we are getting what

Instead, keep your head cool andbut you watch: But you watch,
keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come . It is like a man going
we deserve!).

on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the
doorkeeper to stay awake. Therefore stay awakefor

you do not know when the master of

the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster
crows, or in the morninglest he come suddenly and find you asleep . And
what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake.(Mark 13) Stay wake and watch for what? As we have already seen, the
Left entered a period of profound crisisthe shadow of the XXth century still hangs over it, and the full scope of the
defeat is not yet admitted. In the years of prospering capitalism, it was easy for the Left to play a Cassandra,

Now the
economic downturn and social disintegration the Left was waiting for is
here, protests and revolts are popping up all around the globe but what
is conspicuously absent is any consistent Leftist reply to these events, any project of
how to transpose islands of chaotic resistance into a positive program of
social change: When and if a national economy enters into crisis in the present interlocking global order,
warning that the prosperity is based on illusions and prophesizing catastrophes to come.

what has anyone to say in any non-laughable detailabout socialism in one country or even partly detached

the reason for this

inability to act in the Lefts futuralism, in its orientation towards a
future of radical emancipation; due to this fixation, the Left is immobilized by the idea
that it should spend its time turning over the entrails of the present for
pseudo-nation-state non-finance-capital-driven capitalism?[10] T.J. Clark sees

the signs of catastrophe and salvation , i.e., it continues to be premised

on

some terracotta multitude waiting to march out of the emperors

tomb .[11] We have to admit the grain of truth in this simplified bleak
vision which seems to sap the very possibility of a proper political Event :
perhaps, we should effectively renounce the myth of a Great Awakening the
moment when (if not the old working class then) a new alliance of the dispossessed,
multitude or whatever, will gather its forces and master a decisive
intervention. The entire history of the (radical) Left, up to Hardt and Negri, i s colored
by this stance of awaiting the Moment . After describing multiple forms of resistance to the
Empire, Hardt and Negris Multitude ends with a messianic note pointing towards
the great Rupture, the moment of Decision when the movement of
multitudes will be transubstantiated the sudden birth of a new world :
After this long season of violence and contradictions, global civil war,
corruption of imperial biopower, and infinite toil of the biopolitical
multitudes, the extraordinary accumulations of grievances and reform
proposals must at some point be transformed by a strong event, a radical
insurrectional demand .[12] However, at this point when one expects a minimum theoretical
determination of this rupture, what we get is again withdrawal into philosophy: A philosophical book like this,
however, is not the place for us to evaluate whether the time for revolutionary political decision is imminent.[13]
Hardt and Negri perform here an all to quick jump: of course one cannot ask them to provide a detailed empirical

the passage to the globalized absolute democracy,

to the multitude that rules itself; however, what if this a justified refusal to
engage in pseudo-concrete futuristic predictions masks an inherent
notional deadlock/impossibility? That is to say, what one does and should expect
is a description of the notional structure of this qualitative jump , of the
description of the Decision, of

passage from the multitudes resisting the One of sovereign Power to the
multitudes directly ruling themselves.

So

what happens if we radically

renounce this stance of eschatological expectation ? Clark concludes that one has
to admit the tragic vision of (social) life: there is no

(great bright)

future , the

tiger of suffering, evil, and violence is here to stay , and, in such

circumstances, the only reasonable politics is the politics of moderation
which tries to contain the monster: a politics actually directed, step by
step, failure by failure, to preventing the tiger from charging out would be the
most moderate and revolutionary there has ever been .[14] Practicing such
a politics would provoke a brutal reply of those in power and dissolve the
boundaries between political organizing and armed resistance .[15] Again, the
grain of truth in this proposal is that, often, a strategically well-placed precise
moderate demand can trigger a global transformation recall Gorbachovs
moderate attempt to reform the Soviet Union which resulted in its disintegration. But is this all one should say
(and do)? There are in French two words for future which cannot be adequately rendered in English: futur and
avenir. Futur stands for future as the continuation of the present, as the full actualization of the tendencies which
are already here, while avenir points more towards

a radical break, a discontinuity with the

presentavenir is what is to come /a venir/, not just what will be. Say, in todays apocalyptic global
situation, the ultimate horizon of the future is what Jean-Pierre Dupuy calls the dystopian
fixed point, the zero-point of the ecological breakdown , of global economic
and social chaoseven if it is indefinitely postponed, this zero-point is the
virtual attractor towards which our reality, left to itself, tends. The way
to combat the catastrophy is through acts which interrupt this drifting
towards the catastrophic fixed point and take upon themselves the risk
of giving birth to some radical Otherness to come. We can see here how
ambiguous the slogan no future is: at a deeper level, it does not designate the closure, the
impossibility of change, but what we should be striving forto break the hold of the
catastrophic future over up and thereby open up the space for something New
to come. Based on this distinction, we can see what was the problem with Marx (as well as with the XXth
century Left): it was not that Marx was too utopian in his Communist dreams , but that
his Communism was too futural . What Marx wrote about Plato (Platos Republic was not a
utopia, but an idealized image of the existing Ancient Greek society), holds for Marx himself: what Marx
conceived as Communism remained an idealized image of capitalism ,
capitalism without capitalism , i.e., expanded self-reproduction without profit and exploitation.
This is why we should return from Marx to Hegel, to Hegels tragic vision of the
social process where no hidden teleology is guiding us, where every
intervention is a jump into the unknown, where the result always thwarts
our expectations. All we can be certain of is that the existing system
cannot reproduce itself indefinitely: whatever will come after will not be
our future . A new Middle East war or an economic chaos or an unheardof environmental catastrophe can swiftly change the basic coordinates of
our predicament. We should fully assume this openness, guiding
ourselves on nothing more than ambiguous signs from the future.

Unfunded Mandates CP

Top Level

1NCUnfunded Mandates CP
Text
The United States federal government should mandate that
the necessary state and local government should coordinated
and deploy advanced Tsunami Detection and Warning System
including Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis
monitor. The United States federal government should assist in
coordinating and supporting state and local government with
necessary technical assistance.
systems.That solvesempirically proven
May & Burby 96 (Peter May, Professor of political science at the University of Washington AND
Raymund Burby, Assistant Professor of Planning and Research Associate at the University of North Carolina,
Coercive versus Cooperative Policies: Comparing Intergovernmental Mandate Performance, Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring, 1996), pp. 171-201 JSTOR )

Our study sheds light on the strengths and limitations of the two polar intergovernmental policy approaches. The
coercive intergovernmental ap- proach, as implemented in Florida mixed with a certain degree of cooperation, has

the coercive policy proved to be much more successful in

securing the compliance of local governments with procedural
requirements. With a coercive mandate, state governments are better able
to get local governments marching to the state's tune. (This, of course, as- sumes that
several advantages. First,

the policy does not unravel because of substantial backlash by local officials.) With a cooperative approach, local
governments that do not suffer much from the problem the mandate is addressing are likely to ignore procedural

the coercive policy seems to have an edge-at least in the

short run-in building the commitment of elected offi- cials to state policy
objectives, thereby providing a basis for substantive policy compliance .
Third, although the evidence is weaker, the Florida policy appears to have had success in
increasing the capacity of local governments to work toward state policy
aims.
prescriptions. Second,

Theyll Agree to Mandates standard of precedent

Posner 96 (Paul L. Posner, director of the public administration program at George Mason University and a
former president of the American Society for Public Administration, GAO director federal budget and
intergovernmental relations, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: 1996 and Beyond, Published in Oxford Journals
Oxford University Press, JSTOR )

Facing this array of groups, state and local governments have their own associations in Washington, D.C. and these
groups have great power poten- tial when they are able to marshal a unified and active lobbying presence. Indeed,
previous state and local victories on revenue sharing in the 1970s, Fair Labor Standards overtime rules in the 1980s
and UMRA in the 1990s show that, although no longer structurally deferential to state and local interests, Congress

specific mandate
proposals present state and local associations with difficult internal
political problems, which often constrain these organizations from being an effective, unified voice on
specific mandates. First, state and local officials often agree with the goals of
will respond favorably to state and local governments as an interest group. However,

mandates , partly because many mandates are based on initiatives already in

place in numerous states and localities. Thus, mandates often garner state
and local support, or at least ambivalence. As DanielJ. Elazar notes, many states
have little problem adjusting to federal standards when they have
themselves often adopted these standards in similar form earlier.35 The new welfare mandates, for instance, were developed with the support of Republican gover- nors whose states were already

Mandates can be useful for these

officials in protecting themselves from opposing political constituencies
within the jurisdiction. For instance, local public water officials have used federal drinking water
implementing work requirements and other welfare limitations.

standards as a ceiling on local responsibility when dealing with local groups seeking total removal of drinking water
contaminants.

Solvency

AT: UMRA
UMRA does not stop unfunded mandates
Anderson, Constantine 05 (Stacey, Russel, Harvard School of Law,
Unfunded Mandates, May 3,
http://140.247.200.140/faculty/hjackson/UnfundedMandates_7.pdf)
While UMRA does not prohibit unfunded mandates, some states have enacted such
legislation. Experience in these states suggests the difficulty of ensuring that legislatures adhere to full prohibitions

Sixteen states passed constitutional amendments or

statutes attempting to ensure that state mandates on municipalities are
adequately funded 71 . According to the Brookings Institution, these attempts have largely
failed 72 . For example, 15 years after Michigan approved a constitutional amendment requiring local
of unfunded mandates.

reimbursement for state mandates, the legislature had not made any reimbursements 73 . A 1994 study indicated
that in Illinois, the legislature had exempted itself from its mandate funding requirement on 25 occasions, resulting
in estimated costs to local governments of $107 million 74 . While some states have made progress, this progress
has been attributed to the relationship between the legislature and local governments, rather than a specific
provision. Kelly concludes that legislatures who wish to do so can circumvent reimbursement provisions 75 . In
addition, even where states such as California have made serious attempts to honor legislative commitments to
avoiding unfunded mandates, local officials continue to allege that they are shortchanged 76 .

UMRA does not stop all bills

Anderson, Constantine 05 (Stacey, Russel, Harvard School of Law,
Unfunded Mandates, May 3,
http://140.247.200.140/faculty/hjackson/UnfundedMandates_7.pdf)
UMRA does not apply to any provision in a bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report before Congress that 14 (1) enforces
constitutional rights of individuals; (2) establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on

requires compliance
with accounting and auditing procedures with respect to grants or other
money or property provided by the Federal Government ; (4) provides for emergency
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability; (3)

assistance or relief at the request of any State, local, or tribal government or any official of a State, local, or tribal
government; (5)

is necessary for the national security or the ratification or

implementation of international treaty obligations; (6) the President designates as
emergency legislation and that the Congress so designates in statute 15 ; or (7) relates to the old-age, survivors,
and disability insurance program under Title II of the Social Security Act (including taxes imposed by 3101(a) and
3111(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to old-age, survivors, and disability insurance)).

AT: Rollback
No rollback- Legislators want to do unfunded mandates
Murphy 10 (Meghan, journalist for Albany NY works at times herald-record,
Meghan Murphy: 'Unfunded mandates' are good for Albany, bad for us, Times
Herald-Record, july 14, http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20100714/NEWS/7140374&cid=sitesearch)
Let's say state legislators passed a law that said to ensure the public was informed, every household had to have a
newspaper subscription. Next, to improve public health, they said each resident must be trained in CPR. Now,
people start thinking, hold up. This is starting to cost me time and money. We already have a lot of well-intentioned
laws like this, affecting businesses, individuals and schools. People who oppose this practice call those laws
"unfunded mandates." In the education world, superintendents like to point to

unfunded mandate

as a

reason that education in New York is so expensive. They like to get together and make lists of the mandates and
spreadsheets calculating the costs. Middletown Superintendent Ken Eastwood shared with me one such list; it was
four pages long. I have another list from the state Education Department 30 pages long that describes all the
ways our special education laws require more than federal laws. State legislators, especially Republicans, like to
gripe about mandates too. Republicans sponsored a one-house Assembly bill that limits such mandates on local
governments. It died in committee. Democrats put forward and passed a bill this year that could provide relief of
school reporting requirements if it's carried out. And yet,

legislators on both sides of the

aisle also keep voting to add unfunded mandates .

Take, for example, Senate Bill 6196.

It requires school districts to give unused meals to food pantries. The vote: Senate 56 yeas, 1 nay. Assembly: 110
yeas, 34 nays. Gov. David Paterson called it an unfunded measure when he vetoed it last week. His veto memo
basically said: That's nice, but where's the money? Assembly Republicans put their vote where their mouth is on
that bill, with a block vote against it. But, let's see what happens when we get a little more high-profile with our
mandates: a bill on bullying. We've seen cases of extreme bullying recently that are very upsetting. In
Massachusetts, nine teens faced charges in March for bullying a girl who committed suicide. Our state's bill

requires school districts have bullying policies in place, report incidents

and have an employee in each building who is trained to handle
discrimination issues . OK. Now, for the vote: Senate: 58 yeas, 3 nays;
Assembly: 138 yeas, 4 nays.

Superintendents are already talking about how much this bill will cost

and whether they'll ask Paterson to veto it. They'll have to tip-toe so as not to appear as if they oppose battling
bullying. Therein lies the problem:

Legislators want to look good for doing something

to address a pressing issue . No one wants to look like they oppose it.

Now, if Albany opened up the

checkbook, or even slashed another mandate to balance the scales, I might be cheering. But what they did was
pass some solutions along to financially strapped schools. Superintendents, not legislators, will have to figure out
how to implement and pay for this. Yet it's Albany who will take the credit for "dealing with bullying" and run ... for
office.

AT: Theyll Say No

States Follow Fed govt. Regs mandatory
TPF No Date (Texas Project First,Federal Regulations, State Rules, State Laws? Which Is Which?,
http://www.texasprojectfirst.org/FedRulesLaws.html // veevz)

Once federal regulations are adopted, each state develops and adopts its
own rules implementing new IDEA requirements. State rules help school districts
understand how to implement federal requirements. In Texas, the rules governing special education are developed
by both the State Board of Education (SBOE) and the Commissioner of Education. Currently, the majority of Texas
special education rules are Commissioners Rules.

CP solves the case factually

ALONSO-ZALDIVAR 12 (RICARDO, Associated Press, 3/22/12, Supreme Court to weigh federal power over states in
Medicaid case, http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20120322_13_A9_CUTLIN397574 // Veevz )

Bigby, appointed by Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, says part of the expansion costs will be offset with savings
from accounts used to reimburse hospitals caring for the uninsured. Even with Romney's health insurance overhaul,
some Massachusetts residents lack coverage. As for the feds telling the states what to do, Bigby says it's nothing
new. " States

have always been obligated to follow federal rules and

regulations

in order to participate in Medicaid," she said. "I don't see this as any different, quite frankly."

