Tsdc spending Core neg shell


Obama is pushing for ocean funding – makes your impacts inevitable and no links the disad



Download 142.58 Kb.
Page6/8
Date18.08.2018
Size142.58 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

Link

No Link

Obama is pushing for ocean funding – makes your impacts inevitable and no links the disad


Woglom 14[“Obama Pushes for Needed Boost in Ocean Funding” Emily Woglom- Vice President, Conservation Policy and Programs, for Ocean Conservancy, March 4, 2014, http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2014/03/04/obama-pushes-for-needed-boost-in-ocean-funding/]
The White House released President Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2015 today. The proposal appears to be good news for the ocean and a great first step toward strong funding for ocean-health programs next year. Of course, the budget documents that the administration released today are only part of the picture. They detail the big-picture, top-level budget numbers with only a small number of details, and individual program budgets won’t be released until later. So what can we tell from what has been released so far? Last year, we focused on some key questions to help decide how the ocean is faring in the federal budget process. In particular, we asked whether the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) top-line budget number is sufficient, and whether there was appropriate balance between NOAA’s “wet” ocean and “dry” non-ocean missions. When it comes to NOAA’s overall budget numbers, things look pretty good. Regarding the balance between wet and dry missions, the single biggest increase goes to the satellite line office, but the National Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service both see healthy increases as well. We will not know details until additional numbers are released, but we do not see any red flags to suggest that things are way out of balance. Here are some key takeaways based on what we know today: Overall NOAA Funding Looks Strong: The White House demonstrated support for increased funding at NOAA. NOAA programs lead cutting-edge research on ocean health and support smart ocean management. NOAA is also the central agency tasked with ending overfishing. While NOAA’s FY 2014 funding level is an improvement over FY 2013’s abysmal sequestration level, the proposal from the White House shows how far we still have to go: It calls for a $174 million increase over FY 2014, recommending $5.5 billion in funding for NOAA in FY 2015.

A Slew of programs just got new funding


Watters 6/6/14 [Four Ways the Senate Supports Ocean Investments” June 6, 2014 by Jeff Watters- Acting Director of Government Relations for Ocean Conservancy, http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2014/06/06/four-ways-the-senate-supports-ocean-investments/#more-8450]

Just a week after the House of Representatives passed its proposed budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously approved its NOAA proposal, funding research and activities that influence the health and strength of our ocean economy and coastal communities. The Senate proposal takes a cue from President Obama’s request, and would invest in several key ocean programs. It would: Fund ocean acidification research at $11 million, recognizing our need to understand how acidification will impact businesses and ecoystems, as well as the need to develop tools to mitigate its impacts. Although this proposal is still $4 million less than the President’s request, the Senate level is a strong step towards protecting marine environments and the communities that depend on them. Provide at least $5 million for competitive Regional Coastal Resilience Grants, which will help communities prepare for changes to marine ecosystems, climate impacts, and economic shifts. These grants will bring together partners on a regional scale to promote resilience and address shared risks. Increase Climate Research funding by $2.19 million to support the Arctic Research Program. Temperatures in the Arctic are warming at twice the rate of the global average and seasonal sea ice is diminishing rapidly. Funding to expand and improve NOAA’s Arctic Observing Network is critical to track and understand these profound changes and provide products that support our ability to adapt. Provide the requested $6 million for NOAA’s Marine Debris program, which supports existing monitoring and research efforts to better understand accumulation rates of debris and debris sources. The program catalyzes scientific research efforts to quantify the direct and indirect economic impacts caused by marine debris on coastal communities and economies that rely on them.

Link Shield – SQ Spending

The aff is just a drop in the bucket – the government spends over $10 billion per day


Davies 12 [Antony Davies, “Funding Government by the Minute” Learn Liberty.Org, 3/28/12. http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/funding-government-minute/]

In 2011, the federal government received $2.2 trillion from all revenue sources and spent 3.8 trillion, resulting in a $1.6 trillion deficit. To put federal government spending in perspective, economics professor Antony Davies shows how long it takes the government to run out of money and how much the government needs to cut to make it through the end of the year. Suppose that on January 1 the government received its revenue of $2.2 trillion and began spending. To spend $3.8 trillion in one year means the government spends at the rate of $434 million an hour, or more than $10 billion a day. With $2.2 trillion to spend, spending at a rate of $434 million an hour, the federal government runs out of money at 11:59 p.m. on July 31. To eliminate the deficit the government needs to cut five months’ worth of spending. Professor Davies shows that perhaps just cutting programs is not going to be enough to balance the budget.

