172 Ss Fiscal Discipline

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Contents 1NC Shell(1/2).........................................................................................................................................................3 1NC Shell(2/2).........................................................................................................................................................4 Fiscal Discipline Uniqueness.................................................................................................................................5 Fiscal Discipline Uniqueness.................................................................................................................................6 Fiscal Discipline Uniqueness.................................................................................................................................7 Link- Emergency Spending...................................................................................................................................8 Obama Fiscal D......................................................................................................................................................9 LINK - EARMARKS...........................................................................................................................................10 LINK - EARMARKS...........................................................................................................................................11 Snowball Link......................................................................................................................................................12 Snowball Link......................................................................................................................................................13 Link-Wind............................................................................................................................................................14 Link- Pork Barrel Spending...............................................................................................................................15 Link – Perception.................................................................................................................................................16 Link – Ag...............................................................................................................................................................17 Link – Hydrogen..................................................................................................................................................18 Link – Taxes..........................................................................................................................................................19 Link-Nuclear........................................................................................................................................................20 Link-Alternative Energy.....................................................................................................................................21 Link- Alternative Energy....................................................................................................................................22 Link-Alternative Energy.....................................................................................................................................23 Link-Alternative Energy.....................................................................................................................................24 Link-Alternative Energy.....................................................................................................................................25 Link – Foreign Aid...............................................................................................................................................26 Link – Military.....................................................................................................................................................27 Link – Military.....................................................................................................................................................28 Link – Military.....................................................................................................................................................29 Link education/health/science............................................................................................................................30 Link – development..............................................................................................................................................31 Link – Interior Policies........................................................................................................................................32 1

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi Link – Terrorism..................................................................................................................................................33 Link – Farm Bills.................................................................................................................................................34 Link – emergency spending.................................................................................................................................35 Link – elections cause snowball..........................................................................................................................36 Dollar Key to econ................................................................................................................................................37 Fiscal D Key to Econ............................................................................................................................................38 Fiscal D Key to Econ............................................................................................................................................39 Fiscal D Key to Econ............................................................................................................................................40 Fiscal D Key to Econ............................................................................................................................................41 Fiscal D Key to check Russia..............................................................................................................................42 Fiscal D K deficit..................................................................................................................................................43 Fiscal D K Biz Con...............................................................................................................................................44 Fiscal D K Heg......................................................................................................................................................45 Debt -> Recession.................................................................................................................................................46 Debt -> Recession.................................................................................................................................................47 Debt -> military aggression.................................................................................................................................48 US Deficit -> global econ collapse.......................................................................................................................49 2AC (1/2)...............................................................................................................................................................50 2AC (2/2)...............................................................................................................................................................51 FISCAL D Low ...................................................................................................................................................52 FISCAL D Low.....................................................................................................................................................53 FISCAL D Low.....................................................................................................................................................54 FISCAL D Low.....................................................................................................................................................55 NO SPILLOVER – EARMARKS .....................................................................................................................56 No increase in money...........................................................................................................................................57 McCain & Obama Fiscal D low..........................................................................................................................58 Spending -> boost econ........................................................................................................................................59

2

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

1NC Shell(1/2) A. Uniqueness-- Bush and the Blue Dogs are holding the line on fiscal disc Housing Wire,7/15/2008, “Bush: Congress Needs to Move on Housing Bill”, http://www.housingwire.com/2008/07/15/bushcongress-needs-to-move-on-housing-bill/, BB The largest source of Bush’s veto threat had centered around a proposed provision in the Senate that would add $3.9 billion in Community Development Block Grant funding to allow local governments to purchase foreclosed and abandoned real estate for use as affordable housing. The House version of the package contains no such provision, and socalled “Blue Dog” Democrats — a name given to a group of conservative Democrats in the House — have been strongly opposed to the measure, as well.