It is mandatory for states to enact unfunded mandates

Harner 08 (Margo, Works for the federal way school district, School district: Time to get defiant, Federal
Way Mirror, June 13, http://www.federalwaymirror.com/news/18260309.html)
Blatant defiance is an option the Federal Way School District will consider as a response to unfunded educational
mandates from the state. An unfunded mandate is a law or regulation passed down from the federal, state or local
level requiring school districts to enact certain measures that create an expenditure in staff time, supplies or
equipment. Often times, those new mandates come without funds to establish or support the new requirement.
The money to compensate for unfunded mandates is then taken out of the district's general or levy fund, often
resulting in the loss of programs or staff. Last year, the Federal Way School District cut 19 librarians after a budget
shortfall they say was a result of unfunded mandates. The district has cut more than $14 million in the past several
years. Each year, the Legislature passes down more unfunded mandates, said school board member Tom Madden.
"I've had it... Every year they require more and more, and every time they require something it takes more and
more," Madden said. "They've got to give us the resources if they continue the requirements upon us." The board
has requested a work study to explore the possible consequences of refusing to implement unfunded mandates
from the state. "We've got to say no. There is no other option. They can't continue to squeeze the grape and expect
wine after it's already been squeezed," Madden said. Federal Way Public Schools Superintendent Tom Murphy said
that the district will consider refusing to comply with some unfunded mandates. "Certainly one option is to say,
we'll do it when you fund it. Of course, you need to find out what the penalty is when you defy that," he said.
Some

unfunded mandates are good ideas and the district will consider

continuing to implement those programs , Murphy said.

"It seems like every legislative

session, there's good ideas that come out of Olympia to do, but none of them have dollars attached to them," he
said. Redefining what school districts are required to do is redefining basic education, and the

state is

constitutionally and legally obligated to fund unfunded mandates , Murphy

said.

One example of a

frustrating

unfunded mandate is a new requirement to

remove mercury from all school thermostats at a cost of about $100,000 ,

said school board member Dave Larson. "

If you drink mercury, it's not a good thing.

But

it's inside a thermostat. It's not going to cause any harm," Larson said. "That's not a school safety issue because I
don't think there's ever been a case of somebody being harmed by what's in a thermostat." Larson said some

unfunded mandates that affect student achievement or school safety are

important, and the district will continue to implement those
requirements.

" If

it had to do with safety of children, you can't

compromise, you've got to do those things ," he said.

The consequences for refusing to

comply with unfunded mandates would depend on the specific mandate, said Nathan Olson, a spokesman for the
Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Consequences for refusing to comply with
unfunded mandates could come from the State Auditor's Office or OSPI, Olson said. Refusal to comply with some
mandates might result in no consequences at all, he said.

AT: Long Timeframe

CP solves in the short term
May & Burby 96 (Peter May, Professor of political science at the University of Washington AND
Raymund Burby, Assistant Professor of Planning and Research Associate at the University of North Carolina,
Coercive versus Cooperative Policies: Comparing Intergovernmental Mandate Performance, Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring, 1996), pp. 171-201 JSTOR )

Coercive mandates have greater short-run influence on commitment , but

cooperative policies have long-run potential.

The presumption is that be- cause they

directly impact calculations made by local officials about commitment ,

coercive mandates will have more influence on the commit- ment of
lower-level governments than cooperative mandates;

that is, assuming strong

monitoring and enforcement. This, however, is a short- run argument. The promise of cooperative mandates is that
in allowing greater flexibility they can sustain and enhance commitment. Over time commitment may erode under
coercive mandates, particularly as moni- toring and enforcement ease. This is a contrasting longer-run argument

AT: Cant Fund

CP text solves governments technical assistance is good
State governments can borrow
IBD 97 (Investors Business Daily 1/6/1997 p. lexis
all states in the U.S. require a balanced budget. But they all carry debt. Either
states created independent agencies with the authority to borrow or they
set up capital budgets to finance long-term projects. States and local
governments have been quite adroit at cheating on their balanced-budget
requirements, Tullock said.
Almost

Local option transportation taxes solves funding

Wachs 2003 (Martin, Ph.D. and M.S. in urban and regional planning,
Northwestern University; B.S. in civil engineering, City University of New York, Local
Option Transportation Taxes: Devolution as Revolution,
http://www.uctc.net/access/22/Access%2022%20-%2002%20-%20Local%20Option
%20Transportation%20Taxes.pdf)
For eighty years,

motor fuel taxes have paid most costs of building and operating
major roads in the US. As public policy gradually came to favor a
transportation system balanced between private cars and public transit,
highway user fees also contributed to construction and operation of
transit systems. But a major change is now underway , and most citizens are not even
aware it is happening. Federal and state fuel taxes, though still the largest source of revenue for
transportation, are rising much more slowly than travel volumes and transportation costs. They no longer cover the
costs of building, operating, and maintaining the transportation system .
And instead of raising fuel taxes or introducing electronic toll collection
systems, legislators are allowing local governments to raise funds locally
even if not through user feesthus changing the basis of transportation finance. Cities, counties,
and transit districts are increasingly turning to local option
transportation taxes to fund new transportation investments. The most
visible examples of these in recent years have been voter-approved sales
taxes funding particular roads and rail transit projects.

States can tap rainy day funds

Nathan 96 (Richard P. Nathan, Provost of the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs at Albany University,
1996 (The State of States, The Role of the States in American Federalism, ed. Van Horn, p. 38)

A financially sound state budget sets aside a percentage of the revenues to be

used to make up the shortfall for higher than anticipated expenditures or less than anticipated

This rainy-day fund, formally installed by twenty-nine states, is

insurance against a deficit.
revenues.

And the efficiencies generated by the States means the plan

pays for itself
Holler 2012, April 4 Communications Director for Heritage Action for America,
graduate of Washington College (4/4/12,
http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2012/04/paying-for-it.php#2190872,
Guest: Thinking Outside the Beltway, CS)
When it comes to the problem of how to pay for our nations transportation needs,
the temptation in Washington is to view Washington as the solution. After tens of
billions in Highway Trust Fund bailouts and nine short-term extensions , it is
clear Washington does not hold the answer. The real answer is outside the beltway .
Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell recently scoffed at the idea of looking beyond
Washington for transportation funding solutions, saying proponents of such a move havent looked at any of
the state budgets recently. But the Governor misses the point. It is not that states are awash in cash (the
federal government isnt either), but rather that states are much more
efficient .

Last year,

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels explained his state can build in

1/2 the time at 2/3 the cost when we use our own money only and are free
from the federal rulebook . Literally just outside the Washington Beltway, a private company is adding
four high-occupancy toll lanes for half the cost the government projected , and the lanes are better designed, too. Instead of
looking for an innovative solution, too many in Congress prefer to debate various funding mechanisms for months on end knowing they will settle for a gimmick that ensures
insolvency.

There is a better way; lawmakers just need to know where to look .

AT: Perm Do Both

The Permutation is the DEFINITION of federalism. The perm
has the FEDERAL and STATE governments work together. That
is federalism

AT: Perm do the CP

The permutation is severance thats a voting issue because it
makes the aff a moving target and it makes engagement and
clash impossible.
Its refers to the United States Federal Government and is
possessive
Updegrave 91 (W.C., Explanation of ZIP Code Address Purpose, 8-19,
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/zipcode/updegrav.htm)

More specifically, looking at the map on page 11 of the National ZIP Code Directory, e.g. at a local post office, one
will see that the first digit of a ZIP Code defines an area that includes more than one State. The first sentence of
the explanatory paragraph begins: "A ZIP Code is a numerical code that identifies areas within the United States

Note the singular possessive

pronoun "its", not "their", therefore carrying the implication that it relates
to the " U nited S tates" as a corporation domiciled in the D istrict of C olumbia
(in the singular sense), not in the sense of being the 50 States of the
Union (in the plural sense). The map shows all the States of the Union, but it also shows D.C., Puerto
and its territories for purposes of ..." [cf. 26 CFR 1.1-1(c)].

Rico and the Virgin Islands, making the explanatory statement literally correct.

Deploy means the United States federal government needs to

utilize the tech
Meriam Webster No Date (http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/deployhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deploy)

Full Definition of DEPLOY

transitive verb
1 a : to extend (a military unit) especially in width
b : to place in battle formation or appropriate positions
2 : to spread out, utilize, or arrange for a deliberate purpose <deploy a
sales force> <deploy a parachute>

Net Benefit

CP Links

1NCNet Benefit
The counterplan is the death of federalism
Super 05 (David Super, A.B., Princeton; J.D., Harvard.Georgetown Law Department, Rethinking Fiscal
Federalism, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 118, No. 8 (Jun., 2005), pp. 2544-2652, JSTOR )

Among the most analytically bankrupt concepts is that of the unfunded

mandate.132 Some of the programs that spark the strongest complaint are in fact those programs in which the
federal government provides the most money to states. The concern, then, is not about the lack
of total funding, but about the lack, or insufficiency, of marginal funding .
133 Yet an approach that measures the appropriateness of changes to mandates in terms of the availability of full

it presumes that the federal

government's current level of financial support is an irreducible minimum .
Not only is this across-the-board presumption unsupported, it also creates perverse incentives: in effect , it tells
the federal government not to increase support for the states in advance
incremental funding tied to a given activity is inherently arbitrary. First,

of deciding what conditions , if any, to impose on that support. It also

treats as unfunded mandates the federal government's efforts to close
loopholes through which some states may shift costs unilaterally to the
federal government.134 Second, this approach ignores the fungibility of
money and the breadth of federal-state fiscal relations . Even if a mandate raises the
net costs of one particular federal-state pro- gram, the state will suffer no loss of fiscal capacity - that is, it will not
have to cut programs or raise taxes - if federal support increases a comparable amount in other areas. Third,

this

approach seriously impinges upon the sovereignty of the federal

government. Put simply, the federal government cannot and should not be
expected to continue grant programs indefinitely or to refrain from
reformulating those pro- grams in order to meet changing needs or
preferences. Most importantly, judging unfunded mandates by their incremental effects ignores
the dramatic effects of the business cycle. Federal aid to states, both in absolute terms and as a fraction
of states' budgets, increases substantially as the national economy declines. Taken to its logical
conclusion, this approach would allow the federal government to burden states
with a host of intrusive requirements as a condition of providing
countercyclical aid during recessions, with states entitled to throw off
these shackles each time the economy recovers. A cyclical reduction in
state autonomy is difficult to justify under any coherent theory of
federalism .

AT: No Spillover
Yes spillover every instance enables congress to do more
unfunded mandates
Jaber 96 (Makram, JD, Emory University School of Law, First Honor Graduate, UNFUNDED FEDERAL
MANDATES: AN ISSUE OF FEDERALISM OR A "BRILLIANT SOUND BITE"? Winter 1996 Emory Law Journal, lexis )

3. The Impact of Unfunded Federal Mandates on the Values Underlying Federalism Concerns about the costs, efficacy, and goals of
regulations viewed as unfunded federal mandates are not divorced from another, perhaps more important, concern: that

unfunded federal mandates undermine federalism , one of the central premises underlying
the structure of government in the United States. n58 The gist of this argument is that, at all times, local
governments should be free to devote their resources to address issues
that are most important to their constituents. n59 Therefore, in every
instance in which the federal government requires these governments to
comply with a regulation, it is effectively requiring them to divert a
portion of their resources to address issues that they feel are not as
pressing as others. n60 Thus, mandates displace local preferences. n61 [*297] A closely
related argument is that the lines of political accountability are blurred when the
federal government dictates costly policy, and state and local
governments are saddled with the burdens of complying with that policy.
According to this view, unfunded federal mandates allow members of Congress to
reap the political benefit of passing popular legislation , while state and
local officials are held accountable for raising taxes --or cutting spending in another area-to pay for implementing or complying with the legislation . Thus, a federal government
that does not fund its mandates is not accountable, and leaves local politicians to take the heat for costly regulations. n62 A third
argument relating to federalism is based on the premise that, even where a national policy addresses a subject that is deemed
important by the local government, locally devised policy is most often superior to (i.e., better-suited than) a "one-size-fits-all"

Proponents of this view assess the expansion of the power of

the federal government ushered in by the New Deal as antithetical to
principles of federalism, even if all federal programs were fully funded by the federal treasury. n64 They are
national solution. n63

therefore critical of all federal regulatory strategies, including conditions on assistance and state-federal cooperative programs. n65
[*298]

2NCCP Kills Fedearlism

Unfunded mandates destroy federalism
Jaber 96 (Makram, JD, Emory University School of Law, First Honor Graduate,

UNFUNDED FEDERAL
MANDATES: AN ISSUE OF FEDERALISM OR A "BRILLIANT SOUND BITE"? Winter 1996 Emory Law Journal, lexis )

3. The Impact of Unfunded Federal Mandates on the Values Underlying Federalism Concerns about the costs, efficacy, and goals of
regulations viewed as unfunded federal mandates are not divorced from another, perhaps more important, concern: that

unfunded federal mandates undermine federalism , one of the central premises underlying
the structure of government in the United States. n58 The gist of this argument is that, at all times, local
governments should be free to devote their resources to address issues
that are most important to their constituents. n59 Therefore, in every
instance in which the federal government requires these governments to
comply with a regulation, it is effectively requiring them to divert a
portion of their resources to address issues that they feel are not as
pressing as others. n60 Thus, mandates displace local preferences. n61 [*297] A closely
related argument is that the lines of political accountability are blurred when the
federal government dictates costly policy, and state and local
governments are saddled with the burdens of complying with that policy.
According to this view, unfunded federal mandates allow members of Congress to
reap the political benefit of passing popular legislation , while state and
local officials are held accountable for raising taxes --or cutting spending in another area-to pay for implementing or complying with the legislation . Thus, a federal government
that does not fund its mandates is not accountable, and leaves local politicians to take the heat for costly regulations. n62 A third
argument relating to federalism is based on the premise that, even where a national policy addresses a subject that is deemed
important by the local government, locally devised policy is most often superior to (i.e., better-suited than) a "one-size-fits-all"

Proponents of this view assess the expansion of the power of

the federal government ushered in by the New Deal as antithetical to
principles of federalism, even if all federal programs were fully funded by the federal treasury. n64 They are
national solution. n63

therefore critical of all federal regulatory strategies, including conditions on assistance and state-federal cooperative programs. n65
[*298]

Bush proveskills federalism

Posner 10 (Paul L. Posner, director of the public administration program at George Mason University and a
former president of the American Society for Public Administration, GAO director federal budget and
intergovernmental relations Mandates: Fiscal Accountability
Issues,http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/54/48170537.pdf )

the continuation of
the centralisation and nationalisation of priorities and policies that had
characterised previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat alike. During this
period, federal goals and priorities were extended to new intergovernmental
service arenas heretofore primarily controlled by states and localities .
Notwithstanding these forces, the period of the Bush presidency in fact witnessed

Educational testing, election administration, fire protection and emergency response, and tax policy were important
arenas that were once relatively off-limits for federal officials but that fell under the influence of major new national

The persistence of centralising and coercive national policy

decisions during the Bush presidency reflects the continued attenuation of
programmes.

federalism as a value commanding loyalty from elites and publics in the

face of numerous other more politically compelling national values and
interests. President Obama has followed a high-level profile as a national
policy activist. National leaders with ambitious policy agendas generally increase the national governments
power and authority in relation to subnational governments. Thus , it is less surprising that Obama
has continued previous centralising trends. As noted earlier, the health reform
legislation alone features major new mandates and roles for states both in
extending coverage to new groups and in managing new health exchanges. Pending climate change legislation
would serve to pre-empt emerging state-based initiatives, causing significant costs for the states according to the

While strengthening the role of the national

government, the Obama administration has provided significant additional
grant funds to state and local governments as part of the economic
stimulus programme. Indeed, over the past two years, states have received more than USD 100 billion in
Congressional Budget Office.

new and relatively unrestricted federal funds.

