Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Social Services Trade-Off Disadvantage
Social Services Trade-Off Disadvantage......................................................................... 1
Summary/Glossary ................................................................................................... 3
1NC (1/3) ............................................................................................................... 4-7
Uniqueness – Social Services Spending Now .......................................................... 7
Uniqueness – Fights Over Budget Coming ............................................................... 8
Uniqueness – Answers to “Ocean Funding Increasing” ...................................... 10-1
Link – Spending Causes Trade-Off ..................................................................... 12-4
Link – Ocean Exploration .................................................................................... 15-6
Internal Link – Trade-Off with Social Programs ...................................................... 17
Impact – Economy .................................................................................................. 18
Impact – Poverty ............................................................................................... 19-20
Impact – Moral Obligation ....................................................................................... 21
Impact – Racism ..................................................................................................... 22
Impact – Answers to “Social Services Fail” ............................................................. 23
AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS
Non-Unique – Ocean Funding Increasing ............................................................... 24
No Link – No Trade-Off ....................................................................................... 25-7
No Impact – Social Services Fail ...................................................................... 28-30
Answers to: Poverty Impact .................................................................................... 31
Answers to: Economy Impact ................................................................................. 32
1
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
2
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Summary/Glossary
Summary:
Currently, the federal government is providing a sufficient amount of funding for crucial
social service programs which are targeted at reducing poverty and improving the
overall state of the economy. There are fights over the new budget coming which will
force Congress to make hard choices over what to provide funding for. The affirmative
plan, which increases funding for ocean exploration or development would force
Congress to cut money from other programs to pay for them, specifically social service
programs like housing vouchers, education programs, food stamps, unemployment, and
job training programs, which are necessary to build up the U.S. economy from
recession.
Key Terms:
Appropriation – How much money is mandated for a specific program or agency
Deficit – Deficits occur when the amount of government spending is greater than the
amount of revenue it brings in
FY 2013 – FY refers for fiscal year or a year as reckoned for taxing or accounting
purposes. It may not align with the actual calendar year. For example, your local
school board would think of this school year as FY2015 even though it will take place in
both 2014 and 2015.
NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is the agency that
does most ocean exploration and development
PAYGO and CUTGO – PAYGO was the previous rule used by Congress to mandate
that new expenditures should be paid for in some way rather than adding to the deficit,
CUTGO refers to the new rule that mandates that new spending should be
accompanied by cuts in the budget
Sequestration – a program enacted by the United States federal government in 2013
that mandated across-the-board spending cuts for most government agencies
Social Services/Social Programs/Social Safety Net – Services provided to citizens
(primarily citizens in poverty in the United States) by the government
3
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
1NC (1/3)
1. Domestic social programs like education are slowly receiving increased
funding
Human Needs Report, a report for the Coalition on Human Needs, 2014
(Coalition on Human Needs, The Coalition on Human Needs (CHN) is an alliance of
national organizations working together to promote public policies which address the
needs of low-income and other vulnerable populations. “CHN: Congress Approves
Spending for FY 2014: Sequester Cuts Partly Replaced, but Many Programs Still Below
Their FY 2010 Levels” JANUARY 24, 2014.
http://www.chn.org/human_needs_report/chn-congress-approves-spending-fy-2014sequester-cuts-partly-replaced-many-programs-still-fy-2010-levels/)
Compared to the cuts imposed by sequestration in FY 2013, domestic spending
mostly did better. For example, spending in the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education rose from $149.6 billion to $156.8 billion. However,
the longer-term trajectory in these areas is down. Even without adjusting for inflation, FY
2014 spending for Labor-HHS-Education ($156.77 billion) is $6.8 billion less than
funding in FY 2010. After counting inflation, spending is down roughly $20 billion over
the same period. Similarly, Agriculture spending ($20.88 billion) is up $1.3 billion
compared to FY 2013 (including sequestration), but down $2.4 billion from FY 2010 (or
down just under $4.5 billion, counting inflation). Transportation-Housing and Urban
Development ($50.86 billion) rises $2.4 billion over FY 2013, but is $17 billion less
than in FY 2010 (or $23 billion less, adjusting for inflation). Human needs programs
made important gains over FY 2013 in reversing some of the harsh cuts caused by
sequestration. For instance, the number of children participating in Head Start/Early
Head Start declined by 57,000 last year, but in FY 2014, 90,000 children will be
added, including 40,000 in Early Head Start, an increase of more than one-third.
Rental housing vouchers were also significantly cut in FY 2013, both by reducing
the number of vouchers available by about 50,000 and by increasing the rents of lowincome tenants. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, most but
probably not all of those vouchers should be able to be restored with the $19.177
billion funding approved for FY 2014. Some additional funding specifics: Job Training:
Adult Training through the Workforce Investment Act rises to $766 million, up
from the post-sequester FY 2013 level of only $730.6 million. But funding is $95.4
million less it was in FY 2010 (or more than $170 million down, counting inflation). WIA
Youth Training receives $820.4 million in FY 2014, about $39 million more than last
year’s post-sequester level. Here too, spending is way below the FY 2010 level of $924
million. That pattern persists in other job training programs, including Youthbuild and
Job Corps, both up slightly compared to FY 2013, but well below FY 2010 levels. (For
more job training funding detail, see table prepared by the National Skills Coalition.)
4
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
1NC (2/3)
2. New spending like the plan necessitates a trade-off of funding
Sange, National Association of Community Health Centers, 2011
(Alexandra, Legislative Assistant to the Federal Affairs Department, National
Association of Community Health Centers, January 18, 2011
http://blogs.nachc.com/washington/?p=1163)
Changing Pay-go to Cut-go. The new rules replace the previous ‘pay-as-you-go’ or
PAYGO requirement with a ‘cut-as-you-go’ or cut-go requirement. Cut-go
prohibits the House from considering any bill that produces a net increase in
mandatory spending within the 1-year, 5-year and 10-year budget windows, as
opposed to PAYGO’s ten-year window. If a bill increases mandatory spending by
any amount, the bill must cut the budget somewhere by that same amount. Under
PAYGO, spending cuts could serve as offsets to spending increases, however,
revenue increases could also serve as offsets. Under the ‘cut-go’ rule increases in
revenue cannot be used to offset increases in mandatory spending.
3. New deficit increases will result in GOP demands for cuts in social services
McAuliff, Huffington Post, 2014
(Michael, a senior congressional correspondent and blogger for the Huffington Post.
“GOP Accuses Democrats Of Fiscal Irresponsibility While Passing Deficit-Hiking Tax
Breaks” June 12, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/12/republicans-raisedeficit_n_5488588.html)
Democrats accused Republicans of hypocrisy, pointing out that a few months ago
when the House passed a budget, the GOP declared that the deficit was one of the
greatest threats facing the nation. “What happened to all the rhetoric about fiscal
discipline, about getting our deficits in order? Out the window,” said Rep. Chris Van
Hollen (Md.) the top Democrat on the Budget Committee. Democrats also suggested
that the evolving bid to make permanent all the temporary breaks currently on the books
amounted to a ruse to make cuts to social programs later on. Rep. Sander Levin
(Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, noted that
Republicans on his panel had already approved permanent tax cuts -- including the two
passed by the House on Thursday -- that would add $614 billion to the deficit over 10
years. And if all the temporary breaks currently on the books were included, Levin said,
it would tack $1 trillion onto the nation’s credit card. “The Republicans are going to
come back here and say, ‘Wow, look at how much the deficit has increased,’ so
you now need to cut these critical programs relating to the lifeline of all of the
people in this country, the middle class and all who need some help,” Levin said.
5
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
1NC (3/3)
4. Social services are vital to economic growth – they create jobs and increase
economic activity and help those most in need pay for essentials like food,
housing and medical care.