B. Link-- Congressional attempts at alternative energy are inevitably earmarked Newt Gringrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Winning the Future", 06/03/2008 , “Stop the Green Pig: Defeat the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman Green Pork Bill Capping American Jobs and Trading America's Future”, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26808, BB Of these two approaches, the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman bill is definitely of the old school. The Wall Street Journal calls it "the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s." The bill aims to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere by 66% in 2050. To do this, it would have government set a limit on overall carbon emissions and issue "allowances" to businesses that specify how much carbon they produce. Like Pork Barrel Politics? Wait Until You See Energy Pork Barrel Politics And here's where we get into the Washington-style pork barrel politics. Half of these "allowances" will be auctioned off to businesses - a massive, up front tax that is expected to cost $3.32 trillion. Businesses will be forced to pass these indirect taxes along to consumers, of course, while Washington politicians decide which special interests will get a piece of the new $3.32 trillion revenue out of the politicians' gigantic new Green Piggybank. BoxerWarner-Lieberman is riddled with earmarks, both to redistribute new tax revenues to politically favored groups (for example, there is $136 billion earmarked for energy efficiency block grants to local governments) and for buying off industries that might otherwise put their armies of lobbyists to work to defeat the bill. Bottom line: If you liked the pork and political-favor-ridden Farm Bill and Transportation bills, you're going to love the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman green pork bill.

C. Internal Link--Lack of Fiscal Discipline leads to Economic Collapse Gerald J. Swanson, Professor; Thomas R. Brown Chair in Economic Education @ Eller College, America the Broke, 2004, pg. 13, BB Because foreign investors view the dollar as nothing more than another asset they buy in hopes of making a return, increasing economic turmoil in the United States would probably provoke them to sell some, if not all, of their dollar assets, causing the currency’s value to drop farther. As this vicious cycle gathered speed, foreign investors might quit buying Treasury securities altogether. They might even start cashing in the bonds they already held. That would force the government to print the money it couldn’t borrow—a surefire trigger for inflation and another blow to the value of the dollar. What would happen then? We can only guess, because such a debacle has never occurred in modern times. At the very least, the United States—and because of our wide-ranging influence the rest of the world, too—would be plunged into economic chaos, all because of our unwillingness to reign in our reckless spending.

3

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

1NC Shell(2/2) D. Impact- Economic Collapse leads to Nuclear War Walter Russell Mead, Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, "Depending on the Kindness of Strangers," New Perspectives Quarterly 9.3 (Summer 1992) pp. 28-30. There is, or there should be, nothing surprising about the fix we are in. Everyone has known since the ‘70s that the U.S. could no longer, single-handedly, manage the global economy. But, like Blanche Dubois, America’s leaders preferred to ignore the unpleasant reality, and made no provisions to meet the coming challenge. There is something breathtakingly casual in the way the American elite responds to its failures. The savings and loan debacle, the disintegration of our inner cities, the budget deficit: Our public and private elites don’t care about them. Perhaps because they grew up in the years when the U.S. faced no real economic challenges and knew no real limits, they don’t understand that failure has a price. If so this new failure—the failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression—will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions—billions—of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles—and drawn closer to the West—because they believe our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates—or even shrinks? In that case we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India—these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to the world order than Germany and Japan did in the ‘30s.

4

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Fiscal Discipline Uniqueness Bush holding his hand, vetoing expensive bills NPR (National Public Radio); ’07; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14938419 President Bush on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance, after saying the legislation was too costly and had strayed from its original intent. It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could be used against them in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number. The State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage. The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years, allowing an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack. The president had promised to veto it, saying

the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far from its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He wants only a $5 billion increase in funding. Bush argued that the congressional plan would be a move toward socialized medicine by expanding the program to higher-income families.