CP undermines cooperative federalism

Kincaid 90 (John Kincaidexecutive director of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations, associate professor of political science on leave from the University of North Texas, Denton; an editor of
Publius: The Journal of Federalism; and general editor of the University of Nebraska book series "Politics and
Governments of the American States. ", May 1990, From Cooperative to Coercive Federalism, JSTOR )
ABSTRACT:

Cooperative federalism, the reigning conception of American federalism from about 1954 to

1978, was a political response to the policy challenges of market failure ,

postwar affluence, racism, urban poverty, environmentalism, and individual rights. Having social equity as its
primary objective, cooperative federalism significantly transformed American society, but when the conditions

the pressure to expand national power

inherent in cooperative federalism gave rise to coercive federalism , in
which the federal government reduced its reliance on fiscal tools to
underlying cooperation changed during the 1970s,

stimulate intergovernmental policy cooperation and increased its reliance

on regulatory tools to ensure the supremacy of federal policy . The erosion
of federal fiscal power and of constitutional and political limits on federal
regulatory power in the 1970s and 1980s has produced a more coercive system of
federal preemptions of state and local authority and unfunded mandates
on state and local governments. This system undermines governmental
responsibility and public accountability ; yet state and local governments may not possess
sufficient constitutional or political leverage to alter the system. Thus cooperative federalism has not been replaced

In light of contemporary conditions, a new

consensus may have to be forged from elements of cooperative equity,
competitive efficiency, and dual accountability
by a new consensus on federalism.

2NC UQ Fedearlism
UMRA gives us UQ for fedearlism
Madison 12 (N., works at conjecture corporation, What is an Unfunded Mandate, Wisegeek, May 28,
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-unfunded-mandate.htm)

An unfunded mandate is a statute or regulation that requires a state or

local government, or private individuals or organizations, to perform
certain actions, yet provides no money for fulfilling the requirements.
a federal government imposes a law or regulation without necessary funding, for example,

When

it becomes the

responsibility of the state or local government to pay for the

implementation of the law.

In the end, it is local taxpayers who end up footing the bill. A prime example of an

unfunded mandate is a national election. Each state administers the election for its residents. Though these elections end with the
appointment of federal officials, it is the individual states that pay the cost of running the local elections. Not surprisingly, unfunded
mandates are a hot topic among the politically inclined. Many believe laws imposed by the federal government should require
federal funding of those laws. They feel unfunded mandates place an unfair burden on lower levels of government, creating huge,
unmanageable expenses for state and city governments. Some politicians complain that a large portion of a city's budget is
determined by the federal government, rather than by the local government. They assert that unfunded mandates create such
localized financial stress that local governments are unable to create many beneficial programs or reduce taxes for residents. An
unfunded mandate, they claim, has the effect of taking control out of the hands of local government. Other politicians have a

local government officials have more

control over spending than they want to admit. For example, a federal law may require a state
different view of unfunded mandate costs. They assert that

to pay a percentage of the cost of implementing that law, yet allow the local government a good deal of latitude in determining
which services to provide.

If the local government chooses to provide very costly

services, the expense for that state could be quite high . Therefore , some
politicians claim,

it is individual state spending that causes problems, not

unfunded mandates. Many politicians who disagree with limiting

unfunded mandates believe that doing so would work against the ties
that bind us together as a country.

They argue that local governments should pay some or all of the cost

of local law implementation. Others agree that the concept of the unfunded mandate is unfair, but do not believe that unfunded

the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (UMRA) was enacted, setting up procedures to keep congress
mandates cause most local governments' budgetary problems. On 15 March 1995,

from imposing costs on states without appropriating funds . The UMRA requires
analysis of any bill expected to cost state, tribunal, or local governments more that US$50 million. The Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) must perform this analysis. The same type of analysis is required for bills projected to cost the private sector US$100 million
or more. If a mandate is expected to cost lower levels of government or the private sector more than US$100 million, house and
senate committees are required to show where funding will come from to offset these costs. If a committee fails to provide this
information, the bill can be removed from consideration. However, a majority vote can keep such a bill alive, resulting in an

the UMRA requires consultation with state, local,

and tribunal governments about any proposed laws or regulations that
may include an unfunded mandate. Assessments must be performed for such proposals. If assessments
expensive unfunded mandate. Furthermore,

are not performed, the particular law or regulation is subject to judicial review. The unfunded mandate debate continues to rage on.
Some politicians believe the UMRA is effective at controlling costs imposed on local governments. Others, however, assert a need for
further reform.

Impacts

1NC Econ
Federalism collapses economic recovery specifically kills
stimulus
The New Yorker 09 (James Surowiecki, The Financial Page staff writer for The New Yorker, July 27,
2009 Fifty Ways To Kill Recovery, The New Yorker,
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/james_surowiecki/search?contributorName=james%20surowiecki,)

If you came up with a list of obstacles to economic recovery in this

country, it would include all the usual suspectsour still weak banking system, falling house prices,
overindebted consumers, cautious companies. But here are fifty culprits you might not have thought
of: the states. Federalism , often described as one of the great strengths of the American system,
has become a serious impediment to reversing the downturn.

Its easy enough,

of course, to mock state governments nowadays, what with California issuing I.O.U.s to pay its bills and New Yorks
statehouse becoming the site of palace coups and senatorial sit-ins. But the real problem isnt the fecklessness of
local politicians. Its the ordinary way in which state governments go about their business. Think about the $787billion federal stimulus package. Its built on the idea that during serious economic downturns the government can
use spending increases and tax cuts to counteract the effects of consumers who are cutting back on spending and

So fiscal policy at the national level is

countercyclical: as the economy shrinks, government expands. At the
state level, though, the opposite is happening. Nearly every state government
is required to balance its budget. When times are bad, jobs vanish, sales
plummet, investment declines, and tax revenues fall precipitously in New
York, for instance, state revenues in April and May were down thirty-six per cent from a year earlier. So states
have to raise taxes or cut spending, or both, and thats precisely what theyre doing: states from
businesses that are cutting back on investment.

New Jersey to Oregon have raised taxes in the past year, while significant budget cuts have become routine and are

The states fiscal policy, then, is procyclical:

its amplifying the effects of the downturn, instead of mitigating them. Even
likely to get only deeper in the year ahead.

as the federal government is pouring money into the economy, state governments are effectively taking it out. Its
a push-me, pull-you approach to fighting the recession. Now, state cutbacks have not been as severe as they might
have been, thanks to the stimulus plan, which includes roughly $140 billion in aid to local governments. That aid,
according to a recent study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, has covered thirty to forty per cent of the
states budget shortfalls. Money for the states translates directly into jobs not lost and services not cutwhich is
why you can make a good case that more of the stimulus should have gone to state aid. Yet theres no sign that
those budget gaps are getting smaller, and, as the federal money runs out, state tax increases and spending
cutbacks are only going to become more common. In the midst of this downturn, some of the biggest players in the
economystate and local governments together account for about thirteen per cent of G.D.P.will be doing

Fiscal federalism also makes it harder to spend the

stimulus money efficiently. Much of the tens of billions of dollars that will
be spent on roads, for instance, will be funnelled through the states. As a
result, a disproportionate amount of the money will be spent in rural areas
(which exert disproportionate influence on state governments), leaving citieswhich happen to
have most of the people and most of the traffic shortchanged. The top eightyprecisely the wrong thing.

five metropolitan areas in the country are responsible for about three-quarters of the countrys G.D.P. Yet less than

The billions in stimulus money thats going

to high-speed rail will likely be spent more sensibly, since the Obama
Administration has placed a premium on interstate coperation in building
the network. Still, whether we end up with true regional, let alone
national, rapid-transit networks will depend largely on decisions made at
half of the road money will be invested there.

the state, rather than the national, level. In other words, you may be able to get from Miami
to Orlando quickly, but it could be a slow train (at best) to the rest of the country.

Economic decline causes war

Harris and Burrows 9

PhD in European History @ Cambridge and Counselor of the US National

Intelligence Council AND Member of the National Intelligence Councils Long Range Analysis Unit (Mathew J. and
Jennifer, Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis, April, Washington Quarterly,
http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Burrows.pdf, EMM)

Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of
intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future
opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever.

Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from

include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think
Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of
Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in
the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential
for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile
economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed
While we continue to believe that the
that period

the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda.

Terrorisms appeal will decline if

growth continues in the Middle East and youth

unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of
technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous
capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long
economic

established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to
conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized,
particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty
of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans
acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new
security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is
not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would

conflict and terrorism taking place under a

nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between
those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with
emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity

underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in
achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like

may place more focus on

preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict
that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if
protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy
scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could
result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to
Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions

be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have
important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization
efforts, such as Chinas and Indias development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries
indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to
increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in
protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East,
changing water resources

dog world.

is likely to be increasingly difficult

cooperation to manage
in a more dog-eat-

both within and between states

Ext. Yes Key to Econ

Federalism creates ineffective governanceimpedes economic
recovery/hurts competitiveness
Meyerson 09 (Harold Meyerson, the editor-at-large at The American Prospect and a columnist for The
Washington Post, November 19, 2009 Fed Up With Federalism, The American Prospect, Accessed online at
http://prospect.org/article/fed-federalism-0,)

liberals have argued for the right of the nation to move beyond its
federalist constraints during those periods when they controlled the
national government (the 1930s and, especially, the 1960s). And during the late, lamentable Bush
Conversely,

presidency, conservative justices on the Supreme Court frequently forbade the states from enacting stricter
regulations on businessthan those that Bush's administration had put in place. The love of federalism is a
sometime thing; its critics and champions switch places depending on who is in power at which level of

But the problem with our allegedly ingenious federal system is

not simply that half the time, if not more, it is an effective way to protect
all that is biased and unfair in the American nation . The problem is also that
federalism inherently subverts a coherent national response to many
fundamental challenges the United States faces, at a time when other
major nations -- our competitors in an increasingly global economy -- face no such structural
impediment. Given the sheer size of America and the distinct cultural identity of its many regions, federalism
government.

has always made a certain amount of sense. The abolition of the slave trade and the legalization of gay marriage
had to beginsomewhere. As the rise of national government, transportation, and media have eroded regional
identities, traditions, and isolation, however, more conservatives than liberals have found a refuge in federalism.

federalism is more often the refuge of reactionaries than of visionaries, it has an even
deeper flaw: setting the nation at cross-purposes with itself, and never
more so than during a recession. *** There is a classic algebra problem in
which water pours into a bathtub from the tap at a specified rate but also
exits the tub at a different rate because someone has neglected to stop
the drain. If you know the rates, you should be able to figure when the water will rise to a certain level. During
a recession, the United States becomes a version of that bathtub. The federal government is the
tap. The state and local governments are the drain. That's no way to fight
a recession. When investment, production, and consumption are all in
decline, the only way to keep the economy from shrinking is for the
federal government to deficit spend and create a stimulus. But while the
federal government pours money in, the state and local governments,
which cannot deficit spend, see their tax revenue shrinking, so they cut
spending, raise taxes, or both -- taking money out of the economy.
America's distinct brand of federalism inherently impedes an economic
But even though

recovery.