CWDA and CSAC, County Welfare Directors Association of California and California
State Association of Counties, 2009
(“HUMAN SERVICES IN A TIME OF ECONOMIC CRISIS: An examination of
California’s safety-net programs and related economic benefits for communities.” April
2009. http://www.cwda.org/uploads/CSAC-CWDA-Joint-Repor0409.pdf)
In their January 9 analysis of the President’s proposed economic recovery plan,
economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein concluded that temporary programs
to protect people who are the most vulnerable in a deep recession will “have the
largest job bang for the buck.” Compared to the spending rate of other stimulus
proposals, funds to protect the vulnerable are spent very quickly. Their analysis also
projected that temporary increases in Food Stamps and unemployment benefits in
the stimulus package would contribute more than one-fifth of all the jobs the
package would generate in 2009.33 Mark Zandi, writing in Moody’s “Dismal Scientist,”
states that “Increasing food stamp payments by $1 boosts [national] GDP by
$1.73,” and notes that it is an effective way to prime the economic pump because
people who receive the benefits will spend them within weeks.34 By the same
token, any form of cash aid to hard-pressed families will go immediately back into
the economy for food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and other basic
necessities, and stimulate demand for additional goods and services. The Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities also supports temporary assistance measures and
posits that they can have a direct effect on jobs by retaining workers who might
otherwise be laid off without the increased demand for goods and services created by
stimulated spending.35 Beacon Economics reports human services provide 32
percent boost to economy. The above findings were echoed in a recent study
completed by Beacon Economics, which evaluated the economic impact of spending on
human services programs in California.36 The study concludes that, as a whole,
human services expenditures generate 1.32 dollars of economic activity for every
dollar spent, meaning that output and employment resulting from program
expenditures are greater than the expenditures alone would suggest. Beacon
estimates the total economic impact of human services programs at $25 billion in
2007-08, creating 132,000 jobs, and generating $467 million in sales tax revenues.
Moreover, the report uses a more conservative approach than other models, such as
those developed by the US Department of Agriculture. As a result, the economic
impact of spending on these programs may be even higher than the estimates
described in Beacon’s report.
6
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Uniqueness – Social Services Spending Now
(__) Funding for crucial social service programs is either staying level or
increasing right now
Human Needs Report, a report for the Coalition on Human Needs, 2014
(Coalition on Human Needs, The Coalition on Human Needs (CHN) is an alliance of
national organizations working together to promote public policies which address the
needs of low-income and other vulnerable populations. “CHN: Congress Approves
Spending for FY 2014: Sequester Cuts Partly Replaced, but Many Programs Still Below
Their FY 2010 Levels” JANUARY 24, 2014.
http://www.chn.org/human_needs_report/chn-congress-approves-spending-fy-2014sequester-cuts-partly-replaced-many-programs-still-fy-2010-levels/)
Housing: In addition to restoring most of the rental housing vouchers lost last year, the
extra $1 billion over sequestration levels prevents the loss of an estimated
100,000 vouchers this year. New vouchers for 10,000 homeless veterans are
provided, through a program that has reduced homelessness among veterans by 24
percent since 2010. The Public Housing Operating Fund is funded at $4.4 billion, up
$346 million from last year’s sequestration levels, and the Public Housing Capital Fund
receives a small $98 million increase over last year’s $1.78 billion. These funding levels
will not be enough to address a significant backlog of repair needs, likely leading to a
reduction in the number of available units. Homelessness assistance rises to $2.105
billion, up $172 million over sequestration levels. (For a full listing of housing and
homelessness funding levels, see the table prepared by the National Low Income
Housing Coalition.) Community Services: The Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP) rises to $3.4 billion in FY 2014, up $169 million over last year’s
funding, including the sequester cuts. Sequestration denied LIHEAP heating or cooling
assistance to 300,000 households last year. Since 2010, when LIHEAP was funded at
$5.1 billion, cuts have been severe. According to the National Energy Assistance
Directors’ Association, the number of households served declined from 8.1 million in
2010 to 6.7 million in FY 2013, and the value of benefits declined from 52.5 percent to
44 percent of home heating costs. This winter, the cost of home heating has been
projected to rise from an average $922 to $977 (such estimates were made before the
especially frigid temperatures hit). The increase over sequestration levels will allow
LIHEAP to restore some of last year’s cuts, but will still leave the program well behind
its reach in 2010. The Community Services Block Grant, which funds community
action agencies nationwide, receives $710 million, up from $700 million in FY 2010
(but well down from FY 2010 funding levels after taking inflation into account). Senior
Nutrition programs are funded at $815 million, up $46 million from the FY 2013
sequestration levels, enough to restore the substantial sequestration cuts to senior
meals in 2013 and to prevent another round of cuts. The Social Services Block Grant
is funded at $1.7 billion, the same base funding as in FY 2013 and many previous
years. However, SSBG was subject to sequestration last year (cut down to about
$1.61b), and unlike many other programs, would continue to face sequestration cuts in
FY 2014, likely keeping it at the same level as in FY 2013.
7
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Uniqueness – Fights Over Budget Coming
(__) Upcoming fights over budget make a trade-off more likely
Shaw, MNI News, 2014
(John, Staff writer for MNI News. “US Budget Week: FY2015 Spending Bills Struggle
Out of The Gate” MAY 23, 2014 https://mninews.marketnews.com/index.php/us-budgetweek-fy2015-spending-bills-struggle-out-gate-0?q=content/us-budget-week-fy2015spending-bills-struggle-out-gate-0)
WASHINGTON (MNI) - Of the many things for which Congress is frequently rebuked,
critics often seize on its persistent lack of consistency and of proportion. Both of those
deficiencies were on full display this week as Congress struggled to deal with fiscal
year 2015 spending bills and an $85 billion tax extenders package. The Senate
Appropriations Committee Thursday approved, on a 16-to-14 party-line vote, allocations
for the 12 individual spending bills for FY2015. These allocations include $521 billion for
defense programs and $492 billion non-defense programs. All Democrats supported the
allocations and all Republicans opposed them. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair
Barbara Mikulski said the 12 bills will allocate $1.014 trillion "which is the precise level
agreed to in the Murray/Ryan Bipartisan Act with a bipartisan vote last December." She
was referring to the budget agreement crafted by House Budget Committee Chairman
Paul Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray. The Murray-Ryan
agreement set discretionary spending levels for fiscal years 2014 and 2015. The
FY2015 discretionary spending level is $1.014 trillion. Under the Murray-Ryan
agreement for FY2015, $521.3 billion is allocated for defense programs and $492.4
billion is allocated for non-defense discretionary programs. During the Appropriations
Committee meeting, Mikulski acknowledged there was "some small
disagreement" between Democrats and Republicans on specific allocations in
several of the bills and even the overall number. But she said she's hopeful this
year's appropriations process will unfold smoothly. Republicans on the Appropriations
Committee accused Mikulski of using an assortment of budget gimmicks to report
the 12 bills in a way that they do not cumulatively exceed the $1.104 trillion
ceiling. "Under these allocations, specific bills would circumvent, we believe, the caps
while relying on budgetary mechanisms that would, in effect, allow for additional
spending beyond the Murray-Ryan limits," Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking
Republican on the Appropriations panel, said Thursday. Republicans cited three budget
maneuvers that they said violated the "spirit" of the Ryan-Murray accord and allowed for
about $4 billion in additional spending for FY2015. One would be to use some
unneeded funds from the Afghanistan war for domestic purposes. "That looks like
we're trying to avoid marking up to the number we agreed to," said Sen. Lamar
Alexander, a Republican member of the committee, referring to the budget gimmicks.
While budget experts believe the GOP senators made good points about Mikulski's
aggressive use of budget maneuvers to come in at the discretionary spending ceiling,
they also point out that both Democratic and Republican senators were at that exact
same time supporting an $85 billion tax extenders package that was not offset - and
Republicans are also backing an amendment that would suspend the medical device
tax which would cost the federal budget $30 billion over a decade.