Bush’s 2008 Budget promotes fiscal responsibility while cutting funding from the war Riskind, Johnathan (staff writer for the Columbus Dispatch); 2-08;

http://web.lexis nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=8d0ad08ce66e37be0f75322a2721e67b&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkVk&_md5=b2aa89c2ad6ffaa695e99b74bdf9aa92 Voinovich said Bush is being fiscally dishonest in portraying his proposal as starting to erase what will be about a $400 billion federal deficit this year. The deficit is ballooning from the 2007 mark of $163 billion in large part because of the expected passage of a stimulus package. But Voinovich says Bush's budget fails to include the true costs of the war in Iraq and wrongly counts revenue from the alternative minimum tax. Congress continues to act to keep that levy -- meant only for the superwealthy -- from hitting the middle class.Voinovich failed last year to pass legislation to force Bush to fully account for war spending in the budget. Last month he called on Bush to account for how he would pay for alternative minimum tax relief and to show how he would save money by curtailing Medicare physician payments. "This

budget only looks fiscally responsible because it ignores hundreds of billions of dollars in costs that the (Bush) administration itself supports -- such as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, physician payment reform and AMT relief," Voinovich said. Bush saves money on Medicare and Medicaid by freezing payments to hospitals, physicians and other health-care providers. The reduced growth in Medicare hospital payments alone would mean about $64 billion less over five years than hospitals anticipate, said Jonathan Archey of the Ohio Hospital Association. The impact, Archey said, would be "traumatic." Meanwhile, Democrats said Bush's plan will be quickly reshaped by the House and Senate. They noted that when Bush came into office there was a 10-year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. Rival-party lawmakers criticized the proposal's push to extend tax cuts that Democrats say are too weighted toward the wealthy, while not including the full costs for the war. Bush's budget calls for spending $70

billion on war efforts when about $200 billion is expected to be needed.

5

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Fiscal Discipline Uniqueness Blue Dogs are able to maintain pay go Denise Ross, covered South Dakota politics since 1999. She now publishes Hoghouse Blog and can be heard weekly as a political junkie guest on South Dakota Public Radio. , 7/17/2008, Black Hills Pioneer, “‘Blue Dog’ Herseth Sandlin at center of House fiscal watchdog group”, http://www.bhpioneer.com/articles/2008/07/17/opinion/doc487fb5450094f111315432.txt, “With Democrats potentially controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in 2009, House leaders must not ignore the Blue Dogs’ concerns if they want to keep the majority,” reports a recent National Journal cover story titled “Dog Days.” Herseth Sandlin was one of four of the 49 Blue Dogs chosen for the National Journal interview and cover photo. South Dakota’s congresswoman seems to have found growing power within a group that is itself growing in power. The Blue Dogs have grown from 23 members when they first formed in 1994 after the GOP’s historic takeover of Congress, and they have expanded from mostly Southern representatives to include members from the Midwest and West. They even have six members from the Northeast. More importantly, recent heretofore unimaginable Democratic victories in red districts have been won by candidates endorsed by and funded by the Blue Dogs. And, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco ponders her party’s majority in the House, she knows much of the credit must go to the Blue Dogs, according to the National Journal. “She and other House Democratic leaders are well aware that if just 19 Blue Dogs oppose them on party-line votes, the majority can’t pass legislation,” reported the magazine. The Blue Dogs have unified around what’s called “pay-go” in Capitol Hill shorthand, or a “pay as you go” budget rule that requires Congress to pay for new spending with either a tax increase or other spending cuts. That rule has been waived a handful of times but only cautiously due to the Blue Dogs’ collective swing-vote status.

Fiscal Discipline Now- No new spending bills till next year The Hill, 7/15/2008, “House Republicans stand to benefit from earmark bans”, http://thehill.com/business--lobby/houserepublicans-stand-to-benefit-from-earmark-bans-2008-07-15.html, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said earlier this month that he expects Congress will hold off on clearing any of the spending bills until President Bush leaves office. Bush has called earmarks wasteful and promised to veto any appropriations bill that has not reduced its earmarks by half from last year’s total. Nevertheless, several Republicans and a few Democrats in both the House and Senate agreed that earmarks had gotten out of control and adopted personal bans on requesting the projects this year.