Consider the state with the biggest tap and the biggest drain: California. The sum total of the

federal tax cuts for Californians included in last year's Bush administration stimulus legislation and this year's
Obama administration stimulus came to $15.5 billion for the years 2008 to 2010 -- money desperately needed to
boost consumer spending in the midst of the worst downturn since the Depression, says Jean Ross, executive
director of the California Budget Project. But the sum total of state tax increases enacted by the California
Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2008 and 2009, Ross says, came to $12.5 billion
for the years 2008 to 2010 -- money desperately needed to keep public services in California from grinding to a halt
in the midst of the worst downturn since the Depression. "The state negated 80 percent of the feds' tax cut," Ross
says. "And the cuts and the increases pretty much targeted the same lower-income groups." Nor were the
negations limited to tax cuts. Ross calculates the federal government's direct aid to education, its block-grant

programs and other education-related expenditures for California total $9.5 billion from 2008 to 2010. The state
government's cuts to K-12 schools, community colleges, the California State University, and the University of
California add up to $17.4 billion for the same years. California leads the fiscal--disaster pack, but it is anything but
alone. A September paper from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that since the recession began, at
least 41 states and the District of Columbia have slashed their budgets for a wide range of services -- 27 for health
care, 25 for aid to the elderly and disabled, 26 for K-12 education, 34 for higher education, and some states for all
of these. Forty-two states have reduced wages to state workers through layoffs, furloughs, and salary cuts. At least
30 states have raised taxes during the same period. "All of these steps remove demand from the economy," the
center concludes. They "reduce the purchasing power of workers' families, which in turn affects local businesses."
Without the Obama stimulus, which appropriated roughly $140 billion to the states to reduce their budgetary
shortfalls during 2009 and 2010, these numbers would be even worse -- though keep in mind that $140 billion in
federal funds isn't engendering growth; it's merely offsetting state cutbacks. The center estimates that the federal
bailout enabled states to reduce their budget gaps by 40 percent. But with state financial shortfalls in those two
years coming to a whopping $350 billion, that leaves $210 billion in unrecompensed state budget shortfalls, which
the states have to make up by cutbacks or tax hikes or financial gimmicks. Dean Baker and Rivka Deutsch of the
Center for Economic and Policy Research estimate that the cutbacks and tax hikes of cities, counties, and school
districts in 2009 and 2010 will come to an additional $15 billion. So how much does the government's stimulus
come to when we subtract the amount the states and localities are taking out of the economy from the amount the
feds are putting in? The two-year Obama stimulus amounted to $787 billion, of which $70 billion was really just the
usual taxpayers' annual exemption from the alternative minimum tax, and $146 billion was actually appropriated
for the years 2011 to 2019. That leaves $571 billion that the federal government is pumping into the economy
during 2009 and 2010. Subtract the amount that state and local governments are withdrawing from the economy
(they have a combined shortfall of around $365 billion, but let's say they do enough fiscal finagling so that the total
of their cutbacks and tax hikes is just $325 billion), and we're left with $246 billion. At $787 billion, the stimulus
came to 2.6 percent of the nation's gross domestic product for 2009 and 2010 -- not big enough, but a respectable
figure. At $246 billion -- the net of the federal stimulus minus the state and local anti-stimulus -- it comes to just 0.8
percent of GDP, a level lower than those of many of the nations that the U.S. chastised for failing to stimulate their

other major nations don't have federal systems that turn

them into unstopped bathtubs in times of recession. They have states and
municipalities, to be sure, but either the responsibility for funding most
functions of government resides with the national government, or , as in Japan,
state and local governments are not required to run annual balanced
budgets. In China, which probably has had the most robust recovery of any major nation, taxes and spending
economies sufficiently. But

for everything are set in Beijing (including the lower tax rates for provinces in which manufacturing for export is the
main economic activity). In France, taxing and spending has been controlled by the national government at least as
far back as Louis XIV. In Britain, funding for local government also comes from the national government; "local
taxation," says Thomas Barry, first secretary for economic affairs in the British Embassy in Washington, D.C., "is a

Such is obviously not the case in the

U.S. The national government alone funds defense and the two great
social programs, Social Security and Medicare, created at moments (1935 and
1965) when liberals controlled both Congress and the White House. But state and local
governments, which can't run deficits, remain the primary funders of
education, transportation, local infrastructure, and public safety and split
the cost of health care for the poor with the feds. What this means is that the
governmental impediments the United States encounters during a
recession are far greater than those encountered by the other major
nations with which we compete in the ever more global economy. What this
means is that our federal system is, in this very significant particular, massively
dysfunctional. *** This September, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the
very small fraction of the total tax burden in the U.K."

agency that runs LA's growing subway system and its far-flung bus lines, struck a novel deal with an Italian rail
manufacturer. In return for its purchase of 100 light-rail cars from the company, the MTA got the company to agree
to locate a unionized factory in Los Angeles. Problems with the manufacturer caused the deal to collapse, though,
and the MTA is now searching for another company that will build the trains in Los Angeles. The agency's attempt to
bolster local industry with a Buy-LA policy has encountered opposition, however, from the Los Angeles Times, which
noted in an editorial that federal funds available for buying clean, green rail transport are denied to states and
cities that insist on making the product locally. To be sure, the Obama administration has allotted billions of dollars
to incubate an electric-car industry. But it is not insisting on domestic content, nor has it cut a deal with a foreign

Los Angeles is trying to do with rails and as

Southern states have done for years with foreign automakers. The federal
government doesn't do that. Well, our federal government doesn't do that.
Foreign federal governments do that all the time. China has spared no
expense to attract foreign manufacturers, routinely abating their taxes, holding wages in
manufacturer to locate a factory here, as

check, offering help to construct new facilities. In the U.S., states and cities woo foreign and domestic investors with
an array of tax and zoning incentives; right-to-work states promise to hold down wages, too. But the kinds of
sweeping guarantees that national governments can offer are beyond the capacity of states and localities to
promise, much less deliver. China, for instance, is halfway through a stunningly ambitious project to build 100
university science parks roughly modeled on North Carolina's fabled Research Triangle. On average, the parks,
according to the testimony of attorney Alan Wolff to the U.S.?China Commission, are 150 percent the size of North
Carolina's triangle. "China has taken our model and expanded dramatically on it," Rick Weddle, CEO of the Research
Triangle Foundation, testified to the commission. "We toured a research park in Suzhou that is a joint venture

The industrial
policies of American states are dwarfed by those of foreign nations, while
the one entity with the resources to compete with foreign nations -- the
federal government -- stays out of the game. States seek new factories while the federal
government shuns domestic content requirements. As with stimulus policy during recessions, state and
federal industrial policies seem totally at cross-purposes. Federalism also
between the Chinese government and Singapore. We wouldn't even think about that."

enables federal and state governments to punt the responsibility for

funding politically contentious programs to each other -- a pretty good
way of ensuring that the programs will end up underfunded.

A quick way to grasp

the contrasting levels of political power wielded by the elderly (considerable) and the poor (negligible), for instance,
is to look at how the government funds their health care. Medicare, for seniors, is entirely federally funded.
Medicaid, for the poor, has the responsibility for its funding split between the federal government and the states.
Despite the fact that Medicaid is nominally a national program, the levels of financial support that states allot it
vary considerably. During the current recession, many states have opted to slash Medicaid benefits, even as federal
Medicare benefits have largely stayed intact. The perverse consequences of this hybrid funding have seldom been
clearer than during the health-care reform battle, in which the Senate Finance Committee's bill to open Medicaid
rolls to more Americans without pledging full federal funding for the program has presented recession-wracked
states with a problem they could do without. After Gov. Schwarzenegger stated that the increased cost to his state
could amount to $8 billion annually, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who backs the health-reform efforts,
announced that she couldn't support a bill that increased the state's costs. (In the House bill, the federal

Federal mandates on states

that must balance their budgets during recessions are problematic policy,
and they illustrate the buck-passing that is inherent in the federal system.
Historically, the price for this feature of federalism has been paid neither by
the federal nor state governments but by the poor. In regulatory matters, the gap
government picks up almost all of the states' increased Medicaid costs.)

between federal and state standards can work as Brandeis thought it should, but it can also enable businesses to
comparison shop for the lowest level of regulations. While federalism is an effective way to create multiple
governmental power centers in a nation, it creates a system that powerful private players can game. The diffusion
of power inherent in federalism works best when power in the private economy and civil society is also diffused, so
that, for instance, business will get push-back from labor when it attempts to arbitrage the gaps between state and
federal law. The boundary between federal and state functions in the United States has always been a flexible one,

By
the standards of nearly every other major nation, however, and increasingly
by the standard of common sense, the United States retains a system of
government that frequently subverts its own policies and enables federal
and state governments to negate each other's endeavors. Federalism has its points,
and one that has moved slowly and haltingly toward the federal level throughout most of the nation's history.

but in a growing number of ways, and especially during a recession, it makes no damn sense at all.

1NC Power Grid

Federalism collapses the power grid
The New Yorker 09 (James Surowiecki, The Financial Page staff writer for The New Yorker, July 27,
2009 Fifty Ways To Kill Recovery, The New Yorker,
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/james_surowiecki/search?contributorName=james%20surowiecki,)

Even more important,

federalism is getting in the way of the creation of a

smart American power grid. This would involve turning the current
hodgepodge of regional and state grids into a genuinely national grid,
which would detect and respond to problems as they happen, giving users
more information about and control over their electricity use , and so on. It
could also dramatically reduce our dependence on oil. Wind power could
eventually produce as much as twenty per cent of the energy that America
consumes. The problem is that the places where most of that wind power
can be generated tend to be a long way from the places where most of
that power would be consumed. A new grid would enable us to get the
power to where its needed. But since nobody likes power lines running
through his property, building the grid would require overriding or
placating the statesand the prospects of that arent great.

Grid collapse is inevitable without the smart grid also makes

cyberterror inevitable
Lovins 10 Amory B, Chairman and Chief Scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute,
"DOD's Energy Challenge as Strategic Opportunity", Issue 57, 2nd Quarter 2010,
www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-57/lovins.pdf
Resilience combines efficient energy use with more
diverse, dispersed, renewable supply turning the loss of critical missions
The Resilience Capability

from energy supply failures

(by accident or malice)

from inevitable to near-

impossible .37 This capability is vital because the: [a]lmost complete dependence of
military installations on a fragile and vulnerable commercial power grid and
other critical national infrastructure places critical military and Homeland defense
missions at an unacceptably high risk of extended disruption. . . . [Backup
generators and their fuel supplies at military installations are generally sized] for only
shortterm commercial outages and seldom properly prioritized to critical
loads because those are often not wired separately from non-essential loads.
DODs approach to providing power to installations is based on assumptions that commercial power is highly

assumptions
are] . . . no longer valid and DOD must take a more rigorous risk-based
approach to assuring adequate power to its critical missions . 38 The 2008 DSB
Task Force found that the confluence of many risks to electric supply grid
overloads, natural disasters , sabotage or terrorism via physical or
reliable, subject to infrequent and short term outages, and backups can meet demands. [These

cyberattacks on the electric grid, and many kinds of interruptions to

generating plantshazards electricity dependent hydrocarbon delivery, the national economy,
social stability, and DODs mission continuity. The U.S. electric grid was named by the National
Academy of Engineering as the top engineering achievement of the 20th century. It is very capital-intensive,

usually reliable, but inherently brittle. It is

responsible for ~9899 percent of U.S. power failures, and occasionally blacking
complex, technologically unforgiving,

out large areas within seconds because the grid requires exact
synchrony across subcontinental areas and relies on components taking
years to build in just a few factories or one (often abroad), and can be interrupted
by a lightning bolt, rifle bullet, malicious computer program, untrimmed
branch, or errant squirrel . Grid vulnerabilities are serious, inherent, and
not amenable to quick fixes ; current Federal investments

in the smart grid

do

not even require simple mitigations . Indeed, the policy reflex to add more
and bigger power plants and power lines after each regional blackout
may make the next blackout more likely and severe , much as suppressing forest fires
can accumulate fuel loadings that turn the next unsuppressed fire into an uncontrollable conflagration.

Grid collapses cause extinction

Tilford 12 Robert, Graduate US Army Airborne School, Ft. Benning, Georgia,
Cyber attackers could shut down the electric grid for the entire east coast 2012,
http://www.examiner.com/article/cyber-attackers-could-easily-shut-down-theelectric-grid-for-the-entire-east-coa

a cyber attack that can take out a civilian power grid, for
example could also cripple the U.S. military. The senator notes that is that the same power
To make matters worse

grids that supply cities and towns, stores and gas stations, cell towers and heart monitors also power every

backup
diesel generators, within hours, not days, fuel supplies would run out, he
said. Which means military c ommand and c ontrol centers could go dark . Radar
military base in our country. Although bases would be prepared to weather a short power outage with

systems that detect air threats to our country would shut Down completely.
Communication between commanders and their troops would also go
silent. And many weapons systems would be left without either fuel or
electric power, said Senator Grassley. So in a few short hours or days, the
mightiest military in the world would be left scrambling to maintain base
functions, he said. We contacted the Pentagon and officials confirmed the threat of a cyber attack is
something very real. Top national security officialsincluding the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Director of the

the Secretary of Defense, and the CIA Director have

said, preventing a cyber attack and improving the nations electric grids
is among the most urgent priorities of our country (source: Congressional Record). So
National Security Agency,

how serious is the Pentagon taking all this? Enough to start, or end a war over it, for sure (see video: Pentagon

A cyber
attack today against the US could very well be seen as an Act of War
declares war on cyber attacks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kVQrp_D0kY&feature=relmfu ).

and could be met with a full scale US military response.

use of nuclear weapons , if authorized by the President.

That could include the

AT: Federalism Not Key

Yeah it is
Bewing 12

(Matt, Allgov, Government Watchdog Warns against Vulnerability of Electrical Grid,

http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/government-watchdog-warns-against-vulnerability-of-electrical-grid?
news=844805)

Federalismthe division of power between federal and state governments is making the
nations electrical grid less safe and more vulnerable to attack by thieves
as well as by terrorists. According to a new report released by the G overnment
A ccountability O ffice last week, the number of malicious software and online
attacks on U.S. computer networks has tripled in the last two years. Terrorists,
hackers, and other non-government groups all have the desire and are trying
to gain the ability to get into our electricity infrastructure , Gregory Wilhusen,
director for information security at GAO, said recently. The impact of widespread outages could have national
security implications. And, in residential areas, it not only affects homes and customers. It also has major effects on

Because electricity cannot be stored economically in large

quantities, it must be used as it is generated, which has prompted the
creation of a nationwide network, or smart grid, largely controlled via computers, that
attempts to measure energy use and distribute power seamlessly from
where it is generated to where it is needed. According to GAO, the lack of
commerce.

coordination between authorities tasked with energy security at the

federal level and those at the state and local level poses a real threat to
the security of those smart grids. The GAO report calls for tighter and
better coordinated cyber security efforts by federal agencies

to protect the U.S.

electricity grid, a potentially vulnerable target for U.S. enemies. The vulnerability of the grid was underscored by a
report released three weeks ago by the Department of Homeland Security Computer Emergency Response Team,
which reported attacks on organizations in the electrical energy sector in the U.S. increased more than tenfold in
just three years: from three attacks in 2009 to 31 in 2011. Although most of those attacks represented attempts to
avoid paying for electricity rather than terroristic threats to the power grid, some of the same vulnerabilities could
Although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) handles grid
security on a national scale, local authorities are in charge of security for smart grids within their jurisdictions,
be exploited by terrorists.

guided only by voluntary standards put in place by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. As the GAO
report points out, however,

FERC has no way of knowing whos adhering to those

standards . Without a good understanding of whether utilities and

manufacturers are following smart grid standards, it would be difficult for
FERC and other regulators to know whether a voluntary approach to
standards setting is effective or if changes are needed, according to the GAO report.