8
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
9
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Uniqueness – Answers to “Ocean Funding Increasing” (1/2)
(__) Ocean budgets are declining now – fiscal conflicts, political concerns
Gagosian, the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, 2014
(Robert B. Gagosian, President and CEO of The Consortium for Ocean Leadership,
“New Paradigm Needed for Federal Research Funding”, February 4, 2014.
http://oceanleadership.org/new-paradigm-needed-federal-research-funding/)
What can you say about the nation’s capital when Congress has the lowest approval
ratings recorded in Gallup polling history and the president’s approval rating has sunk to
the lowest of his presidency? – We appear to be in a perpetual stalemate with fiscal
brinksmanship becoming the new normal. The government recently shut down for
the first time in 17 years, and you have to ask: what did we get for paying hundreds of
thousands of federal workers to stay home? Only the promise of more fiscal showdowns
on the horizon—first in January when another budget sequester is scheduled to go into
effect and then in February when the debt limit needs to be extended again, putting in
jeopardy the full faith and credit of the United States government. These kinds of
activities are having a continuing deleterious effect on the budgets for scientific
research as they continue to get tighter and tighter. Budget Crisis The Consortium
for Ocean Leadership is a leading voice for the ocean science community with the
mission to advance research, education and sound ocean policy. While disasters
named Sandy, Katrina, Haiyan, Deepwater Horizon and Fukushima have made the
need for observing, understanding and forecasting ocean processes and conditions
more imperative, the political morass in Washington is making our job more difficult than
ever. As an eternal optimist, I must admit that even I am beginning to have my doubts
on whether our nation can remain the world leader in innovation if we continue
attempting to balance the budget on the back of discretionary programs, including
science. The Department of Defense is scheduled to take the brunt of the next budget
sequester in January, and I suspect that research and development programs will share
the pain. We have partnered with the University Corp. for Atmospheric Research to
reach out to the members of the Congressional budget conference, encouraging them
to find a compromise to replace the sequester and restore funding for research
programs and science agencies critical to the economy. If cooler minds do not
prevail, then I suspect we will continue to see erosion in federal science
programs, in critical infrastructure and eventually human capital. How can we
expect to recruit and sustain the next generation of scientists if they have a less than
one in 10 chance of having their grants funded? Why would the best minds that come to
America to be trained want to stay here and contribute to our nation during such a dire
fiscal environment? I am concerned that this could lead to our best and brightest looking
for opportunities in other countries.
10
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Uniqueness – Answers to “Ocean Funding Increasing” (2/2)
(__) Funding staying level for ocean research and development now – no
increases
Pekow, DC Outdoor Recreation Examiner 2014
(Charles, an award winning journalist, outdoors enthusiast. “House committee offers
tight NOAA budget for 2015” May 17, 2014. http://www.examiner.com/article/housecommittee-offers-tight-noaa-budget-for-2015)
Federal help for fishermen may get reduced next year. The House Appropriations
Committee approved a Commerce, Justice, Science & Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 4660) that would slightly increase the National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) discretionary funds budget. But
the bill would keep it below what the Obama Administration had requested. And it
would cut the budget for fishing and related programs.¶ The Republican-dominated
committee reported a bill that would give NOAA's discretionary accounts $5.32512
billion, an increase of only $10.514 million, not enough to keep up with inflation.
The administration had requested an increase of $163.615 million.
11
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Link – Spending Causes Trade-Off (1/3)
(__) New Congressional rules require cuts for all new spending
Main Street Insiders, News blog covering Congressional issues, 2011
(“S02E02: Budget Provisions of New House Rules,” January 17, 2011
http://www.mainstreetinsider.org/90secondsummaries/?p=178)
While in the House majority, the Democrats had in place a “pay-as-you-go”
budget rule, requiring that any tax cut or increase in mandatory (entitlement)
spending must be offset by cuts in other mandatory spending or increases in
other taxes, in order to avoid increasing the deficit. They also barred use of
budget reconciliation on any measure that would increase the deficit, as was the case
in the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and the law that established Medicare Part D.
While the incoming Republican majority professes strong support for fiscal
responsibility, it is more deeply committed to low taxes and less spending. The
changes to PAYGO in their rules package reflect those priorities. Summay: The new
rules include a number of provisions intended to lock in the Republicans’ budget
principles for the 112th Congress. Specifically, they: • Replace “pay-go” with “cutgo”, a new system that requires all new mandatory spending to offset by other
mandatory spending cuts. Tax increases are no longer allowed to act as offsets;
•No longer require tax cuts to be budget-neutral; •Grant the Budget Committee
Chairman complete authority to set aggregate spending limits for FY11, limits usually
set through a budget resolution; • Overtly exempt the repeal of health care reform
and the extended Bush tax cuts from requiring budgetary offsets; •Allow deficitincreasing tax cut measures to be passed through budget reconciliation, but
bar its use for measures that would increase net spending; •Extend “cut-go” to
bar measures that increase spending by over $5B in any ten years within a 40-year
window; •Eliminate the “Gephardt Rule” that had allowed the House to avoid standalone votes to raise the debt ceiling; •Require each committee to formulate proposals
to cut or eliminate programs that are inefficient, duplicative, outdated, or more
appropriately administered by State or local governments. It should be noted that the
Senate has no obligation to concur with these rules, and likely will engage in a bitter
fight with the House majority on budgetary issues. Nevertheless, the rules are
deliberately designed to virtually guarantee that mandatory spending will not
increase, and likely will decrease, during the 112th Congress. Supporters: most
Republicans, Tea Party and small government advocates •Supporters applaud
these measures as an important reflection of commitment to reduce federal
spending and shrink government in the coming years. Opposition: most if not all
Democrats, deficit hawks •Detractors view the changes as a significant
weakening of pay-go’s deficit reducing impact, and many believe it demonstrates
Republicans’ fundamental unseriousness about tackling persistent budget deficits.
12
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Link – Spending Causes Trade-Off (2/3)
(__) Republicans spending forcing trade-offs
Mehan, The American Spectator, 2011
(G. Tracy, adjunct professor @George Mason University, The American Spectator,
“RYAN TAKES THE POINT ON FISCAL REFORM” January 6, 2011
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/06/ryan-takes-the-point-on-fiscal#)
But there is more. The House Republicans are going to enact new rules "to
make it harder to tax and spend," writes the Wall Street Journal editorial page. The
GOP will, among other things, replace the Democrats' often ignored "paygo"
approach with a "cut as you go" requirement in which increases in mandatory
spending -- for new and existing entitlements -- must be matched by spending
cuts in an equal or greater amount elsewhere in the budget. Another
encouraging aspect of the new rules package is the empowerment of Rep. Paul Ryan
(R-WI), the new Budget Committee Chairman, the point on budget reform, to impose
budget limits, on his own, for the current fiscal year.