Blue Dogs enforcing pay-go now National Journal, 7/18/2008, “Debt Limit Won't Be On Housing Bill”, http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20080718_4509.php, The housing-recovery package that is expected on the House floor Wednesday will not raise the statutory debt limit of $9.8 trillion, even though it will allow the Treasury Department to provide a line of credit to beleaguered mortgage-financing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. House Democrats decided not to conflate two issues as they try to quickly pass a final measure before the August recess. The CBO has not scored the cost of the plan crafted by Treasury Secretary Paulson that would provide a temporary increase for the line of credit the two have with Treasury and allow the department to purchase equity in the two. The government sponsored enterprises own or guarantee about $5.2 trillion in mortgages, though lawmakers do not expect the CBO estimate to be anywhere near that number. Paulson contends the two will not have to tap the public funds because the legislation would send a strong signal to the markets that they will be fully capitalized. Lawmakers are expected to place some restrictions on the proposal before attaching it to the housing package. House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank has signaled some provisions, such as no stock dividend could be paid out if either accesses the line of credit, that the Treasury would have to buy preferred stock so it would be the first in line to others once the companies produced profits and, if the line of credit is tapped, a new strengthened regulator would have the power to curb top management compensation at Fannie and Freddie. Frank said any expenditure under the bill will be charged against the debt limit. He argued that will be a limiting factor for Treasury if it is given such powers, an argument that could help sway the concerns of the Blue Dog Coalition that has insisted the bill comply with pay/go rules

6

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Fiscal Discipline Uniqueness McCain is creating the perception of fiscal discipline—it doesn’t matter if it is true Time Magazine, July 10, 2008, “McCain: Selling an Economic Policy”, http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1821470,00.html, BB As frequently as he now talks about economic issues, his attempt to embrace two conservative economic models at once isn't helping his credibility. On the one hand, McCain argues for fiscal discipline, with his promises to end wasteful pork-barrel spending (which he mentioned five times during his appearance in Ohio). On the other, with his commitment to tax cuts, he embraces supply-side economics, which maintains that short-term deficits don't really matter. But does it really matter to voters if the numbers don't add up? Not necessarily, argues former Republican Congressman Vin Weber, an influential conservative voice. In a time of economic anxiety, "voters want to know the candidate, first of all, understands the seriousness of the problem, and second of all, they have to believe there's a commitment to change." Weber says what voters listen for are "big signal issues."

Fiscal Discipline is guaranteed until 2009 Miami Herald, 7/12/2008, “Wasserman Schultz defends her budget earmarks”, http://www.miamiherald.com/news/broward/story/602272.html, That's because in an election year marked by partisan bickering, congressional observers question whether any of the spending bills will pass before the November election. If that doesn't happen, the bills would be revisited only after Congress reconvenes in 2009. The federal government would keep operating under a stop-gap measure that would keep spending at the same level.

McCain’s stance on fiscal d spills over John Milne, veteran New Hampshire political reporter and analyst, 7/19/2008John Milne: Stephen hopes spendthrift Congress will spark voter anger, http://www.newburyportnews.com/puopinion/local_story_200215855.html?keyword=topstory, Stephen echoed the probable GOP presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, when he attacked earmarks, those special giveaways inserted slyly by members of Congress into appropriations bills. "I want to say 'no' to wasteful earmark spending," he said. "We're going to go from business as usual to real change." [Republican congressional hopeful John Stephen]

Election pressure leads to fiscal discipline CBS News, July 8, 2008, “Starting Gate: Feeling The Pain”, http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/07/08/politics/horserace/entry4240277.shtml, Look at yesterday’s debate over taxes for example. Trying to return his party to the champion of smaller government and spending discipline, John McCain pledged to slash federal spending and balance the budget by the end of his first term in office (a questionable prospect at best) while keeping taxes low. “The choice in this election is stark and simple,” McCain said at a town hall meeting in Denver. “Senator Obama will raise your taxes, I won’t.”