2NC Cyberattacks now

Cyber-attack is coming ---actors are probing grid weaknesses
Reed 10/11

John, Reports on the frontiers of cyber war and the latest in military technology for Killer Apps at
Foreign Policy, "U.S. energy companies victims of potentially destructive cyber intrusions", 2012,
killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/11/us_energy_companies_victims_of_potentially_destructive_cyber_attacks

Foreign actors are probing the networks of key American companies in an attempt to gain
control of industrial facilities and transportation systems, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed
tonight. "We know that foreign cyber actors are probing America's critical infrastructure
networks ," said Panetta, disclosing previously classified information during a speech in New York laying out the Pentagon's role in protecting the U.S. from cyber attacks.
"

They are targeting the computer control systems that operate chemical,

electricity and water plants, and those that guide transportation thorough the country." He went on to say that the U.S. government
knows of "specific instances where intruders have gained access" to these
systems -- frequently known as Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (or SCADA) systems -- and that "they are seeking to
create advanced tools to attack these systems and cause panic,
destruction and even the loss of life," according to an advance copy of his prepared remarks. The secretary said that a
coordinated attack on enough critical infrastructure could be a "cyber
Pearl Harbor" that would "cause physical destruction and loss of life,
paralyze and shock the nation, and create a profound new sense of
vulnerability ." While there have been reports of criminals using 'spear phishing' email attacks aimed at stealing information about American utilties,
Panetta's remarks seemed to suggest more sophisticated, nation-state backed
attempts to actually gain control of and damage power-generating
equipment. Panetta's comments regarding the penetration of American utilities echo those of a private
sector cyber security expert Killer Apps spoke with last week who said that the networks of
American electric companies were penetrated, perhaps in preparation for
a Stuxnet-style attack .

Stuxnet is the famous cyber weapon that infected Iran's uranium-enrichment centrifuges in 2009 and 2010. Stuxnet is believed

There is hard evidence that there has

been penetration of our power companies, and given Stuxnet, that is a
staging step before destruction" of electricity-generating equipment, the
expert told Killer Apps. Because uranium centrifuges and power turbines are both spinning machines, " the attack is identical -to have caused some of the machines to spin erratically, thereby destroying them. "

the one to take out the centrifuges and the one to take out our power
systems is the same attac k." "If a centrifuge running at the wrong speed
can blow apart" so can a power generator, said the expert. "If you do, in
fact, spin them at the wrong speeds, you can blow up any rotating device ."
Cyber security expert Eugene Kaspersky said two weeks ago that one of his
greatest fears is someone reverse-engineering a sophisticated cyber
weapon like Stuxnet -- a relatively easy task -- and he noted that Stuxnet itself passed through power plants on its
way to Iran. "Stuxnet infected thousands of computer systems all around the globe, I know there were power plants infected by Stuxnet very far away from Iran," Kaspersky said.

2NC Grid k2 Military

Grid failure wrecks US critical mission operations
Stockton 11 Paul, assistant secretary of defense for Homeland Defense and
Americas Security Affairs, Ten Years After 9/11: Challenges for the Decade to
Come, http://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=7.2.11

adversaries are seeking asymmetric

means to cripple our force projection, warfighting, and sustainment
capabilities, by targeting the critical civilian and defense supporting
assets (within the United States and abroad) on which our forces depend. This challenge is not limited to man-made threats; DoD must also execute its mission-essential
functions in the face of disruptions caused by naturally occurring hazards.20 Threats and hazards to DoD mission
execution include incidents such as earthquakes, naturally occurring
pandemics, solar weather events, and industrial accidents, as well as kinetic or virtual attacks by
state or non-state actors. Threats can also emanate from insiders with ties to foreign
counterintelligence organizations, homegrown terrorists, or individuals with a
The cyber threat to the DIB is only part of a much larger challenge to DoD. Potential

malicious agenda. From a DoD perspective, this global convergence of unprecedented threats and hazards, and vulnerabilities and consequences, is a particularly problematic reality of
the post-Cold War world. Successfully deploying and sustaining our military forces are increasingly a function of interdependent supply chains and privately owned infrastructure within
the United States and abroad, including transportation networks, cyber systems, commercial corridors, communications pathways, and energy grids. This infrastructure largely falls

actions to destroy, disrupt, or manipulate this highly

vulnerable homeland- and foreign-based infrastructure may be relatively
easy to achieve and extremely tough to counter. Attacking such soft, diffuse infrastructure systems could
significantly affect our military forces globally potentially blinding them,
neutering their command and control, degrading their mobility, and
isolating them from their principal sources of logistics support. The Defense Critical
outside DoD direct control. Adversary

Infrastructure Program (DCIP) under Mission Assurance seeks to improve execution of DoD assigned missions to make them more resilient. This is accomplished through the assessment
of the supporting commercial infrastructure relied upon by key nodes during execution. By building resilience into the system and ensuring this support is well maintained, DoD aims to
ensure it can "take a punch as well as deliver one."21 It also provides the department the means to prioritize investments across all DoD components and assigned missions to the most
critical issues faced by the department through the use of risk decision packages (RDP).22 The commercial power supply on which DoD depends exemplifies both the novel challenges
we face and the great progress we are making with other federal agencies and the private sector. Todays commercial electric power grid has a great deal of resilience against the sort of
disruptive events that have traditionally been factored into the grids design. Yet, the grid will increasingly confront threats beyond that traditional design basis.

This

complex risk environment includes: disruptive or deliberate attacks, either physical or cyber in nature; severe natural hazards such
as geomagnetic storms and natural disasters with cascading regional and national impacts (as in NLE 11); long supply chain lead times for key replacement electric power equipment;

automated control systems and other smart grid technologies without robust security; and more
These risks are magnified by globalization,
urbanization, and the highly interconnected nature of people, economies,
information, and infrastructure systems. The department is highly dependent on commercial power grids and energy
transition to

frequent interruptions in fuel supplies to electricity-generating plants.

sources. As the largest consumer of energy in the United States, DoD is dependent on commercial electricity sources outside its ownership and control for secure, uninterrupted power to
support critical missions. In fact, approximately 99 percent of the electricity consumed by DoD facilities originates offsite, while approximately 85 percent of critical electricity
infrastructure itself is commercially owned. This situation only underscores the importance of our partnership with DHS and its work to protect the nations critical infrastructure a
mission that serves not only the national defense but also the larger national purpose of sustaining our economic health and competitiveness. DoD has traditionally assumed that the
commercial grid will be subject only to infrequent, weather-related, and short-term disruptions, and that available backup power is sufficient to meet critical mission needs. As noted in

In most cases, neither the grid nor

on-base backup power provides sufficient reliability to ensure continuity
of critical national priority functions and oversight of strategic missions
in the face of a long term (several months) outage.23 Similarly, a 2009 GAO Report on Actions Needed to Improve the Identification and
the February 2008 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy,

Management of Electrical Power Risks and Vulnerabilities to DoD Critical Assets stated that DoD mission-critical assets rely primarily on commercial electric power and are vulnerable to

Moreover, these vulnerabilities may cascade into other

critical infrastructure that uses the grid communications, water,
transportation, and pipelines that, in turn, is needed for the normal
operation of the grid, as well as its quick recovery in emergency
situations. To remedy this situation, the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force recommended that DoD take a broad-based approach, including a focused analysis of
disruptions in electric power supplies.24

critical functions and supporting assets, a more realistic assessment of electricity outage cause and duration, and an integrated approach to risk management that includes greater

efficiency, renewable resources, distributed generation, and increased reliability. DoD Mission Assurance is designed to carry forward the DSB recommendations. Yet, for a variety of
reasons technical, financial, regulatory, and legal DoD has limited ability to manage electrical power demand and supply on its installations. As noted above, DHS is the lead agency
for critical infrastructure protection by law and pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7. The Department of Energy (DOE) is the lead agency on energy matters. And within
DoD, energy and energy security roles and responsibilities are distributed and shared, with different entities managing security against physical, nuclear, and cyber threats; cost and
regulatory compliance; and the response to natural disasters. And of course, production and delivery of electric power to most DoD installations are controlled by commercial entities
that are regulated by state and local utility commissions. The resulting paradox: DoD is dependent on a commercial power system over which it does not and never will exercise
control.

Loss of mission effectiveness causes nuclear war in every hotspot

Kagan and OHanlon 7 Frederick, resident scholar at AEI and Michael, senior
fellow in foreign policy at Brookings, The Case for Larger Ground Forces, April
2007, http://www.aei.org/files/2007/04/24/20070424_Kagan20070424.pdf

wars not only rage in nearly every region but threaten to

erupt in many places where the current relative calm is tenuous . To view this as
a strategic military challenge for the United States is not to espouse a specific
theory of Americas role in the world or a certain political philosophy. Such an assessment flows
directly from the basic bipartisan view of American foreign policy makers since World War II that overseas
threats must be countered before they can directly threaten this countrys
shores, that the basic stability of the international system is essential to
American peace and prosperity, and that no country besides the United States is in a
position to lead the way in countering major challenges to the global
order. Let us highlight the threats and their consequences with a few concrete examples,
emphasizing those that involve key strategic regions of the world such as
the Persian Gulf and East Asia, or key potential threats to American security,
such as the spread of nuclear weapons and the strengthening of the global Al
Qaeda/jihadist movement. The Iranian government has rejected a series of international demands to halt its
We live at a time when

efforts at enriching uranium and submit to international inspections. What will happen if the USor Israeli
government becomes convinced that Tehran is on the verge of fielding a nuclear weapon? North

Korea, of

course, has already done so, and the ripple effects are beginning to spread . Japans recent
election to supreme power of a leader who has promised to rewrite that countrys constitution to support increased
armed forcesand, possibly, even nuclear weapons may well alter the delicate balance of fear in Northeast Asia

Sino Taiwanese tensions

continue to flare, as do tensions between India and Pakistan, Pakistan and
Afghanistan, Venezuela and the United States, and so on. Meanwhile, the worlds
fundamentally and rapidly. Also, in the background, at least for now,

nonintervention in Darfur troubles consciences from Europe to Americas Bible Belt to its bastions of liberalism, yet

with no serious international forces on offer, the bloodletting will probably,

tragically, continue unabated. And as bad as things are in Iraq today, they could get worse. What would
happen if the key Shiite figure, Ali al Sistani, were to die? If another major attack on the scale of the Golden Mosque
bombing hit either side (or, perhaps, both sides at the same time)? Such deterioration might convince many
Americans that the war there truly was lostbut the costs of reaching such a conclusion would be enormous.
Afghanistan is somewhat more stable for the moment, although a major Taliban offensive appears to be in the

Sound US grand strategy must proceed from the recognition that,

over the next few years and decades, the world is going to be a very
unsettled and quite dangerous place, with Al Qaeda and its associated groups as a subset of a
much larger set of worries. The only serious response to this international
environment is to develop armed forces capable of protecting Americas
vital interests throughout this dangerous time . Doing so requires a
offing.

military capable of a wide range of missions including not only

deterrence of great power conflict in dealing with potential hotspots in

Korea, the Taiwan Strait, and the Persian Gulf but also associated with a variety of Special Forces
activities and stabilization operations. For todays US military, which already excels at high technology and is
increasingly focused on re-learning the lost art of counterinsurgency, this is first and foremost a question of finding
the resources to field a large-enough standing Army and Marine Corps to handle personnel intensive missions such
as the ones now under way in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let us hope there will be no such large-scale missions for a

preparing for the possibility, while doing whatever we can at this

late hour to relieve the pressure on our soldiers and Marines in ongoing
operations, is prudent. At worst, the only potential downside to a major program to strengthen the
military is the possibility of spending a bit too much money. Recent history shows no link
while. But

between having a larger military and its overuse ; indeed, Ronald Reagans time
in office was characterized by higher defense budgets and yet much less
use of the military, an outcome for which we can hope in the coming years, but hardly guarantee. While
the authors disagree between ourselves about proper increases in the size and cost of the military (with OHanlon
preferring to hold defense to roughly 4 percent of GDP and seeing ground forces increase by a total of perhaps
100,000, and Kagan willing to devote at least 5 percent of GDP to defense as in the Reagan years and increase the
Army by at least 250,000), we agree on the need to start expanding ground force capabilities by at least 25,000 a
year immediately. Such a measure is not only prudent, it is also badly overdue.

1NC Iraq NB
Nations model US federalism decisions demonstrates viability
of dual sovereignty
Bogen 3
(David, Professor of Law and T. Carroll Brown Scholar, University of Maryland School of Law. Hastings Law Journal,
55 Hastings L.J. 333)

In short, Congress has sufficient power to deal directly or indirectly with every form of national problem. The
decisions of the Court, however, demand that Congress demonstrate that the problem is a national one when its
scope is not obvious. This demand, and the need to use less direct instruments such as the spending power, force
Congress to confront the institutional issue as to which level of government can best deal with the problem. It also
makes state sovereignty a practical reality, so that most problems will be understood as state responsibility. There
are at least three advantages to maintaining federalism and not interpreting the privileges and immunities
clause to confer a general congressional power to legislate on personal security and property rights: it maximizes
popular satisfaction, it promotes experimentation, and it

provides a model on the international

level to reconcile national factions. The utilitarian argument for federalism is that it maximizes
satisfaction. A rule that satisfies the majority in each of the fifty states will be a much larger number than a rule
that satisfies the national majority but overrides local state majorities. The wrinkle is the weight to be assigned the
desire of persons in one state to have their rule adopted in a neighboring state where there is no significant
commercial effect on the first state from such an adoption. Congressional power should be sufficient to enable a
national majority to overcome local majorities when that desire is at a high level, but the stumbling blocks that the
Court has [*397] raised to preserve federalism may help preserve local preferences where the national interest is
low. The states have always been famed as the laboratories of experimentation. 332 With respect to individual
rights, the slow expansion of laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender orientation suggests that states may
be even more progressive than the national government, a government whose laws often preempt local attempts to
grapple with issues. It may well be that the huge amounts of financing necessary to run for national office create a
polarization that does not well reflect a majority. Raising money is easier for the more ideological candidates on
each side, and this promotes more strife and less cooperation in the national legislature. 333 Local campaigns are
cheaper and need not be as ideologically divisive. That creates the possibility of legislatures more amenable to

American federalism has been a

model throughout the world for bringing together diverse peoples under a
larger governmental structure. 334 The utility of a national economic policy
and a national foreign policy is apparent, but the tug of different ethnic
and cultural backgrounds makes this difficult. The breakaway republic of Chechnya in
working together on problems and creating new solutions. Finally,

Russia and the fear of separate status for Kurds in Turkey suggest the problems nations may have with significant
internal groups with different interests. The lack of autonomy for Tibet gives the Republic of China on Taiwan pause
about uniting with the Peoples Republic on the Mainland.

If the warning of the anti-federalists

comes true , that states cannot maintain their separate sovereignty

under a national government, the United States will no longer be the beacon
on the hill that gives hope for resolving this kind of international problem .
A viable federalism is therefore important, not just for the internal purposes of maximizing popular
satisfaction and fostering experimentation, but to demonstrate to a fractious world that
dual sovereignty is a viable form of government.