(__) New programs will have to trade-off
Khimm, Mother Jones, 2011
(Suzy, Washington Bureau of Mother Jones, “How Not to Cut the Deficit” January 6,
2011, http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/cutgo-deficit-boehner)
Under the Democrats' "pay-as-you-go" rules—introduced during the Clinton era
and continued under President Obama—Congress had to match every spending
increase or tax cut with a commensurate spending cut or tax increase. The
GOP has now upended "pay-go" with "cut-go" rules, under which tax cuts
don't have to be paid for and tax increases can't offset spending hikes. "The
idea is that the only two things you can do are cut spending and cut taxes," explains
the Washington Post's Ezra Klein. The problem is that cutting taxes without paying
for them gives the government less to work with when it comes to balancing the
budget and reducing the deficit. Effectively, the GOP rules could make it even
more difficult to create new government programs, while making it far easier for
the GOP to hand tax breaks to corporations and the wealth
13
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Link – Spending Causes Trade-Off (3/3)
(__) No loopholes—no new spending without cuts, can’t use taxes to pay for it
Van Hollen, US Representative from Maryland, 2011
(Chris, Member of Committee on the Budget, “Republican House Rules Make Fiscally
Irresponsible Changes” January 5, 2011, http://democrats.budget.house.gov/committeereport/republican-house-rules-make-fiscally-irresponsible-changes)
The rules package guts the pay-as-you-go concept, replacing the House rule
with a new one-sided “cut-as-you-go” scheme that not only exempts certain tax
cuts, but also requires new net mandatory spending to be offset by only
spending cuts, not revenue increases. In particular, the new rules exempt tax cuts
for the wealthiest Americans, as well as any repeal of the health care law, from
having to comply with the deficit neutrality standard Democrats followed under our
House pay-as-you-go rule. The rules also allow reconciliation packages to deepen
the deficit – a change that flies in the face of the original purpose of budget
reconciliation – and exempt tax cuts from statutory pay-as-you-go requirements.
The rules also give the Budget Committee Chair extraordinary power to establish
new 2011 appropriations limits that were not even available before the vote on the
rules package. Giving the Chair unilateral authority to impose new spending levels
without even a vote or debate is a violation of their promises to operate in a
transparent and open manner. On their very first day in the majority, House
Republicans put in place rules to limit open debate and keep the American people in
the dark. Notable Changes “Cut-as-you-go” Replaces Pay-as-you-go – The new
rules replace pay-as-you-go with a “cut-as-you-go” scheme that enforces
discipline only on the spending side of the budget. In a break from past pay-asyou-go rules, spending increases must be offset dollar for dollar by spending
cuts; revenue increases are no longer eligible to offset spending increases.
The rule allows for an emergency exemption but decreases transparency by no
longer requiring a separate vote on that aspect.
14
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Link – Ocean Exploration (1/2)
(__) Ocean exploration funding is controversial and expensive – makes a trade-off
more likely
Spross, Think Progress, 2014
(Jeff Spross, Climate Progress, “Republican Bill Cuts Funding For Climate, Social,
Economic Research By $160 Million”, April 15, 2014
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/15/3426660/first-act-gop-science-cuts/)
It would also shift money out of the geoscience areas that cover oceanic and
climate studies. Democrats have managed to amend the bill to lessen the cuts to
26 percent. But even that would leave spending levels well below their previous
path. “It’s the role of Congress to make sure we’re using limited federal funds for
the highest priority research,” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the chairman of the
House Science, Space and Technology Committee and the bill’s author, told the
Globe. Specifically, the FIRST Act is a partial reauthorization of the COMPETES Act,
which was first passed by Congress in 2007, and then again 2010, and has now
expired. The COMPETES Act originally set funding for the National Science
Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and two offices with the
Department of Energy, but the targets were always something of a suggestion —
thanks to sequestration and the general push for budget austerity over the last
few years, the full funding called for by the COMPETES Act was never authorized
by Congress. The FIRST Act would only cover funding for the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, leaving the
Department of Energy agencies to be tackled by separate legislation. According to the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, the FIRST Act gets into the
weeds of how the NSF apportions its funds — something Congress hasn’t done in
years. The NSF is split into different directorates, each one covering a different area:
Biological Sciences (BIO), Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE),
Engineering (ENG), Geosciences (GEO), Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS),
and Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences (SBE). The original version of the FIRST
Act would’ve modestly cut GEO, which includes funding for ocean and atmospheric
sciences. It would’ve cut SBE funding much more deeply. FIRST-NSF In mid-March,
Democrats pushed through an amendment to scale back the SBE cut to half of what’s
pictured above. The FIRST Act would also require the NSF to publicly justify how
each grant it awards would serve the national interest. Just what that would mean
has changed as the bill has been revised. And anticipating ahead of time whether
any particular research project will serve the “national interest,” however defined,
is an inherently difficult business. Finally, the FIRST Act’s overall level of
spending is so low it would not keep up with inflation, making it a cut in real and
not just nominal terms.
15
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Link – Ocean Exploration (2/2)
(__) Congress is trying to CUT funding for ocean research and exploration now –
the plan would reverse that
Kollipara, news reporter for Science Magazine, 2014
(Puneet. “U.S. House Wants Limits on Climate, Marine Policy Programs” June 3, 2014.
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/06/u-s-house-wants-limits-climate-marinepolicy-programs)
Some ocean and climate researchers are suffering a bit of heartburn from
amendments that lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives last week added to
a major spending bill. In a 321 to 87 vote, the Republican-controlled House on 30 May
approved a $51 billion spending bill that would fund the departments of Commerce and
Justice, and an array of other agencies including the National Science Foundation
(NSF), in the 2015 fiscal year that begins 1 October. During 2 days of debate on the bill,
House members offered scores of amendments, many proposing to shift funding
between programs or cut spending. NSF survived the free-for-all largely unscathed. But
lawmakers adopted several amendments that targeted marine research and
climate science programs. The U.S. Senate, which this week begins work on its
version of the spending bill, would have to agree to the amendments in order for them to
become law (and in the past has stripped similar provisions from the legislation). For
now, however, these amendments remain in the mix: Representative Bill Flores (R–TX)
successfully added language barring the president from enforcing his National
Ocean Policy, which has been a partisan football in recent years. The amendment,
which is similar to past amendments adopted by the House but later stripped from final
measures, was approved on a voice vote. In a 226 to 179 vote, the House adopted a
proposal from Representative Mark Meadows (R–NC) to bar the United States from
entering international trade agreements to cut climate-warming greenhouse gas
emissions. An amendment from Representative Scott Perry (R–PA), adopted on a
voice vote, would bar spending money on a number of government climate
assessments and reports, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s
National Climate Assessment (NCA). The president has used the most recent NCA,
released last month, to bolster his Climate Action Plan to cut U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions. Several other amendments offered by Democrats to bolster funding for
ocean acidification and climate research failed on voice votes. Advocates for
strong action on climate change are hoping the Senate will hold firm against the climaterelated funding restrictions and strip out the “poison pills,” says Michael Halpern of the
Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The White House has
also indicated its opposition to climate research limits.
16
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Internal Link – Trade-Off with Social Programs
(__) Fights looming over budget and a spending cap makes a trade-off more likely
– especially for social programs
Peterson, Wall Street Journal, 2014
(Kristina, covers Congress from the Wall Street Journal's Washington bureau.
“Congress Takes on Spending Bills, but Fights Loom.” Wall Street Journal. May 2, 2014
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230367840457953810191195793
2)
As part of the December budget deal, Congress agreed to allocate $521.3 billion
for military spending and $492.4 billion on nondefense spending—levels that will
require lawmakers to make tough funding choices. "We've got money problems,"
said Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations
Committee. "We've got a lot of demands and a lot of needs and not enough
money." Last year, that led to problems even for House Republicans, who had pushed
for deep cuts in spending but were forced to pull a transportation and housing bill from
the floor when some GOP lawmakers thought it reduced spending too much. In the
Senate, procedural hurdles make it harder for spending bills to reach the floor.
Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has set aside time for the
Senate to consider appropriations bills on the floor in June and July, at least five
Republicans would have to vote with the chamber's Democratic caucus to even
consider the legislation. All year, fights over amendments have derailed bipartisan
support for much lower-profile bills. In both chambers, the labor, health and
human services bill is almost always the most contentious, as it includes divisive
social programs, as well as some funding for the Affordable Care Act. "It's rife with
issues that tend to incite partisan dispute," said Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the leftleaning Center for American Progress and a former longtime Democratic aide on the
House Appropriations Committee. And because lawmakers have already agreed to
overall spending levels, "a lot of fights are going to be more on policy riders," said
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D., Texas), a member of the appropriations panel. Rep. Steve King
(R., Iowa) has already suggested he may again push an amendment passed by the
House last year to prevent the Obama administration from spending any money to
implement the program that gives temporary protection to young illegal immigrants.