7

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link- Emergency Spending Emergency spending is routinely loaded with pork barrel spending Brian M. Riedl, Senior Policy Analyst and Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, and Alison Acosta Fraser, Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, 4/17/06, “The Senate’s Deadly Sin: Larding Up Emergency Appropriations” Unfortunately, many of the spending items that wind up in supplemental are all too foreseeable. Because emergency supplemental bills do not count against budget caps, they are routinely loaded with additional spending that is unrelated to the original purpose of the legislation. [20] The Senate Appropriations Committee’s current supplemental bill is a perfect example of this.

8

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Obama Fiscal D Obama is going to be fiscally responsible, Cooper proves John Rodgers, City Paper staff writer, July 18, 2008, “Cooper says Obama best choice to reform America” (http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/news.php?viewStory=61509) While both are Democrats and Harvard Law graduates, Jim Cooper and Barack Obama don’t share many similarities. Cooper is a fiscally conservative congressman representing Nashville and Obama, by Cooper’s own admission, has “sterling liberal credentials” hailing from Chicago, serving as Illinois senator and heading the Democratic ticket. Stylistically, Obama packs arenas with his soaring oratory, inspiring millions. Conversely, Cooper employs a quick wit while training his spectacles on line items in the federal budget in his ongoing quest to trim wasteful spending. Policy-wise, the gulf between the two is almost as wide, especially on fiscal issues. For example, unlike Obama, Cooper thinks the likely Democratic presidential nominee’s Social Security plan is “way too specific” and “way too premature,” his trade policies too “protectionist” and Obama’s opposition to expanded offshore drilling “mistaken.” Yet, for all of their differences, the conservative fiscal hawk Cooper thinks a President Obama is the only one who could fix Washington and its spendthrift ways. “Opposites attract in politics, like only Nixon could go to China,” Cooper said this week, recalling the strident anti-communist president’s trip to China. “Well probably only a liberal and an AfricanAmerican could reform runaway entitlement program spending. Now there’s no guarantee of that, but I don’t see a Republican doing it.” Cooper’s fiscal reputation and fervent support for Obama has even spurred some speculation that Cooper would be considered for a position in an Obama administration, possibly as budget director — something Cooper for now is downplaying. Cooper thinks Obama is the man to change a Washington and curb the influence of special interests who fervently protect spending programs benefiting them in the federal budget. The two main entitlement programs Cooper often references — Medicare and Social Security — need reform, he says, and Obama’s “liberal credentials” are what is needed to get the job done. “I’m pretty darn conservative,” Cooper said. “But that’s why moderates and conservatives like me can enthusiastically support Barack.”

9

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

LINK - EARMARKS Earmarks are linked to Pork Barrel Spending Huffington Post, The internet newspaper, June 18, 2008, “Bipartisanship Thrives -- At Least When it Comes to Earmarks” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/bipartisanship-thrives_b_107667.html) Plus, you have to wonder just who Congressman Reyes sees as his "constituency." The U.S. is more than $9 trillion in debt, and polls show that most Americans don't like earmarking . Americans nationwide are struggling with rising gas and food costs. Communities across the country are suffering from the mortgage meltdown. Maybe the congressman thinks he should only focus on Texans, but you really have to ask exactly how many Texans benefit from a nice, new, not-asked-for by the Defense Department contract for Digital Fusion. Perhaps the best defense of earmarks is that all of them added up together don't make much of a difference in the country's $3 trillion dollar budget. The best ballpark estimate is that this kind of pork-barrel spending adds up to about $17 billion in 2008, and many budget hawks think that getting upset about them deflects attention from far more serious fiscal problems. It is a pretty small piece of the pie, and maybe some of these earmarks do some good. Somewhere. Unfortunately, every single one of them was paid for with red ink, and the very worst thing about them is the cynicism and pessimism the practice engenders in the American public. Are elected officials oblivious to that? If they are wondering why public ratings for Congress are so low, this is a clue. In an era when Congress is too divided to balance the budget , reform the country's broken immigration system, craft a long-term energy policy, fix our mishmash of a health care system, or protect Social Security, there is still one area of broad bipartisan agreement -- earmarks will live for yet another day.