Any link to the DA is shot – debt quadrupling by 2024


Jeffrey 5/7/14 [“Fed Chair: ‘Deficits Will Rise to Unsustainable Levels’” Terence P. Jeffrey, May 7, 2014

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/fed-chair-deficits-will-rise-unsustainable-levels]


Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen, referencing the Congressional Budget Office's long-term budget projections, told the Joint Economic Committee of Congress today that under current policies the federal government’s deficits “will rise to unsustainable levels.” In the 10-year budget projections it released in April, the CBO estimated that the federal government will run $7.618 trillion in deficits from 2015 through 2024. At the same time, the CBO projected that the federal government’s debt held by the public would rise from $11.983 trillion at the end of fiscal 2013 to $20.947 trillion by the end of 2024. The debt held by the public is the part of the U.S. government debt that is not held by the federal government itself. It primarily consists of marketable Treasury securities, including bills, notes and bonds. It does not include what the government calls “intragovernmental debt," which is the money the Treasury has borrowed out of the Social Security Trust Fund and other government trust funds to pay current expenses. The total debt of the federal government at the end of fiscal 2013--including both the debt held by the public and the intragovernmental debt--was $16.719 trillion. The CBO estimates that by 2024, the total debt of the federal government will be $27.159 trillion—of which $20.947 trillion will be debt held by the public. If that projection holds up, the federal debt held by the public in 2024 would be more than four times the $5.035 trillion federal debt held by the public at the end of 2007.

Link Turns

Spending stimulates the economy – budget surpluses prove


NP 2014 [National Priorities Project, Budget 101: “Fighting for a U.S. Federal Budget That Works for All Americans” https://www.nationalpriorities.org/about/mission/]

There is an ongoing debate as to whether the government should limit its ability to borrow. Some consider deficit spending to be a hindrance to the government and the economy, arguing that a deficit only shifts the burden to future generations because it must be paid for eventually, just like any other loan.¶ Others see deficits as a crucial way for the government to stimulate the economy during an economic downturn. Proponents of this view believe that the role of government is not only to provide services that the private sector won’t, but also to stimulate the economy during economic crises. They argue that deficits are necessary in times of economic hardship, but that during economic booms, budget surpluses should be used to pay down the debt.


Spending stimulates the economy-


The Week 2009 [How Spending Stimulates the Economy, The Week, http://theweek.com/article/index/93614/how-spending-stimulates) 2/24/09]