More decentralization causes civil war

Hayder al-Khoei 11, The Guardian, Iraq is not ready for division, December 27,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/iraq-federalism-division

In an article last Thursday, Ranj Alaaldin argued that Iraq's current problems can be traced back to the

federalism in order to
is the worst possible solution for Iraq now. To implement
federalism in this highly charged atmosphere sends the wrong message to
the people of Iraq and to the world. Federalism as a solution misdiagnoses the crisis. The
real problem is not centralised government but politicians who have failed the people. Iraq
centralisation of power in Baghdad, and suggested that the country must turn towards
overcome these issues. This

must wait until a rational debate on federalism can focus on good governance as opposed to defending sectarian

if calls for partition drown out those calling for calm and
patience, there will be another bloodbath reminiscent of the civil war in
2006-08. It would be impossible to implement widescale federalism now
without engaging in violent conflict. Theory is one thing, but the reality on the ground tells a
different story. Iraq has never in its history been neatly geographically divided
along ethno-sectarian lines. If the wheels of division were to come into
motion, Sunni, Shia and Kurdish forces would scramble to seize control of
mixed and disputed territories. Iraqis are not born savages who are incapable of living together
peacefully. Foreign-backed terrorists have long been exploiting domestic
quarrels to incite sectarian violence. Iraq must not fall into their trap .
Federalism may have worked wonders for the Kurds, but their success cannot be taken as a
blueprint for the rest of the country. The Kurds are an exception because they have had
de facto autonomous rule since 1991. That was a consequence of the brutality of the Ba'ath
identities. Otherwise,

regime. Today, Iraqi villages are not being gassed, mass graves are not being filled with hundreds of thousands of

The Kurdish
example, however, also illustrates that mere autonomy is not enough to
resolve conflict. In the mid-90s, the Kurds fought each other over resources in a bloody civil war that left
corpses, and entire towns and cities are not being cleansed by the central government.

thousands dead as rival political factions jockeyed for power. Today, the Kurdish region does fare better
economically and in terms of security, but politically the Kurds are mired by the same problems that affect the rest

corruption, nepotism, lack of transparency and accountability. These are

the real issues holding Iraq back and they need to be addressed more urgently than the
debate over federalism. It is equally important to highlight the nature of sectarianism in Iraq. We must
of Iraq:

be able to distinguish between pent-up hatreds that date back centuries and shrewd political manipulation.
Professor Eric Davis, a political scientist whose research includes the relationship between state power and
historical memory in modern Iraq, argues that the ethno-confessional model used to frame politics leads to a
vicious cycle that shapes the realities on the ground and adds to the misunderstanding. He argues that the onedimensional analysis fits the thinking of many policymakers who need to digest information quickly. A selfreinforcing cycle is created whereby analysts feed the elite, whose decisions only encourage further reductionist

We are in a real danger of talking Iraq to death. Perception is

even the most well-intentioned calls for keeping a
check on Baghdad can be translated as ripping apart the country . This isn't
and simplistic approaches.

dangerous in a country where

healthy for anyone except maybe those posed to gain immediately by their newfound power.

Iraq civil war goes global

Ferguson 6
(Harvard Prof, 9/11, The Next War of the World,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/the_next_war_of_the_world.html)

civil war in Iraq so disturbing is that it has the potential to spill

over into neighboring countries. The Iranian government is already taking more than a casual
What makes the escalating

interest in the politics of post-Saddam Iraq. And yet Iran, with its Sunni and Kurdish minorities, is no more

Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria cannot be expected to look

on insouciantly if the Sunni minority in central Iraq begins to lose out to what may
seem to be an Iranian-backed tyranny of the majority. The recent history of Lebanon offers a
reminder that in the Middle East there is no such thing as a contained civil war . Neighbors
homogeneous than Iraq.

are always likely to take an unhealthy interest in any country with fissiparous tendencies. The obvious conclusion is

a new "war of the world" may already be brewing in a region that, incredible though it
the ramifications of such a Middle
Eastern conflagration would be truly global. Economically, the world would
have to contend with oil at above $100 a barrel. Politically, those countries in western
that

may seem, has yet to sate its appetite for violence. And

Europe with substantial Muslim populations might also find themselves affected as sectarian tensions radiated
outward. Meanwhile, the ethnic war between Jews and Arabs in Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank shows no
sign of abating. Is it credible that the United States will remain unscathed if the Middle East erupts? Although such
an outcome may seem to be a low-probability, nightmare scenario, it is already more likely than the scenario of
enduring peace in the region. If the history of the twentieth century is any guide, only economic stabilization and a
credible reassertion of U.S. authority are likely to halt the drift toward chaos. Neither is a likely prospect. On the
contrary, the speed with which responsibility for security in Iraq is being handed over to the predominantly

Shiite and Kurdish security forces may accelerate the descent into internecine
strife. Significantly, the audio statement released by Osama bin Laden in June excoriated not only the Americanled "occupiers" of Iraq but also "certain sectors of the Iraqi people -- those who refused [neutrality] and stood to
fight on the side of the crusaders." His allusions to "rejectionists," "traitors," and "agents of the Americans" were
clearly intended to justify al Qaeda's policy of targeting Iraq's Shiites. The war of the worlds that H. G. Wells
imagined never came to pass. But a war of the world did. The sobering possibility we urgently need to confront is

another global conflict is brewing today -- centered not on Poland or Manchuria,

but more likely on Palestine and Mesopotamia.
that

2NC Iraq Overview

Fedaralism o/w and complicates the case
A. Vertical Escalation the probablility of our specific scenario
is functionally higher than the affs nebulus great power war
impact which is why you should default to the specifty of our
scenairos
B. Magnitude Civil war garuntees great power and middle
east draw in syria, the US, Iran, and Israel all have ties
vested in the Iraqi war and will protect their interests making
short term escalation inevitable.
C. Probablitly Iraq is already war torn and dissent between
the Shiites, and the Kurds are high without a model of
Federalism that tension can only escalate
Turns the economy A secretarian conflict in Iraq will cause oil
prices to sky rocket even higher and jack up the ability for our
economy to recover - even if the HSR provided jobs, they dont
resolve issues with foreign economies which are all related to
Oil Prices
Turns Air pollution Nuclear war means air pollution happens
because of soot in the atmosphere thats kicked up from the
plan
Iraq war triggers Pakistan collapse and global nuclear war
Morgan 7 (Former member of the British Labour Party Executive Committee, 3/4,
"Better another Taliban Afghanistan, than a Taliban NUCLEAR Pakistan!?"
http://www.electricarticles.com/display.aspx?id=639)

Iraq would take on gothic proportions across the

continent. The prophesy of an arc of civil war over Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq would spread to
south Asia, stretching from Pakistan to Palestine, through Afghanistan
into Iraq and up to the Mediterranean coast. Undoubtedly, this would also spill over into
India both with regards to the Muslim community and Kashmir. Border clashes, terrorist
attacks, sectarian pogroms and insurgency would break out. A new war, and
possibly nuclear war, between Pakistan and India could not be ruled out. Atomic
Al Qaeda Should Pakistan break down completely, a Taliban-style government with strong Al Qaeda
influence is a real possibility. Such deep chaos would, of course, open a Pandora's box for
the region and the world. With the possibility of unstable clerical and military
fundamentalist elements being in control of the Pakistan nuclear arsenal ,
not only their use against India, but Israel becomes a possibility, as well as
the acquisition of nuclear and other deadly weapons secrets by Al Qaeda .
Invading Pakistan would not be an option for America. Therefore a nuclear war would now again
The nightmare that is now

become a real strategic possibility. This would bring a shift in the tectonic plates of global
relations. It could usher in a new Cold War with China and Russia pitted
against the US.

1NC Disaster
Federalism prevents effective natural disaster response
Schneck 09 (Federalism and Its Impact on Emergency Response to Disasters and Catastrophes, Debra
Schneck, Graduate Student at the University of Indiana, April 24, 2009
http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop/publications/materials/conference_papers/Schneck_Spring%202009.pdf,)

There is preliminary evidence, supported in this paper by network analysis and anecdotal evidence,
to reach the conclusion that the general reluctance of the Mayor of New
Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana to relinquish control, based on their
perceived role within the American federalist system, led to further chaos
and confusion, complicating even further the emergency response to a
devastating hurricane and its consequences. The institution of federalism ,
so important in the American political system, and which supports in essence local and state response without

can be one of the critical challenges

to an effective response to a major disaster or catastrophe. Local and
state authorities, literally and figuratively, in the eye of the storm, may be reluctant to turn
over responsibilities for dealing with an emergency to federal entities,
thus federalizing the response.
federal interference to routine and smaller emergencies,

Unmitigated disasters cause extinction

SID-AHMED 05 (Mohamed, Al-Ahram Online, Jan 6-12, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op3.htm)
The human species has never been exposed to a natural upheaval of this magnitude within living memory. What happened in South
Asia is the ecological equivalent of 9/11. Ecological problems like global warming and climatic disturbances in general threaten to

The extinction of the species has become a very

real possibility, whether by our own hand or as a result of natural disasters of a much
greater magnitude than the Indian Ocean earthquake and the killer waves
it spawned. Human civilisation has developed in the hope that Man will be able to reach welfare and prosperity on earth for
make our natural habitat unfit for human life.

everybody. But now things seem to be moving in the opposite direction, exposing planet Earth to the end of its role as a nurturing

human conflicts have become less of a threat than the

confrontation between [Humanity] Man and Nature. At least they are less likely
to bring about the end of the human species. The reactions of Nature as a result of its exposure to the
place for human life. Today,

onslaughts of human societies have become more important in determining the fate of the human species than any harm it can

Until recently, the threat Nature represented was perceived as

likely to arise only in the long run, related for instance to how global warming would affect life on our
planet. Such a threat could take decades, even centuries, to reach a critical level. This perception has changed
following the devastating earthquake and tsunamis that hit the coastal regions of South Asia and,
less violently, of East Africa, on 26 December. This cataclysmic event has underscored the vulnerability of
our world before the wrath of Nature and shaken the sanguine belief that
the end of the world is a long way away. Gone are the days when we could comfort ourselves with the
inflict on itself.

notion that the extinction of the human race will not occur before a long-term future that will only materialise after millions of years
and not affect us directly in any way.

We are now forced to live with the possibility of an

imminent demise of humankind.

Ext. k2 Disaster
CP key to disaster relief
Landy 08 (Marc, iss professor of political science at Boston College, codirector of the BC Initiative for the
Study of Constitutional Democracy, and faculty chair of the BC Irish Institute., Mega-Disasters and
Federalism, http://www.disasterrecoveryresources.net/PAR-Nov2008.htm.pdf)

D isaster response and recovery put federalism to an especially difficult

test because they require speed, efficiency, and effective coordination.
These are not the strong suits of a federal system involving three
separate levels of government, each of which contains a variety of
individual agencies and governing structures with interest in and
responsibility for some aspect of the problem. Such difficulties are
greatly amplified when the disasters effects are of the unprecedented
size and scope of Hurricane Katrina.

2NC Ethics Impact

This is Not acceptable
Human Rights Watch 05 [New Orleans: Prisoners Abandoned to
Floodwaters, http://www.hrw.org/news/2005/09/21/new-orleans-prisonersabandoned-floodwaters]

As Hurricane Katrina began pounding New Orleans, the sheriff's

department abandoned hundreds of inmates imprisoned in the citys jail,
Human Rights Watch said today. Inmates in Templeman III, one of several buildings in the Orleans Parish Prison

there were no correctional officers in the

building, which held more than 600 inmates. These inmates, including some who were locked in
ground-floor cells, were not evacuated until Thursday, September 1, four days
compound, reported that as of Monday, August 29,

after flood waters in the jail had reached chest-level.

Of all the nightmares during

Hurricane Katrina, this must be one of the worst, said Corinne Carey, researcher from Human Rights Watch.
Prisoners

were abandoned in their cells without food or water for days as

floodwaters rose toward the ceiling. Human Rights Watch called on the U.S. Department of
Justice to conduct an investigation into the conduct of the Orleans Sheriff's Department, which runs the jail, and to
establish the fate of the prisoners who had been locked in the jail. The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
Corrections, which oversaw the evacuation, and the Orleans Sheriffs Department should account for the 517
inmates who are missing from the list of people evacuated from the jail. Carey spent five days in Louisiana,
conducting dozens of interviews with inmates evacuated from Orleans Parish Prison, correctional officers, state
officials, lawyers and their investigators who had interviewed more than 1,000 inmates evacuated from the prison.

The sheriff of Orleans Parish, Marlin N. Gusman, did not call for help in evacuating the
prison until midnight on Monday , August 29, a state Department of Corrections and Public Safety
spokeswoman told Human Rights Watch. Other parish prisons, she said, had called for help on the previous
Saturday and Sunday. The evacuation of Orleans Parish Prison was not completed until Friday, September 2.
According to officers who worked at two of the jail buildings, Templeman 1 and 2, they began to evacuate prisoners
from those buildings on Tuesday, August 30, when the floodwaters reached chest level inside. These prisoners were
taken by boat to the Broad Street overpass bridge, and ultimately transported to correctional facilities outside New

there was no prison staff to

help the prisoners. Inmates interviewed by Human Rights Watch varied about when they last remember
seeing guards at the facility, but they all insisted that there were no correctional
officers in the facility on Monday, August 29. A spokeswoman for the Orleans parish sheriffs
Orleans. But at Templeman III, which housed about 600 inmates,

department told Human Rights Watch she did not know whether the officers at Templeman III had left the building

they had no food or

water from the inmates' last meal over the weekend of August 27-28 until
they were evacuated on Thursday, September 1. By Monday, August 29, the generators had died,
leaving them without lights and sealed in without air circulation. The
before the evacuation. According to inmates interviewed by Human Rights Watch,

toilets backed up, creating an unbearable stench. They left us to die

there,

Dan Bright, an Orleans Parish Prison inmate told Human Rights Watch at Rapides Parish Prison, where

he was sent after the evacuation. As the water began rising on the first floor, prisoners became anxious and then
desperate. Some of the inmates were able to force open their cell doors, helped by inmates held in the common
area. All of them, however, remained trapped in the locked facility. The water started rising, it was getting to
here, said Earrand Kelly, an inmate from Templeman III, as he pointed at his neck. We was calling down to the
guys in the cells under us, talking to them every couple of minutes.

They were crying, they were

scared.

The one that I was cool with, he was saying I'm scared. I feel like I'm about to drown.' He was crying.