“Must pass” bills collapse fiscal discipline Istook et Al., a Visiting Fellow in Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation, served 14 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and was chairman of a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, Ernest Istook, Nicola Moore, Baker Spring and Alison Acosta Fraser, May 2, 2007, “Post-Veto War Supplemental Must Eliminate Pork and Support Troops”, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1440.cfm, BB A series of short-term supplemental bills would also destroy any hope of Members' exercising the fiscal discipline that this Congress has promised to provide. In the vetoed supplemental, Congress stuffed in an extra $20 billion of non-emergency spending, much of which likely would not survive outside of "must pass" legislation. Although some special-interest spending was taken out in the conference committee, there was still plenty to beef about: $1.4 billion to the livestock industry, hundreds of millions for dairy producers, $60 million for salmon fisheries, a $650 million SCHIP bailout to states that irresponsibly expanded their programs,[3] plus billions more for programs whose value could be debated--all told, $21 billion more than President's original request. As Charlie Rangel openly admitted on Meet the Press, most of that pork added to the supplemental was used to buy votes. Increasing the number of short-term supplemental appropriations will only serve to increase the extent to which the leadership will need to grease the skids with more pork projects in order to buy more votes to pass the series of supplementals. This two-month strategy would make it all the more vital for the President to require fiscal responsibility by eliminating special-interest projects and parochial spending.

10

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

LINK - EARMARKS Congressional attempts at alternative energy are inevitably earmarked Newt Gringrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Winning the Future", 06/03/2008 , “Stop the Green Pig: Defeat the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman Green Pork Bill Capping American Jobs and Trading America's Future”, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26808, BB Of these two approaches, the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman bill is definitely of the old school. The Wall Street Journal calls it "the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s." The bill aims to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere by 66% in 2050. To do this, it would have government set a limit on overall carbon emissions and issue "allowances" to businesses that specify how much carbon they produce. Like Pork Barrel Politics? Wait Until You See Energy Pork Barrel Politics And here's where we get into the Washington-style pork barrel politics. Half of these "allowances" will be auctioned off to businesses - a massive, up front tax that is expected to cost $3.32 trillion. Businesses will be forced to pass these indirect taxes along to consumers, of course, while Washington politicians decide which special interests will get a piece of the new $3.32 trillion revenue out of the politicians' gigantic new Green Piggybank. BoxerWarner-Lieberman is riddled with earmarks, both to redistribute new tax revenues to politically favored groups (for example, there is $136 billion earmarked for energy efficiency block grants to local governments) and for buying off industries that might otherwise put their armies of lobbyists to work to defeat the bill. Bottom line: If you liked the pork and political-favor-ridden Farm Bill and Transportation bills, you're going to love the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman green pork bill.

11

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Snowball Link Emergency bills quickly snowball as money is continually added to it.- carbon tax link Capital Briefs,5/8/2006 [ “Snowball Downhill”. < http://findarticles.com/p/articles /mi_qa3827/is_200605/ai_n17182049>] SNOWBALL DOWNHILL: This "emergency" bill demonstrates how such measures can grow like a snowball rolling downhill -even in a Republican Congress. After Bush presented his $92.2-billion request, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R.-Tex.), a leading member of conservative House Republican Study Committee (RSC), prepared an amendment that would have offset all $92.2 billion by cutting unobligated funds from fiscal 2006 appropriations. But the House Rules Committee, chaired by Rep. David Dreier (R.-Calif.), refused to allow Hensarling to offer that amendment on the floor.Twenty-nine members of the RSC, led by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-lnd.), then voted on the floor against Dreier's rule. It passed anyway, however, when 22 Democrats crossed party lines to join with most Republicans to ensure passage of a bill without offsets. The Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Sen. Thad Cochran (R.-Miss.), voted 27 to 1 to add more than $14 billion to the bill, sending the full Senate a $106.5-billion version. (Sen. Judd Gregg (R.-N.H.) was the only committee member to dissent.) On the Senate floor, the bill grew by another $3.5 billion, despite efforts by Sen. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.) to force embarrassing rollcall votes on pork-barrel earmarks.