17
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Impact – Economy
(__) Canada proves that social services return their investment by achieving
poverty reduction
Zehr, The Hook, 2009
(Garrett, Editor of The Hook “Social spending will stimulate economy: CCPA,”
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Rights-Justice/2009/03/10/FamiliesPoorer/, accessed
6/30/09)
"What was surprising to me was that we have seen such big drops not just in earnings .
. . but in after-tax income," said the report’s author and CCPA public interest researcher
Iglika Ivanova. The study determined that this drop in real after-tax income was higher
in B.C. than anywhere else in Canada. Ivanova said it shows the provincial government
is failing to live up to its responsibilities. The CCPA is advocating a number of policy
recommendations, including raising the minimum wage to $10.60, raising taxes for the
wealthiest and increasing social assistance rates and accessibility. The organization
is also calling on the provincial government to expand social services, such as
universal child care, which Ivanova said will benefit all B.C. families. While
acknowledging that these proposals will require substantial public money at a time
of government revenue shortfalls, she said the investments will pay for
themselves if people are patient. "Putting money into poverty reduction, we're
going to stimulate the economy," she said. "We will recover faster that way and
we will recover the money."
(__) Social services are good for the economy -- greater spending on domestic
programs enhances economy stability
Glyn and Miliband, Oxford University, 1994
(Andrew and David, Economist and University Lecturer on Economics at Oxford
University and British Labour Party Politician, “Paying for Inequality: The Economic Cost
of Social Injustice”, published by IPPR/Rivers Oram Press in London, pages 205-217)
There are good reasons for believing that equality may enhance economic stability.
Policies to increase economic equality are frequently associated with higher
levels of government spending; this tends to act as an automatic stabiliser,
reducing the impact on production and employment of fluctuations in other
elements of demand. Second, if the taxation to pay for the expenditure is progressive,
this, together with the cyclical movements of the budget deficit, also acts to dampen
fluctuations. Finally it may be expected that if the distribution of personal income is
more equal, then consumption will show a steadier trend, as a greater proportion
of income will be in the hands of those who will spend it consistently rather than
those veering between bouts of saving and credit-financed consumption sprees.
As J.K. Galbraith put it ‘A reasonably equitable distribution of income is a
stabilizing economic influence it is macro-economically functional. The poor and
the middle class spend their income; their support to aggregate income is stable
and assured.’
18
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Impact – Poverty (1/2)
(__) Expanding social services is vital to reducing poverty
Rank, Washington University in St. Louis 2006
(Mark, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University, St. Louis,
Missouri. “Poverty, Justice, and Community Lawyering: Interdisciplinary and Clinical
Perspectives: Toward a New Understanding of American Poverty”, Washington
University Journal of Law & Policy. Vol. 20 LexisNexis)
Another key strategy for addressing poverty is to increase the accessibility of several
vital social and public goods. In some respects, the conditions of poverty and near
poverty in the United States are worse than the statistics indicate. This is because
several key resources have become increasingly unattainable for a number of
American households. In particular, quality education, health care, affordable
housing, and child care are either out of reach or obtainable only at considerable
economic expenditure and hardship. n111 Yet, these social goods are vital in
building and maintaining healthy and productive citizens and families. Virtually every
other Western industrial society provides greater access to health care,
affordable housing, and child care than does the United States. n112 These
societies also do not display the wide fluctuations in educational quality to which
American children are subjected at the primary and secondary levels. n113 The
underlying [*49] reason for this is the belief that there are certain social and public
goods to which all individuals have a right, and that making such resources accessible
results in more productive citizens and societies in both the short and the long run. In
addition, these countries recognize that such goods and services reduce the
harshness of poverty and economic vulnerability. If the United States is to
seriously address the widespread nature of poverty, it must address the fact that
too many Americans are unable to access affordable and quality health care,
child care, housing, and education. Many ideas exist on how to provide universal or
near universal coverage of these vital social goods. n114 A third strategy for reducing
American poverty is to adopt policies that encourage the building of individual assets.
Social policies are frequently designed to alleviate the current conditions of poverty.
Indeed, the strategies of making work pay and providing access to key social goods are
each aimed at improving the current economic conditions of individuals and families.
This is understandable, given that poverty affects individuals in the here and now. Yet,
poverty alleviation approaches must also pay attention to longer-term processes
and solutions. In particular, asset accumulation is crucial, both during the
individual life course and within the communities in which Americans reside. The
acquisition of assets allows individuals to more effectively function and to reduce
their risk of poverty. Assets enable individuals to ride out periods of economic
vulnerability. They also allow for the growth and strengthening of individual
development. Assets build a stake in the future that income by itself often cannot
provide.
19
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Impact – Poverty (2/2)
(__) Changing social safety nets has a big impact on poverty rates
Rank, Washington University in St. Louis 2006
(Mark, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University, St. Louis,
Missouri. “Poverty, Justice, and Community Lawyering: Interdisciplinary and Clinical
Perspectives: Toward a New Understanding of American Poverty”, Washington
University Journal of Law & Policy. Vol. 20 LexisNexis)
Similarly, changes in various social supports and the social safety net available to
families will make a difference in terms of how well such households are able to
avoid poverty or near poverty. When such supports were increased through the
War on Poverty initiatives of the 1960s, poverty rates declined. n57 Likewise, when
Social Security benefits were expanded during the 1960s and 1970s, poverty rates
among the elderly declined precipitously. n58 Conversely, when social supports
have been weakened and eroded, as was the case with children's programs
during the past twenty-five years, poverty rates have gone up. n59 The
recognition of poverty as a structural failing also makes it quite clear why the
United States has such high poverty rates as compared to other Western
countries. These rates have nothing to do with Americans being less motivated or
less skilled than individuals in other countries, but have to do instead with the
fact that our economy has produced a plethora of low-wage jobs in the face of
global competition and that our social policies have done relatively little to support
families compared to those of our European neighbors. From this perspective, one of
the keys to addressing poverty is to increase the labor market opportunities and
social supports available to American households.
20
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Impact – Moral Obligation
(__) Ensuring that every human has the bare necessities is the biggest moral
question – must be a prerequisite
Pogge, Yale University, 2002
(Thomas Pogge, Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs at Yale
University, World Poverty and Human Rights, November 2002, pages 50-51)
Acceptance of such a universal core criterion of basic justice does not preclude
particular societies from subjecting their national institutions to a stronger
criterion of justice that involves a more specific measure or human flourishing. Such a
national measure might, for instance, ascribe to citizens additional basic needs.
such as: to have certain legal (constitutional) rights, not to be too severely
disadvantaged through social inequalities, to be adequately compensated for
genetic handicaps and bad luck, or to receive a subsidy for the discharge or
important religious duties. But such additional basic needs would everywhere be
understood as secondary to the universal human needs recognized by the
globally shared conception of human rights. The preeminent requirement on all
coercive institutional schemes is that they afford each human being secure access to
minimally adequate shares of basic freedoms and participation, of food, drink,
clothing, shelter, education, and health care. Achieving the formulation, global
acceptance, and realization of this requirement is the preeminent moral task of
our age.