will the Obama deficit-spending plan work? Will throwing $800 billion—$500 billion in extra government spending, and $300 billion in tax cuts—at the economy produce a world in which production and employment are higher and unemployment lower than would otherwise have been the case? The short answer is yes. The short reason is that spending works—eras in which some group or other gets excited about future prospects and starts madly spending money are eras in which production and employment are high and unemployment is low. And the government, in this respect, is just like any other group of starry-eyed optimists whose eagerness to spend pulls the economy into a high-employment, high-pressure boom. Consider the engines of previous boosts to production and employment. Between 2003 and 2005 the assembled investors of the world discovered the American housing market. Low interest rates produced by the Federal Reserve allowed them to borrow and leverage up cheaply—and the promise of financial engineering that would greatly help them diversify risk made them think investing in new construction and new homeowners’ moves into new construction was a profit opportunity. Spending on home construction rose. And the adult civilian employment to population ratio rose from 62 percent to 63.5 percent while the unemployment rate fell from 6.0 percent to 4.8 percent. Between 1996 and 1998 the assembled investors of America discovered the Internet and spent enormous sums to exploit and expand it. And the adult civilian employment to population ratio rose from 63 percent to nearly 65 percent as the unemployment rate fell 5.6 percent to 4.3 percent. In August, 1982, Paul Volcker’s Federal Reserve released the interest-rate chokehold it had been using to strangle the economy. Lower interest rates induced homebuilders to spend massively, since for the first time in nearly half a decade they could obtain financing for construction. At the same time, the Reagan administration ramped up defense spending for the second cold war, and luxury spending rose as the Reagan tax cuts gave money back to America’s rich. The adult employment-to-population ratio rocketed up from 57.2 percent to 59.9 percent in the short order of two years while the unemployment rate fell from 10.8 percent to 7.3 percent. These are just three examples of a general principle: each major business-cycle expansion we have seen has been driven by a leading wave of spending—by some group that became enthusiastic about their prospects and decided to greatly increase its spending. And that pulled employment and production up. Now we are attempting to do the same thing once again—but this time with the government as the leading spender. Obama’s stimulus spending increases are bigger, as a share of the economy, than Reagan’s defense increases were, while Obama’s tax cuts are smaller. Unlike 1983, when the Fed cut interest rates to help Reagan’s economic recovery, it cannot do so to help Obama. The Fed has done all the cutting it can. Still, a boost to spending by the government should have the same effects as boosts to spending by luxury consumers and the defense department and homebuilders in the early 1980s, by the high-tech sector in the late 1990s, and by homebuilders in the mid-2000s. The government’s money, after all, is as good as anybody else’s. So there is little question about the likely impact of the Obama deficit-spending program: production and employment are going to be higher than they would have been otherwise. As Greg Mankiw, the former chief economic adviser to George W. Bush, said back in 1983: “There is nothing novel about this. It is very conventional short-run stabilization policy: You can find it in all of the leading textbooks.”

Spending key to economic growth-


Ezra Klein columnist at the Washington Post, as well as a contributor to MSNBC-January 2013 (Government is hurting the economy — by spending too little, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/30/government-is-hurting-the-economy-by-spending-too-little/) S

You’ve heard this before: The government is holding the economy back. And it’s true. The newly released numbers for economic growth in the fourth quarter, which show the economy shrinking at an 0.1 percent annual rate, prove that. But exactly what the government is doing to hold the economy back might surprise you. Typically, when people say the government is hurting the recovery, they mean that deficits are too high and uncertainty over future policy is scaring businesses. But there’s little evidence of that. The main reason to worry about deficits is that they’ll hike interest rates, as government borrowing crowds out private borrowing, and that makes it harder for businesses to grow and individuals to invest. But interest rates are about as low as they’ve ever been. After accounting for inflation, the federal government has been able to borrow at an unprecedented negative inflation-adjusted rate — so, the market is, essentially, paying us to keep their money safe — since 2011.¶ As such, most deficit hawks warn that the problem with our deficits is that markets might, at some point in the future, move unpredictably and swiftly to punish us for our deficits. Perhaps that’s true. But implicit in that argument is that there’s no real evidence that deficits are hurting the economy now. Nor is there strong evidence that businesses are holding back on investment for any reason save lack of demand. The general factoid you hear in support of this argument is that corporations are sitting on more than $2.5 trillion in cash, with the implication being that they’d be spending that cash if not for the paralyzing effects of federal policy.But the build-up of cash reserves — or, to be more technical (and more accurate), “liquid assets” — is a long-term trend that hasn’t accelerated since the recession. The Federal Reserve keeps data on liquid assets held by non-financial corporations, and the build-up was faster from 1997 to 2000 than it was from 2008 to 2011. Why corporations are holding so much more cash is an interesting mystery, but it’s not one that began with the passage of Obamacare.¶ A big reason for this is cutbacks on the state and local level, which have been much larger than cutbacks at the federal level. In 2010, for instance, federal spending took 0.23 percentage points off GDP, while state and local spending took 0.43 percentage points off. As such, Washington often misses the overall contraction in government spending, as the bulk of that contraction has been at the state and local levels. But federal spending has been contracting too.Another way of looking at this data is to compare the contribution of private spending and public spending to economic growth. Here are those numbers since 2009: Economists expect that to continue. Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics projects the sequester alone will cut 0.5 percentage points off growth in 2013 if it’s allowed to go into effect. Add that to the expiration of the payroll tax cut and assorted other belt-tightening measures at the federal level and total fiscal drag, he says, is likely to be more than one percentage point of GDP in 2013 — a significant hit when total GDP growth isn’t expected to be above three percentage points.¶ These numbers, by the way, only measure the most direct contribution of government spending. They don’t measure indirect contributions, as when a defense contractor uses money from his federal contract to buy a house. His house purchase would’ve shown up in private investment, not public investment, but its absence doesn’t show up anywhere at all.So yes, the government is hurting the recovery. But it’s not because of deficits or uncertainty, or at least, it’s hard to find evidence for either theory. The real, provable damage the government has done to economic growth in recent years has been in cutting back on spending and investment since 2010.