Some inmates from Templeman III have said they saw bodies floating in the floodwaters as they were evacuated
from the prison. A number of inmates told Human Rights Watch that they were not able to get everyone out from
their cells. Inmates broke jail windows to let air in. They also set fire to blankets and shirts and hung them out of
the windows to let people know they were still in the facility. Apparently at least a dozen inmates jumped out of the
windows. We started to see people in T3 hangin' shirts on fire out the windows, Brooke Moss, an Orleans Parish
Prison officer told Human Rights Watch. They were wavin' em. Then we saw them jumping out of the windows . . .
Later on, we saw a sign, I think somebody wrote `help' on it. As of yesterday, signs reading Help Us, and One
Man Down, could still be seen hanging from a window in the third floor of Templeman III. Several corrections
officers told Human Rights Watch there was no evacuation plan for the prison, even though the facility had been
evacuated during floods in the 1990s. It was complete chaos, said a corrections officer with more
than 30 years of service at Orleans Parish Prison. When asked what he thought happened to the inmates in
Templeman III, he shook his head and said: Ain't no tellin what happened to those people. At

best, the
inmates were left to fend for themselves, said Carey. At worst, some may
have died. Human Rights Watch was not able to speak directly with Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin N.
Gussman or the ranking official in charge of Templeman III. A spokeswoman for the sheriffs department told Human
Rights Watch that search-and-rescue teams had gone to the prison and she insisted that nobody drowned, nobody
was left behind. Human Rights Watch compared an official list of all inmates held at Orleans Parish Prison
immediately prior to the hurricane with the most recent list of the evacuated inmates compiled by the state
Department of Corrections and Public Safety (which was entitled, All Offenders Evacuated). However, the list did

Many of the men held at

jail had been arrested for offenses like criminal trespass , public
not include 517 inmates from the jail, including 130 from Templeman III.

drunkenness or disorderly conduct. Many had not even been brought

before a judge and charged, much less been convicted.

The alternative is mass violence through a politics of

disposibility
Giroux, Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the
English and Cultural Studies Department, in 12
[Henry, Hurricane Sandy in the Age of Disposability and Neoliberal Terror,
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13025-hurricane-sandy-in-the-age-ofdisposability#XXXVI]

The winners in the disposable society circulate close to the top of the
power pyramid.... Those who can't afford to be on the move stand little
chance.... Market freedom means few people have a hold on the present
and that everyone is expendable. -- Zygmunt Bauman In the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina, shocking images of dead bodies floating in the flood waters of
New Orleans appeared on national TV against a sound track of desperate cries for help by
thousands of poor, black, brown, elderly and sick people. These disturbing pictures revealed a
vulnerable and destitute segment of the nation's citizenry that
conservatives not only refused to see as such, but had spent the better
part of three decades demonizing. But the haunting images of the

abandoned, desperate and vulnerable would not go away and for a

moment imposed themselves on the collective conscience of Americans,
demanding answers to questions that were never asked about the existence of those populations excluded from the
American dream and abandoned to their own limited resources in the midst of a major natural disaster.

But

that moment soon passed as the United States faced another disaster:
The country plunged into an economic turmoil ushered in by finance capital and the
apostles of Wall Street in 2008.1 Consequently, an additional instance of widespread hardship and suffering soon
bore down on lower-middle and working-class people who would lose their jobs, homes, health care and their

Hurricane Sandy not only failed to arouse a heightened sense of

moral outrage and call for justice, it has quickly, if not seamlessly, been
dignity.

woven into a narrative that denied those larger economic and political
forces, mechanisms and technologies by which certain populations when
exposed to a natural catastrophe are rendered human waste . One reason
for this case of historical amnesia and ethical indifference may lie in the emerging vicissitudes of
an era eager to accommodate rather than challenge global warming, an era in which freakish weather events have
become such commonplace occurrences that they encourage the denial of planetary destruction. These days
Americans are quickly fatigued by natural catastrophe. Major natural disasters and their consequences are now
relegated to the airborne vocabulary of either fate or the unyielding circumstance of personal tragedy, conveniently
allowing an ethically cleansed American public to ignore the sordid violence and suffering they produce for those
populations caught in the grip of poverty, deprivation and hardship. It gets worse.

Catastrophes have

not only been normalized , they have been reduced to the spectacle of
titillating TV. Rather than analyzed within broader social categories such
as power, politics, poverty, race and class, the violence produced by
natural disasters is now highly individualized, limited to human interest
stories about loss and individual suffering. Questions concerning how the violence of
Hurricane Sandy impacted differently those groups marginalized by race, age, sickness and class, particularly
among poor minorities, were either downplayed or ignored. To read more articles by Henry Giroux and other
authors in the Public Intellectual Project, click here. Lost in both the immediacy of the recovery efforts and the
public discourse in most of the mainstream media were the abandoned fates and needless suffering of residents in
public-housing apartments from Red Hook to the Lower East Side, to the poorest sections of the Rockaway Peninsula
and other neglected areas along the east coast of New Jersey. These are populations ravaged by poverty,
unemployment and debt. Even though inequality has become one of the most significant factors making certain
groups vulnerable to storms and other types of disasters, matters of power and inequality in income, wealth and
geography rarely informed the mainstream media's analysis of the massive destruction and suffering caused by
Sandy. 2 And yet, out of 150 countries, the United States has the fourth highest wealth disparity.3 As Joseph Stiglitz
points out, "Nowadays, these numbers show that the American dream is a myth. There is less equality of
opportunity in the United States today than there is in Europe - or, indeed, in any advanced industrial country for
which there are data."4 Inequality and social disparity are not simply about the concentration of wealth and income
into fewer hands, they are also about the unequal use of power, the shaping of policies and the privileging of a
conservative wealthy minority who have accumulated vast amounts of wealth. America is paying a high price for its
shameful levels of inequality and this became particularly clear when certain populations in Manhattan received aid
more quickly than others in the post-Hurricane Sandy reconstruction efforts. Not surprising, given that Manhattan,
one of the epicenters of the storm's savagery, has a level of inequality that not only stands out but rivals parts of
sub-Saharan Africa.5 Within this geography of massive income and wealth inequality, 20 percent of Manhattan
residents made $392,022 a year on average [and] the poorest made $9,681. Yet, even though lower Manhattan
was a low priority for receiving government and private relief efforts, neither its vulnerability nor the iniquitous
treatment it was accorded was factored into post-Sandy media coverage.6 Sandy lay bare what many people did
not want to see: a throwaway society that not only endlessly created material waste, but one all too willing to
produce and dispose of what it interprets as human waste. What is clear in this case is that while some attention
was focused on the first responders who lost their homes in Breezy Point and the poor elderly trapped for days in
housing projects, "facing cold temperatures, food shortages," electrical failures and lack of proper medical care,
these are populations whose lives are for the most part considered "unreal," occupying a space of invisibility where
hardships are rarely seen or heard.7 But

more was revealed in this disaster than the

painful registers of exclusion, mass suffering and the inability of

government to provide timely help to those most vulnerable and in need
of aid . Hurricane Sandy also revealed the gaping and dystopian fault lines of
those disasters exacerbated by human actions in a society wracked by
vast differences in power, income, wealth, resources and opportunities. In
this instance a natural catastrophe merged with forms of sustained
moral/social neglect and a discourse of symbolic violence to reveal a set of
underlying determinants, a grammar of human suffering.

Aff

No UQ
Plan doesnt uniquely cause a net loss of federalisma single
federal action cant change it that drastically
Not reverse causal
Unfunded mandate now
a.) Education mandates
Petrill 1/25/13 (http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/flypaper/2013/the-obamaadministration-invents-a-right-to-wheelchair-basketball.html)
The modern Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (TBFF) was established in 1997. TBFF traces its origin to 1959, when
the late Thelma Fordham Pruett founded it in memory of her first husband, an Ohio industrialist who passed away in
1945. It was virtually re-launched in 1997, following Mrs. Pruetts death. Her estate provided the Foundation with an
infusion of resources that led to the expansion of its board and the development of a coherent mission and
program: the renewal and reform of primary/secondary education in the United States and in Dayton, Ohio,
particularly. Let me acknowledgesincerelythat I love wheelchair basketball. I would vote for
candidates to public office who would provide funding for inclusive athletics and would be proud if my sons

Yet it boggles my mind that the

Obama Administration, without an ounce of public debate or deliberation, without an iota of
Congressional authorization or approval, could declare by fiat that public
schools nationwide must provide such programs or risk their federal education funding.
Talk about executive overreach! Talk about a regulatory rampage! Talk about an enormous
schools offered such programs to their special-needs students.

unfunded mandate !

b.) Medicaid expansion

Woolsey 4/25/13 (staff, baton rouge business journal
http://batonrougebusinessjournal.com/2013/04/25/expanding-medicaid-is-a-huge-unfunded-mandate/)

Expanding Medicaid is a Huge Unfunded Mandate

FACT SHEET OBAMACARES

MEDICAID EXPANSION In advance of todays hearings on legislation on President Obamas Medicaid expansion, here

after the initial frontloading from the

Obamacares Medicaid expansion will have a NEGATIVE
impact on the State General Fund in the out-years. The LFO says both models reflect a net SGF
cost beginning in year 7 (2020), and in future years. That means expanding Medicaid is a huge
unfunded mandate that is unsustainable.
are some important facts to keep in mind: The LFO says that
federal government,

Links to Politics
Triggers backlash destroys the political IMPACT of the aff.
The CP just provokes anger over the money instead of
advancing a substantive political discussion
Baltimore sun 2/14/13 (http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/harford/news/ph-ag-edit-mandate0215-20130214,0,706983.story#ixzz2RgnufEI5)

For example, if Congress passes a law to cut pollution going into the Chesapeake Bay and other sensitive
waterways for the purpose of improving commercial fisheries stocks, it's hard to find people to express opposition.
When cutting pollution translates to improving stormwater management ponds to keep runoff pollution from getting

when the federal government

requires the state or county to spend money on stormwater management, officials in
local government cry "foul." Curiously, local and state governments have no trouble applying for
into the water, the tone of the conversation shifts. Then,

grant money, especially for things like roadway improvements, business development or, in bad times, disaster
aid. It's not much of a mystery how this situation has evolved. In the post-World War II era and well into the 1970s,
under administrations of both major parties,

the federal government tended to coax state

and local governments into making policy changes by offering federal
money in exchange. The 55 mph national speed limit is an example of how this worked, or, more
accurately, didn't work.

CP => Racism
Fights over jurisdiction ensures continued racism and the
collapse of the environment.
Collin & Collin 05 (Robert W. Collin and Robin Morris Collin 2005, Environmental Reparations in THE
QUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE POLITICS OF POLLUTION, Robert D. Bullard, ed.,
Sierra Club Books, 2005)

Antiurban attitudes, covert and institutionalized or normalized racism, and

conscious ignorance can undo efforts to resolve nearly any contemporary
environmental problem. Cities are where waste streams meet and accumulate. Cities are also
becoming increasingly brown and black in their demographic composition. And cities are where the voters

The profoundly antiurban messages

of many U.S. environmentalists and their grounding in racist ideology;
parochial land use practices; and the resistance of scientific elites to
confronting the phenomenon of multiple, chronic, cumulative, and
bioaccumulative toxins in the risk decisions they make, all threaten human
health and living systems on which we depend. Largely without support from the
necessary for changing governmental policies are located.

mainstream environmental groups and scientific elites, environmental justice communities are struggling against
these barriers to build the framework for a reparative, restorative environmental policy based on justice first, then

Antiurban and racist values have left critical gaps in our

approaches to environmental justice, protection, and sustainability. This
sustainability.

antiurban attitude within mainstream environmentalism masks an unconscious racism that threatens to replicate
racist outcomes even without conscious intent. All environmental problems are local in some sense. They can be
local in terms of the cause, source, or impact of the waste stream, including all emissions, discharges, and pollution.
As waste streams increase and accumulate, environmental problems have begun to affect areas outside of the
immediate locations where waste streams are created. This is particularly true of urban environments. Urban
environments are complex. They became the sites of industrialism years before any governmental regulation, and
the main sites for human habitat years before knowledge about the human health risks of industrialism. They are
also important aspects of ecosystems and bioregions. As wastes, emissions, discharges, and pollution have
accumulated in our cities, they have begun to affect air sheds and watersheds of ecosystems near and far from the
sources of the pollution. As both wastes and human population increase, they are brought closer together,
increasing conflict over environmental decisions. This conflict can take many different forms, such as land use
disputes, industrial permitting decisions, court cases, or conflicts over public mass transit projects. In addition,
urban dwellers increasingly are people of color who define environment and environmental concern much more
holistically than the general population does. This broader approach to environmentalism is at odds with the
approaches of mainstream environmental groups, which evolved out of a wilderness-conservation political agenda.
1 The U.S. environmental movement has operated to exclude the concerns of urban dwellers and people of color
from the environmental movement and to exclude urban dwellers and people of color from the traditional posts
within government devoted to environmental concerns.2 The exclusion of people of color is repeated over and over
again, as government and environmentali.sts react to social concerns about the deteriorating environment. Urban
environments in particular have been ignored in the U.S. environmental movement and in governmental policies
developed to address the environment.3 Traditionally, mainstream environmental activists, public policy officials,
and researchers have narrowly conceptualized environmental concerns. Their vision tends to be limited to the
media of pollution-air, water, and land-and it ignores public health indicators. This vision shaped the form of current
environmental protection agencies, creating artificial barriers to protection with racist and antiurban consequences.
According to Robert Bullard, "When we restrict the boundary conditions of 'environmental concern' to include only
environmental impacts related to air, water, land, ... we tend to ignore critical impacts to sociocultural and cultural

assigning public health and the various environmental

indicators to different federal, state, and local agencies decreases our
ability to look at the picture of environmental and community health
indicators together. It introduces turf battles between agencies into the
basic activities of gathering data and making risk management decisions
regarding this fragmented data. This disconnection between public health
and environmental indicators is repeated at all levels of government.
systems. "4 Further,

Environmentalists themselves have not seriously examined their own negative attitudes toward cities generally and
toward African Americans specifically. From the very beginning of our history in the United States, our political
leaders thought of cities as having negative effects on people and as having a corrupting force on democracy.
Thomas Jefferson thought of cities as "pestilential to the morals, the health and the liberties of man."5 He went on
to write, The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength
of the human body. It is the manner and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these
[cities] is a canker which so eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.6 In the early 190os, people began to refer
to cities as "jungles" and "wilderness." Later, whites were called "urban pioneers" when they moved back into the
cities they had abandoned for suburbs. This potent metaphor of the city as frontier or jungle reveals a certain
attitude toward African Americans. It implies that cities can become civilized only when whites are the majority

This attitude pervades the contemporary environmental movement

in countless unexamined ways. Waste sites called "brownfields" are the domain of brown and black
population.

city dwellers, while "greenfields" remain predominantly white, suburban, nonindustrialized spaces. Zero population
activists and anti-immigration environmental policies continue to promote a vision of land dominated by white
culture as the standard and as worthy of having environmental protection .