21
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Impact – Racism
(__) Expanding federal social services is vital to addressing structural racism
Wiley and Powell, Center for Social Inclusion and Kirwan Institute for the Study of
Race and Ethnicity, 2006
(Maya and John, Director of the Center for Social Inclusion and Director of the Kirwan
Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity “Tearing Down Structural Racism and
Rebuilding Communities,” Clearinghouse Review Journal of Poverty Law and Policy,
May/June 2006
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2987&context=facpubs)
The racialized poverty of the region and of New Orleans represents the effects of
a shrinking city tax base, propelled by white flight. The racialized poverty there
also represents the racially driven failure of the nation to invest in blacks,
Latinos, Native Americans, and Asians as potent human resources for the
country’s future. For example, the New Deal excluded almost three-fifths of the black
community from the benefits of Social Security Insurance by excluding domes- tic and
agricultural workers from eligi- bility.59Driven by Southern Dixiecrats intent on
maintaining the social, eco- nomic, and political subordination of blacks, the white power
structure demonstrated a willingness to seal the fates of poor white agricultural and
domestic workers to preserve white racial hegemony. Furthermore, by allowing unions
to discriminate on the basis of race while empowering union organizing under the
Wagoner Act, unions not only participated in the strat- ification of black workers even in
the industrializing north but also helped weaken the labor movement possibilitiesin the
South.60 New Deal policies had a tremendous impact on the wealth-creat- ing
possibilities for whites with wealth and educational opportunities which increased
opportunities for future gen- erations. By the same token, the disin- vestment and
exclusion that these poli- cies advanced for black people and other communities of color
have perpetuated multigenerational poverty and nonac- cess to opportunity. The current
discussion around rebuild-ing appears to be headed away from a stronger, more
equitable region. Having spent forty years to gain political ascen-dancy, often using a
strategy of pander-ing to white Southern racism in coded language, the political right
can now move its agenda. The political right has a vision for a radically different
America based on less government and more cor- porate prerogative. The White House
recently repealed laws mandating stan- dard local wages for recovery construc- tion
workers, suspended affirmative action in contracting requirements and environmental
regulations, allowed states to cap their Medicaid spending, and even worked to
eliminate estate taxes. This ideological approach harms people of color and
whites. Consider the fact that in 2004 the richest 10 percent of Americans
received tax cuts worth two times what the government would spend on job
training, college Pell grants, pub-lic housing, low income rental subsidies, and
child care.61The portrait painted by both our historic and current federal policies
reinforces a structure of racial segregation, disinvestment, and lack of
sustainability for all our communities and the nation.
22
Social Services Disadvantage
Negative
NAUDL 2013-14
Impact – Answers to “Social Services Fail”
(__) Federal poverty reduction programs are empirically successful
Weil, Food Research and Action Center, 06
(James, President of the Food Research and Action Center. “The Federal
Government—the Indispensable Player in Redressing Poverty,” Clearinghouse
REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, May/June 2006,
http://www.frac.org/pdf/Weil06.pdf)
When Attacking Poverty, the Federal Government Often Is Very Effective That the
business sector, state and local governments, and charity are inadequate to the task of
redressing poverty and ensuring opportunity would not mean that the federal
government should play an important role if the federal government also were
unsuccessful or institutionally incapable. But the federal government possesses the
resources and has proven itself as an actor—the most successful actor—in these
arenas, especially when (as discussed earlier) it moves both economic and spending
policy in the same positive direction. When it did that in the 1960s and the late 1990s,
progress was substantial. Separately in this issue Peter Edelman addresses the
canard (from Ronald Reagan among others) that “we fought a war on poverty and
poverty won.”49 The fact is that many federal initiatives from the last seventy years
have been extraordinarily successful. Their impact has been incomplete but still
formidable: ■ The federal government has transformed old age from a frequent
sentence of poverty to, typically, albeit not universally, a state of economic and
health security. In 2003 public benefit programs reduced by more than 80 percent
the number of seniors who otherwise would be living in poverty (14 million fewer
seniors).50 ■ Public benefit programs (overwhelmingly federal or federal-state
programs), such as TANF, social security, Supplemental Security Income, food
stamps, and others, lifted nearly one in three otherwise poor children out of
poverty in 2003.51 ■ Public benefits substantially reduce the severity of poverty
even for those they do not lift out of poverty. In 2003 for those who remained poor
the programs increased their average income from 29 percent to 57 percent of the
poverty line.52 ■ In the 1960s studies found deep hunger and malnutrition in many poor
areas of the country. While hunger and food insecurity are still widespread
problems, food stamps, school meals, WIC, and related programs have made
severe hunger much less common. ■ In the first fifteen years after Medicaid
began, black infant mortality dropped by 49 percent, more than nine times the rate
of improvement of the preceding fifteen years.53 Indisputably these results are not
good enough. The work of ensuring that the federal government lives up to its
responsibilities and appropriately takes on poverty, insecurity, and unequal opportunity
through its economic and spending policies is hardly finished. And that work is not easy,
short-term, or assured of success. But there is no alternative. The federal
government is the indispensable player in redressing poverty.
23
Social Services Disadvantage
Affirmative Answers
NAUDL 2013-14
Non-Unique – Ocean Funding Increasing
(__) Funding for ocean research and exploration is increasing now
Leone, Space News, 2014
(Dan, NASA reporter for SpaceNews, where he also covers other civilian-run U.S.
government space programs and a growing number of entrepreneurial space
companies. “House and Senate Find Common Ground on NOAA Budget.” Jun. 12,
2014 http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40883house-and-senate-findcommon-ground-on-noaa-budget)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on June 5 approved
a budget bill that would give the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
about $5.4 billion in 2015, including some $2.1 billion for its major weather
satellite programs — a small increase over 2014 that is about even with the White
House’s 2015 request and what House appropriators included in a competing bill
approved in May. Senate and House appropriators now seem to be more or less on the
same page when it comes to the weather agency’s 2015 budget, even if they do not
agree fully with the White House — or each other — on every detail. Senate
appropriators, like their counterparts in the House, agreed to give NOAA’s two major
weather satellite programs the roughly $130 million boost the White House requested in
March. That comes out to about $916 million for the Joint Polar Satellite System, some
$95 million more than 2014, and about $981 million for the Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellite-R, roughly $39 million more than 2014. The second Joint Polar
Satellite System spacecraft is slated to launch in 2017 — a test bed satellite launched in
2011 was pressed into service as the program’s first — while the next geostationary
satellite would lift off in 2016.
(__) Funding is increasing for ocean research
Space Ref 2014
(Space Ref, an international privately owned media company that covers civil,
commercial and military space as well space policy, space technology, astronomy and
most other space related topics. “House Passes FY 2015 Funding Bill for NASA, NIST,
NOAA, and NSF” June 3, 2014 http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=45769)
The bill’s funding level for NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
was increased by $12 million under a successful amendment offered by Rep. Jim
Bridenstine (R-OK). Arguing that the increased money would accelerate R&D and the
development of new technologies, Bridenstine’s amendment shifted the money from the
Census Bureau. Both Wolf and Fattah supported the amendment and it passed the
House by a vote of 340-71. In announcing his support for the amendment, Wolf
described H.R. 4660’s “strong funding” for the National Weather Service,
explaining the bill’s appropriation was $16 million above the Obama
Administration’s request. The bill also provided funding above the
Administration’s requests for information technology officers, the Hurricane
Forecast Improvement Program, and a tsunami community education awareness
program.
24
Social Services Disadvantage
Affirmative Answers
NAUDL 2013-14
No Link – No Trade-Off (1/3)
Even House Republicans won’t force cuts—finding loopholes for Health Care
Scher, Campaign for America’s Future, 2011
(Bill, executive director of Campaign for America’s Future, “House GOP Will Obliterate
Its Own 'CutGo' Rule When It Repeals Health Reform,” Huffington Post, January 3,
2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/house-gop-will-obliterate_b_803805.html)
The House Republican leadership has announced it will enact two things immediately
upon taking control of the House this week: a new "CutGo" rule to require revenue
offsets for any increases in spending, and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act health
reform law. The Republicans might want to pass health reform repeal first.