Farm Bill Thumper

Farm bill should’ve triggered the link


TCS 14 [Taxpayers for Common Sense, “Sacred Cows Come Home to Roost,” 2/7, http://www.taxpayer.net/library/weekly-wastebasket/article/sacred-cows-come-home-to-roost]
The President’s signing of the farm bill today marks a monumental defeat for taxpayers and victory for the old Washington spending bulls. Like shepherds guarding their flock, for nearly three years the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees opposed nearly every common sense effort to rein in spending on the already highly profitable agriculture sector. With the signing of this bill, special interests wolves have been set free to devour taxpayer dollars while the ordinary taxpayer is about to be fleeced. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (H.R. 2642) is the product of a long, non-transparent journey with unfortunately more downs than ups. Ever since the four Agriculture Committee leaders tried to jam a trillion dollar backroom-written farm bill into the failed Super Committee on deficit reduction, they’ve tried to keep the public, and even their own committees, from influencing the bill. When the Super Committee crumbled, they painted their already crafted trillion-dollar bill as an “emergency” response to the 2012 drought. Then they tried to sell their paltry projected savings as a part of the fiscal cliff deal. Anything that moved was an opportunity to hitch onto. And even when the bills did make it to the House and Senate floors, the bulk of taxpayer-friendly amendments were never even given a chance. In fact, just 15 out of the 259 submitted were even allowed a vote in the Senate. And after the House bill was defeated in June of 2013, it was rushed back up three weeks later amongst a cloud of misinformation and without any further amendments or debate. When you hide the work of Congress you get something like this bill – a Grade-A example of bipartisan binging. One wasteful program that sent out checks no matter what (direct payments) is replaced with three new entitlement programs designed to send checks for “shallow” (their words, not ours) dips in income. The counter-cyclical program of government-set minimum prices for crops is eliminated and replaced with… a program of government-set minimum (but much higher than before) prices called “Price Loss Coverage.” And tucked into page 312 is a section prohibiting the Obama Administration from saving money by renegotiating the sweetheart deal crop insurance companies receive for participating in the highly subsidized federal crop insurance program. In 2010, the Administration reduced the guaranteed rate of return for insurance companies (i.e., profit) from 17 percent to a more “reasonable” industry average level of 13 percent, saving taxpayers $6 billion, but the Ag Committees refuse to ever let such sane policymaking repeat itself. The farm bill is also a classic example of a committee dominated by parochial interests thwarting the will of the majority. In hashing out the differences between the two, a task monopolized yet again by the four leaders, a number of interesting decisions were made. Floor amendments that added to the cost of the bill—for example adding crop insurance policies for pennycress (a weed used in biofuels), alfalfa (cheap hay), and losses due to food recalls—made it into the final legislation. Cost-savings amendments that would cap overall spending on new shallow loss entitlements, eliminate the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s duplicative catfish inspection office (we already have one in the FDA), deny farm subsidies to city dwellers, and trim crop insurance subsidies for millionaires (an amendment that passed the Senate twice) were all abandoned. Oh, and a requirement that lawmakers and Cabinet Secretaries publicly disclose their crop insurance subsidies? Yeah they just couldn’t make that fit. When given the choice between bowing to special interests or fighting for taxpayers, they said no to no one except those wanting to save taxpayer dollars. Legislation that sets our nation’s agriculture policies for the next five to ten years is too important to be left to a handful of folks working behind closed doors. If President Obama followed his own FY14 budget priorities, he would veto this expensive, status quo piece of legislation. Taxpayers deserve a more cost-effective, accountable, responsive, and transparent farm safety net, not yet another farm bill that spares the sacred cows by sheering taxpayers.



Download 142.58 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8




The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2020
send message

    Main page