In their discourses, most

advocates of sustainability segregate communities of color and ignore
them, making exceptions only for token references to Native Americans as the only people of color possessing an
authentic environmental ethic. Sustainable policies must be the first exception to the
normative rule of exclusionary environmental decision making.

AT: Federalism Turns the Case

Permutation: do both federal and state coordination solves
best
SDR 05 subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (Subcommittee on Disaster
Reduction, http://www.sdr.gov/docs/185820_Tsunami_FINAL.pdf, pg 1)

The Indian Ocean tsunami of December 26, 2004 gave rise to levels of loss and
grief unprecedented in the history of natural hazards in the region. The massive
impact was due to a lack of public awareness, effective warning systems,
and implementation of mitigation measures. For example, rapid evacuation to inland areas
would have saved many lives. Recognizing the complexity and scope of the sustained
efforts needed to ensure tsunami risk reduction in the decades to come,
hazard assessment, accurate warnings, response planning, and new or
improved actions in public awareness, mitigation, and research are
needed. All of these efforts require sustained coordination, attention, and
support on the Federal, state, and local level. The National Science and
Technology Councils 2005 report, Tsunami Risk Reduction for the United States: A Framework for Action,
calls on the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, a Federal-state partnership led by
NOAA, to develop, coordinate and sustain an effective and efficient
tsunami risk reduction effort in the United States over the long term.

No Impact Federalism
Courts will check any snowball
Nagel 1 (Robert F., Law Professor, University of Colorado, March, ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, p. 53)
In what appears to be an ambitious campaign to enhance the role of the states in the federal system, the
Supreme Court has recently issued a series of rulings that limit the power of the national
government. Some of these decisions, which set boundaries to Congress's power to regulate commerce and
to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, establish areas that are subject (at least in theory)
only to state regulation. Others protect the autonomy of state governments by restricting
congressional authority to expose state governments to suit in either state or federal courts and to
"commandeer" state institutions for national regulatory purposes. Taken together, these decisions
seem to reflect a judgment held by a slight majority of the justices that the dramatic expansion of the
national government during the twentieth century has put in jeopardy fundamental principles of
constitutional structure.

UM Fails
leads to bad regs kills econ
AGC No Date (The Associated General Contractors of America, THE CASE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE &
REFORM Why and How the Federal Government Should Continue to Fund Vital Infrastructure in the New Age of
Public Austerity, http://www.agc.org/galleries/news/Case-for-Infrastructure-Reform.pdf)
In other cases,

the federal government has an obligation to invest in

infrastructure to avoid imposing costs on U.S. businesses and imposing

unfunded mandates on state and local governments . For example, local
governments had long been responsible for paying to maintain and operate
water systems. That meant only major cities and wealthy towns had access to modern water systems. Much
of that changed when the federal government began mandating quality
standards for drinking water and wastewater discharge through legislation like the Clean Water Act and Safe
Drinking Water Act. These standards were in the best interest of the nation, ensuring protection
of public health and environmental quality . By mandating quality
standards, however, the federal government forces local governments to
spend billions of dollars to upgrade equipment and comply with regulatory
burdens. The federal government must not foist the burden of maintaining
national standards onto local ratepayers alone. Given that it is in the federal interest to
set water quality standards, then so too must it be in the federal interest to provide primarily in the form of state

Federal
investments in infrastructure also are often the best way to ensure the
health, safety and economic vitality of sparsely populated rural
communities. Many rural communities, indeed many rural states, lack the resources
revolving loan funds financing help to operators so they can meet those standards.

needed to finance the construction of major infrastructure projects like

interstate highways, safe drinking water systems, irrigation facilities or floodwater protection. The federal
government is uniquely suited to supporting infrastructure investments in these rural communities, especially when
so much of our nation depends on the commercial traffic that travels through them and the agricultural products

federal investments in
infrastructure also save taxpayers money. That is because it costs a lot less
to maintain infrastructure than it does to repair it. Either we can make regular
that come from them.6 Perhaps counter intuitively, regular

investments in maintaining the quality and integrity of our existing infrastructure, or we can make significantly
larger investments in repairing infrastructure once it is broken. In addition to having to pay more to repair that

Americans are likely to bear the burden of lost or damaged lives

and lost economic opportunity that inevitably come when vital pieces of
infrastructure fail.
infrastructure,

States No Money
They have no money! And econ DA to the Cp
Pollack 11 - Economic Policy Institute; Office of Management and Budget and
the George Washington Institute of Public Policy; staff member for President
Obamas National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform; M.P.P. The
George Washington University (Ethan, Two years into austerity and counting,
October 19, http://www.epi.org/blog/years-austerity-counting/)

Its popular to criticize Keynesian economics by alleging that the Recovery

Act was an experiment in fiscal expansion, and because two-and-a-half
years later the economy still hasnt roared back to life, it must have failed.
What this criticism forgets is that the federal government isnt the only
government setting fiscal policy. While the federal government did
conduct Keynesian expansionary fiscal policy over the last few years, the
states have been doing the reverse , acting, as Paul Krugman put it, like
50 Herbert Hoovers as they cut budgets and raise taxes. Theyre forced
to do this because the cratering of private-sector spending which threw
the economy into recession blew huge holes in their budgets (in particular with a
huge fall in income, sales, and property taxes, and increases in demands on safety-net programs), and just
about all of them are required to balance their budgets each year. Overall, states have
had to close over $400 billion in shortfalls over the last few years this is spending
power siphoned off from the economy and acts as a significant antistimulus . This means that just looking at the amount of federal stimulus thats been enacted significantly
overestimates how much fiscal support has actually been pumped into the economy. In fact, as the Goldman Sachs
graph below shows, the net fiscal expansion across all levels of government only lasted through the third quarter of

state and local cuts have been overwhelming the

federal fiscal expansion, making overall fiscal policy across all levels of
government actually contractionary and creating a net drag on economic
growth. Whats needed to reverse this drag of public-sector austerity on
growth? The $35 billion for state and local aid thats part of the American Jobs Act is a good start, as
it would help keep states and local governments from being forced to cut
further. As the last two years of austerity have shown, this would only serve to further weaken
the economy. And if were going to get out of this economic hole, we first need to stop digging down further .
2009. For the last two years,

Roll Back
CP gets rolled back SC decision
Super 05 (David Super, A.B., Princeton; J.D., Harvard.Georgetown Law Department, Rethinking Fiscal
Federalism, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 118, No. 8 (Jun., 2005), pp. 2544-2652, JSTOR)

The Court's jurispruence on funding conditions has developed as an

offshoot of its decisions on direct federal regulation of states. This tie has led the Court to ask
whether funding conditions are, in fact, tantamount to direct regulation . In South Dakota v. Dole,'42
the Court held that they are not because states are free to decline the
federal aid, freeing themselves from the conditions imposed .'43 The Court has
thereby roughly mimicked UMRA's exemption for mandates with costs that the state can offset through other
programmatic changes.

Cp is unconstitutional kills state sovereignty.

Super 05 (David Super, A.B., Princeton; J.D., Harvard.Georgetown Law Department, Rethinking Fiscal
Federalism, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 118, No. 8 (Jun., 2005), pp. 2544-2652, JSTOR)

the Supreme Court's reliance on states' consent creates serious

problems in itself. We do not allow individuals to sell them- selves into
slavery during times of economic desperation, after all, and one can reasonably argue that
states similarly should not be extorted into giving away the essentials of
their sovereignty. Perhaps in recognition of this problem, some commentators have
suggested that certain conditions could be so inherently intrusive as to be
constitutionally impermissible, even with the state's consent.146 One can imagine, for
example, that denying a state participation in Medicaid unless it moves its
state capital might so offend the state's dignity and sovereignty as to be
intolerable . Applying this principle, however, raises problems of its own - specifically, the delineation
of the essential at- tributes of state sovereignty . The absence of a clear
consensus identifying those attributes invites tendentious definitions and ad hoc
deci- sionmaking of the kind the Court has repeatedly attempted with little Success.147 Concerns
about possible federal extortion have led some scholars to suggest that federal conditions should
be broadly disallowed as presumptively intrusive on state sovereignty .148 This proposal
is in some ways even more myopic than approaches relying on states' consent, and it risks savaging the
states in the name of saving them. Although disallowance would shield states from unpleasant
Moreover,

conditions, it likely would deprive them of considerable revenue.

CP Fails Regulation
Regs means they say no
Melling 95 (Tom, Law Clerk to the Honorable Jerome Farris Bruce Babbitt's Use of Governmental Dispute
Resolution: A Mid-Term Report Card, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Land and Water Law Review)

Making a unilateral decision and then informing a group (whose members are already irritated about
some public policy matter) that they will work for consensus probably does little to predispose people to be
agreeable. It would be better to convey to the group a sense of the alternative approaches available for decision making given the specific situation (e.g. type of issue,
time constraints, numbers of stakeholders, etc.), and then have the group come to a decision about which path to pursue. 26 In addition, voluntariness means that the interested parties,

Each side must have the autonomy to pursue alternatives that are in their self-interest-they can genuinely support. If a dispute resolution process is not
voluntary, conflict will very likely continue.
not outsiders, must set the agenda. 27
alternatives that

Double bind either the CP doesnt develop concensus so

states say no, or they consult too many states kills solvency
Melling 95 (Tom, Law Clerk to the Honorable Jerome Farris Bruce Babbitt's Use of Governmental Dispute
Resolution: A Mid-Term Report Card, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Land and Water Law Review)

In order to develop consensus, interested parties must have an

opportunity to partake in the process that creates the consensus. n37 If a
party is excluded from a process, any proclaimed resolution almost
certainly [*65] will not satisfy their interests. n38 For example, at the Northwest Timber Summit,
environmentalists never had a chance to participate in the negotiations that produced the "compromise." n39 They
had no stake in the final result and consequently not only refused to support it, but also fought it in the courts. n40
The requirement that all groups must have an opportunity to participate in the process, however, can cause

If a large number of parties are involved, collaborative dispute

resolution becomes infinitely more complicated and often fails . n41 For example,
agency rulemaking by mediation may not be appropriate for disputes
concerning more than fifteen groups. n42 A related problem arises with the selection of
appropriate representatives for large decentralized groups. Members of a large group may have
differing viewpoints that cannot be expressed by a single voice or
representative. If a group does not have a binding process to select a
representative, various factions may not consent to the final outcome. n43
complications.

CP -> Taxes
Forces tax raises that results in delays and other budget cuts
Etzkorn 11 (Lars, National League of Cities, Local Government Call on Congress to Limit Unfunded Mandates,
http://www.nlc.org/news-center/nations-cities-weekly/articles/2011/february/local-government-call-on-congress-to-limit-unfunded-mandates, // Veevz)

Patricia Douglas, mayor of the city of Edmond, Okla., testified on behalf of local governments this week at a hearing
on unfunded mandates and regulatory overreach. The hearing, the first held by the new
House Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, was
chaired by Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.). With apparently

little check and balance, federal

regulators can dramatically affect the budgets and staff structure of state
and local governments, Lankford said. Mayor Douglas agreed, saying each time cities face
an unfunded mandate, we are forced to choose between raising taxes,
cutting services or delaying needed infrastructure projects .

However, the

ranking minority member of the subcommittee, Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.) cautioned that it was important to
distinguish between unfunded mandates imposed on state and local governments, which he doesnt support, and
regulations of businesses. Connolly cited limits on power plant emissions as an example: when

the
private sector is engaged in activity that places public health or safety at
risk, those actions should be regulated. Much of the hearing focused on the current
effectiveness of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which sought to limit the growth
of federal legislation that imposed costs on state and local governments by
creating a Congressional point of order that could be used to help prevent the enactment of bills creating them.

The counterplan chokes off the recoverystate spending cuts

and tax increases compound shortfalls in aggregate demand.
Backman 11 Daniel Backman, Staff Writer for the Harvard Political Review, undergraduate political
science student at Harvard University, 2011 (The State Budget Squeeze, Harvard Political Review, December 10th,
Available Online at http://hpronline.org/united-states/the-state-budget-squeeze/)

As Americas economic recovery crawls forward, its states suffer from

depleted revenues and large spending commitments . Experts project
between $30 billion and $40 billion in combined state budget deficits for
fiscal year 2012. Though the federal government runs deficits during
recessions to fund expansionary policies, many states are constrained by
constitutional balanced budget requirements . They must close deficits by
cutting spending and raising taxes , choking recovery with behaviors
that compound macroeconomic problems.

Kills State Budgets

Conlan AND Ray 96 (Marcella Ridlen Ray is a doctoral candidate in the
Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University, Timothy J. Conlan is associate
professor of government and politics at George Mason University, At What Price?
Costs of Federal Mandates since the 1980s, JSTOR, Winter 1996 )

these regulations represent substantial costs on affected

state and local jurisdictions. Nevertheless, costs of this magnitude fall short of
the crushing burden often claimed by some participants in the mandate
cost debate. For example, the Na? tional Conference of State Legislatures has estimated that bills directly
Viewed as a whole,

attributable to federal mandates can account for up to 25 percent of a state's annual general fund bud? get (Wnuk
1993,13). And the Williamsburg Resolve, adopted by the 1994 Republican Governors Conference, states that

unfunded mandates will commandeer one-fourth of all local revenues by

1998 (Hittinger 1995). In contrast, the 15 programs we examined imposed combined costs totaling less than one
percent of state and local revenues in 1992. How should we account for such disparities It is important to recognize,
first, that efforts to quantify

the financial costs of federal mandates are fraught with

difficulty . Currently available estimates vary dramatically, depending on the definition of mandate that is
used, the specific expenditures that are included, the method of estimating those expenditures, the quality of those
estimates, the jurisdictions included in the sample, and other factors. To date, most attempts to quantify federal
mandate costs have been incomplete or open to serious question. Recognizing these difficulties, the estimates we
have generated are almost certainly too low. Our figures do not include a number of smaller, nonmajor regulations
for which cost estimates were not available. Nor do they reflect other costly regulations that were imposed before
or after our period of study, such as clean water requirements from the 1970s or the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.