Because if they install "CutGo" rules first, they won't be able to repeal health
reform without also finding $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next two decades
to make up for the taxpayer savings they'll be throwing away. At minimum, if the
House GOP doesn't feel bound by the Congressional Budget Office's nontraditional
long-range forecast -- which was provided because the bulk of the estimated deficit
reduction would occur in the second decade of implementation -- it would at least need
to offset the $143 billion that the traditional CBO estimates would be saved by health
reform in this decade. As the conservative Daily Caller reported last month, "The rule
will require that any legislation that seeks to increase mandatory spending (which
is spending that once added to the federal budget recurs year after year and is thus
permanent) cuts spending by a similar amount." Repealing health reform,
according to the CBO, will "increase mandatory spending," and therefore would
be subject to the proposed "CutGo" rule. Throughout the last year, Republicans who
had previously equated CBO with "God" suddenly trashed the agency once it found that
Democratic reforms for both health care and capping carbon emissions would save
taxpayers money. But now that Republicans will be controlling one body of Congress,
they are going to have the deal with the fact that the Congressional Budget Office
estimates are the basis for congressional budget rules. I suppose that if this little
wrinkle comes to their attention, House Republican could create an additional
"CutGo" loophole (beyond the giant loophole that exempts all tax cuts from requiring
offsets.) Maybe they'd say the scrapping of cost saving reforms also doesn't
count. Maybe they'd say cost estimates must be based on Heritage Foundation
projections instead of the CBO. I'm sure they can come up with something that
would pass muster for the editors at Fox News.
25
Social Services Disadvantage
Affirmative Answers
NAUDL 2013-14
No Link – No Trade-Off (2/3)
(__) Congress finds loopholes and it exempts trade-off of expensive initiatives
The Daily News, editorial, 2011
(Longview Daily News – Longview, WA. “'Pay as you go' rule is good in principle, but
don't expect Congress to follow through.” February 22, 2010
http://tdn.com/news/opinion/article_034e181c-1da9-11df-b772-001cc4c002e0.html)
A couple of weeks ago, congressional leaders and the administration tried to calm those
investors, along with an increasingly nervous American public, by signaling a new
commitment to fiscal restraint. The principal vehicle they chose was the old "pay as you
go" budget rule that supposedly requires lawmakers to offset any new spending or tax
cut with spending cuts and/or tax increases in other areas. The rule, commonly referred
to as PAYGO, can be an effective restraint when strictly applied. It was helpful
during ‘90s in turning large budget deficits into significant budget surpluses. The
rule was abandoned in 2002 to accommodate the previous administration's tax cuts
and post-9/11 spending in Afghanistan and on homeland security. It's doubtful that the
PAYGO rule enacted earlier this month will be nearly so effective as the ‘90s version.
Unlike its predecessor, this Congress' budget exempts many costly spending
initiatives. It will allow Congress to extend middle-class tax cuts enacted by the Bush
administration without any corresponding spending cuts or tax increases. The rule
allows Congress to restrain the growth of the alternative minimum tax, lower the estate
tax and cancel scheduled payment cuts for Medicare physicians - all without
corresponding cuts in spending of tax hikes. Maya MacGuineas, president of the
bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, was dismissive of this
porous budget rule during last year's debate. "This is like quitting drinking," she said,
"but making an exception for beer and hard liquor." Advocates acknowledge the
new PAYGO rule's flaws, but argue that it is preferable to no rule at all. It's true, we
suppose, that the budget rule has value if it helps focus congressional attention on the
need to restrain spending and convinces foreign investors that U.S. lawmakers are
indeed committed to getting the nation's fiscal house in order. But this budget rule will
do little restrain spending or reassure investors unless congressional leaders are
willing to follow it to the letter. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be
happening. About a week after enacting PAYGO, congressional Democrats were
attempting to carve out a loophole large enough to slip a costly jobs bill through
the rule.
26
Social Services Disadvantage
Affirmative Answers
NAUDL 2013-14
No Link – No Trade-Off (3/3)
(__) Rules won’t be applied – there are other ways to fund the plan
Bernstein, The Atlantic, 2011
(Jonathan, staff writer for The Atlantic, “Budget Gimmicks” April 6, 2011,
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/03/budget-gimmicks/189731/)
The important thing to remember about all budget gimmicks is that they there are
really only two ways to change the federal deficit: raise more revenues, or cut
spending. The presidents and Congresses that have really wanted to cut deficits
(most notably George H.W. Bush in 1990 and Bill Clinton in 1993, along with
Democratic Congresses in both cases) have done so by actually supporting
proposals that would change government revenues and/or outlays. Any time you
hear someone propose a budget gimmick instead of proposing to raise
revenues or cut spending, you can be fairly certain that it's just hot air. The
only exception I'd make would be for a pol who does both. Barack Obama, for
example, is putting together a commission which is purely a public relations gimmick,
but he's also supporting a health care plan that will, if implemented, probably cut the
long-term deficit quite a bit. (Commissions can work if everyone involved wants to
do something but doesn't want to leave fingerprints; that's not the case with Obama's
commission). In general, I'd probably be willing to speculate that the more distant
the gimmick, the less serious the authors are about it. So the one gimmick that
actually might matter is the Democrats' PAYGO rules...although even there, the
only real way it's going to matter is if Congress and the president abide by
those rules, which means that the rules themselves are close to, although not
quite completely, irrelevant.
27
Social Services Disadvantage
Affirmative Answers
NAUDL 2013-14
No Impact – Social Services Fail (1/3)
(__) Federal poverty spending empirically fails
Malanga, The Manhattan Institute, 2008
(Steven, senior editor of City Journal and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. "We
Don’t Need Another War on Poverty", City Journal, Fall, LexisNexis)
Yet the War on Poverty's legislative architects ignored the cities' own failings and
instead embraced the theories of left-wing intellectuals, who argued that the
external forces arrayed against the poor, such as racism or globalization, were
simply too overwhelming to address on the local level. "Officials and residents in
urban communities are losing control of their cities to outside forces," warned urban
planners Edward Kaitz and Herbert Harvey Hyman in their book Urban Planning for
Social Welfare. "Cities are relatively powerless." The answer was federal
intervention. Columbia University's Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward gained an
influential following among policymakers by arguing that an unjust and racist nation
owed massive government aid to the poor and mostly minority residents of struggling
cities. Further, to compel those residents to work in exchange for help, or even to make
them attend programs that might boost self-reliance, was to violate their civil liberties.
The War on Poverty, motivated by such toxic ideas, transformed welfare from temporary
assistance into a lifelong stipend with few strings attached. As everyone knows, welfare
rolls then skyrocketed, increasing 125 percent from 1965 to 1970 alone, and an
entrenched generational underclass of poor families emerged. Typically, they
lived in dysfunctional public housing projects--many of them built as another battle
in the War--that radiated blight to surrounding neighborhoods. The federal
government created a series of huge initiatives, from Medicaid and Head Start to food
stamps and school lunch programs, that spent billions of dollars trying to fight urban
poverty. And then, to attack the "root causes" of poverty (whatever they were), the
feds spent billions more on local social-services agencies, which ran ill-defined
programs with vague goals like "community empowerment" that did nothing to
alleviate poverty. Despite years of effort and gargantuan transfusions of money,
the federal government lost its War on Poverty. "In 1968 . . . 13 percent of
Americans were poor," wrote Charles Murray in his unstinting examination of
antipoverty programs, Losing Ground. "Over the next 12 years, our expenditures on
social welfare quadrupled. And in 1980, the percentage of poor Americans was-13 percent."
28
Social Services Disadvantage
Affirmative Answers
NAUDL 2013-14
No Impact – Social Services Fail (2/3)
b(__) Scientific studies prove federal social programs are ineffective
Muhlhausen, The Heritage Foundation, 2014
(David B. Muhlhausen, PhD, Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis in the Center
for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. “Do Federal Social Programs Work?”
March 19, 2014. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/do-federal-socialprograms-work)
Do federal social programs work? Based on the scientifically rigorous multisite
experimental evaluations published since 1990, the answer certainly cannot be in
the affirmative. Despite the best social engineering efforts, overwhelming evidence
points to the conclusion that federal social programs are ineffective. Ameliorating
such problems as low academic achievement, poor cognitive ability, poverty,
joblessness, low wages, and personal relations appears to be out of reach for
federal social programs. The most notable exception is welfare-to-work programs,
which increased earnings, but participants still received some government assistance.
The evidence clearly shows that federal social programs are ineffective. It cannot
be just a coincidence that the many multisite evaluations published since 1990
overwhelmingly find that this is true. Our nation faces a severe debt crisis that
threatens our very future. Americans should not fear eliminating social programs. Now
is the time for deep budget cuts in federal social programs. The social programs that
Congress continues to fund need to undergo large-scale experimental
evaluations. Multisite experimental evaluations are the best method for assessing
the effectiveness of federal social programs. Yet to date, this method has been used
to evaluate only a handful of federal social programs. Congress needs to reverse this
trend.
29
Social Services Disadvantage
Affirmative Answers
NAUDL 2013-14
No Impact – Social Services Fail (3/3)
(__) Money spent on social services has empirically failed to make a difference
Tanner, CATO Institute, 2006
(Michael D., Research Fellow at CATO Institute, “More Welfare, More Poverty”, August
31, 2006. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/08/31/more-welfare-more-poverty/)
News that the poverty rate remained at 12.6 percent last year, statistically
unchanged from the year before, has set off a predictable round of calls for
increased government spending on social welfare programs. Yet, last year, the
federal government spent more than $477 billion on some 50 different programs
to fight poverty. That amounts to $12,892 for every poor man, woman, and child in this
country. And, it does not even begin to count welfare spending by state and local
governments. For all the talk about Republican budget cuts, spending on these social
programs has increased an inflation-adjusted 22 percent since President Bush took
office. Despite this government largesse, 37 million Americans continue to live in
poverty. In fact, despite nearly $9 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared War on Poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to
where we began more than 40 years ago. One definition of insanity is doing the same
thing over and over again and expecting different results. What does that say about our
welfare policy?
(__) The government welfare system has tried and failed to eliminate poverty,
wasting trillions of dollars in the process.
Kelley, The Atlas Society, 1998
(David, Philosopher and founder and senior fellow of The Atlas Society. A Life of One’s
Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State,
http://books.google.com/books?id=tgReibe9U_kC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_na
vlinks_s)
Figure 1.1 shows the growth in total social welfare spending between 1930 and 1990.
Figure 1.2 shows what the same numbers mean in per capita terms, taking account of
the growth in population. Despite the enormous growth of the economy, which has
made it possible for more and more people to earn a more and more comfortable living,
government spending on individuals—and of course the taxes it takes from
individuals—increased from $66 to more than $3,500 (in constant dollars) per
person over the period. Despite that increase, the poverty rate—the proportion of the
population with incomes below the official poverty level—has remained at 13-14
percent since the early 1970s. It had been dropping steadily before that, from about 30
percent after World War II, but leveled off just as the Great Society programs began to
take effect. Although it has spent trillions of dollars, the War on Poverty has not
lowered the actual poverty rate (Figure 1.3).
30
Social Services Disadvantage
Affirmative Answers
NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Poverty Impact
(__) Overall material conditions of the poor are improving across every major
indicator
Eberstadt, American Enterprise Institute, 2008
(Nicholas, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “The Poverty of “The
Poverty Rate””
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20081117_PovertyofthePovertyRate.pdf)
**OPR = Official Poverty Rate
One additional and signal failure of the official poverty rate must be flagged in
any empirical discussion of poverty and material well-being in America today.
This is its manifest inability to provide an accurate reading of absolute poverty in the
United States—the charge that the indicator was expressly assigned from the 1960s on.
The OPR is, by explicit official designation, meant to monitor absolute poverty—
that is to say, to measure poverty in relation to a set income threshold, rather than in
relation to the current incomes reported by families or some other relative, and thus
perennially changing, standard. Ever since the OPR’s original poverty thresholds were
established back in 1965, they have been annually revised solely to take account of
changes in the Consumer Price Index. In principle, this should mean that a fixed and
unchanging income criterion is being used for determining the poverty status of families.
Further, since the inflation-adjusted income threshold of those counted officially poor is
supposed to remain constant over time, the material condition of those below the
poverty line should similarly be more or less consistent from one decade to the next.
Yet, as we saw, this supposition is completely refuted by biometric and other
physical data on the living conditions of the U.S. poverty population. With regard
to food and nutrition, anthropometric data demonstrate that our poor are
incontestably better off today than in 1965; ironically, in fact, overweight and obesity
are the prime problems that have emerged over this interim as major nutritional
concerns with regard to this population. With respect to housing, the poor today live
in decidedly less crowded, more spacious, and better-furnished dwellings than
they did four decades ago—and those housing standards appear to have improved
steadily, decade by decade. By a number of benchmarks, indeed, the officially poor
today enjoy better housing conditions than the nonpoor in 1970, or the American
population as a whole as recently as 1980. With respect to transportation, a steadily
increasing proportion (by now, the vast majority) of officially poor households
own cars, trucks, or other sorts of motor vehicles, and a significant and rising
minority of officially poor families have two or more motor vehicles. Finally, utilization
of medical and health-care services by the officially poor has progressively
expanded over the decades—so much so that children in families below the
poverty line in 2004 were more likely to have at least one annual doctor’s visit
than were children in families with incomes well above the official poverty line
only two decades earlier.
31
Social Services Disadvantage
Affirmative Answers
NAUDL 2013-14
Answers to: Economy Impact
(__) The impact of social programs is too long-term
Nilsen, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2007
(Sigurd, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. Government
Accountability Office
CQ Congressional Testimony, “THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIETAL COSTS OF
POVERTY,” January 24, 2007, LexisNexis)
Economists have long recognized the strong association between poverty and a range
of adverse outcomes for individuals, and empirical research, while limited, has also
begun to help us better understand the impact of poverty on a nation's economic
growth. The interrelationships between poverty and various adverse social
outcomes are complex, and our understanding of these relationships can lead to
vastly different conclusions regarding appropriate interventions to address each
specific outcome. Furthermore, any such interventions could take years, or even a
generation, to yield significant and lasting results, as the greatest impacts are
likely to be seen among children. Nevertheless, whatever the underlying causes of
poverty may be, economic research suggests that improvements in the health,
neighborhoods, education, and skills of those living in poverty could have impacts far
beyond individuals and families, potentially improving the economic well-being of the
nation as a whole.
(__) Any savings are long term, the short term costs are still huge
Haskins, Brookings Institution, 2007
(Ron, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and a Senior Consultant at the Annie E.
Casey Foundation CQ Congressional Testimony, “THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIETAL
COSTS OF POVERTY,” January 24, 2007, LexisNexis)
I would, however, like to emphasize a cost that is not part of the calculations made by
Holzer and his colleagues. Even if we reduce childhood poverty and prevent some
of the costs childhood poverty imposes on the economy, whatever actions we
take to end poverty would themselves have substantial costs. Thus, even if $500
billion is an accurate estimate of the costs of childhood poverty, we would need
to spend money to reduce childhood poverty in order to reduce its long-term
costs. In 2005 we spent well over $600 billion on programs for poor and lowincome individuals and families and yet the child poverty rate was 17.6 percent.
It's anyone's guess how much more we would have to spend to greatly reduce the
current child poverty rate.
32