Earmark snowball kills Fiscal Responsibility. David Doerr, Tribune-Herald Staff Writer, 7/8/07 [“Congressman stresses not all earmarks are 'evil'”. WacoTrib.com] In 1994 -- the last year Democrats controlled the appropriations process -- there were 4,126 earmarks totaling $26.6 billion. That dropped to 3,000 earmarks when the Republicans became the majority. Pledges of fiscal responsibility became overshadowed by more and more earmarks, until the 2006 budget contained 15,500 earmarks totaling $64 billion. As Malmstrom's Comptroller, I am required to align recommended spending with "military utility" as I provide financial advice and decisions on where to use our scarce dollars in an effort to eke out the greatest return in accomplishing the mission. Military utility means that if an item is capable of fulfilling its purpose for the military mission, it doesn't need replacing. Instead, there are many other competing expenditures where we can use our money to further advance our mission effectiveness and efficiency. No longer do we have the luxury of replacing or upgrading based on color, scratches and faded material. In these times of leaner budgets, health, safety and mission must drive our decisions. Emergency bills quickly snowball as money is continually added to it.

Capital Briefs,5/8/2006 [ “Snowball Downhill”. < http://findarticles.com/p/articles /mi_qa3827/is_200605/ai_n17182049>] SNOWBALL DOWNHILL: This "emergency" bill demonstrates how such measures can grow like a snowball rolling downhill -even in a Republican Congress. After Bush presented his $92.2-billion request, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R.-Tex.), a leading member of conservative House Republican Study Committee (RSC), prepared an amendment that would have offset all $92.2 billion by cutting unobligated funds from fiscal 2006 appropriations. But the House Rules Committee, chaired by Rep. David Dreier (R.-Calif.), refused to allow Hensarling to offer that amendment on the floor.Twenty-nine members of the RSC, led by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-lnd.), then voted on the floor against Dreier's rule. It passed anyway, however, when 22 Democrats crossed party lines to join with most Republicans to ensure passage of a bill without offsets. The Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Sen. Thad Cochran (R.-Miss.), voted 27 to 1 to add more than $14 billion to the bill, sending the full Senate a $106.5-billion version. (Sen. Judd Gregg (R.-N.H.) was the only committee member to dissent.) On the Senate floor, the bill grew by another $3.5 billion, despite efforts by Sen. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.) to force embarrassing rollcall votes on pork-barrel earmarks.

12

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Snowball Link Plan Increases funding opening the floodgates to an earmark strategy that funds everyone. Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, November 10, 2004 [ “Is Pork Barrel Spending Ready to Explode? The Anatomy of an Earmark”, Heritage Foundation]

The article also noted that “The cost of hiring Alcalde and Fay would be $5,000 per month, with an 18month recommended contract.” While the average American family might consider this a steep price, the prospective arrangement’s payoff reveals what a bargain it is for the county. With their fees totaling $90,000 for a prospective federal grant of $3.5 million, Alcalde and Fay are, for all intents and purposes, selling federal taxpayer money for just 2.6 cents on the dollar. Anyone who has suspected that Washington places little value on taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars now has an idea of just how diminished that value is— somewhat less than the market price for defaulted Argentine debt. How the Culpeper transaction unfolds bears watching for several reasons. From the perspective of federal fiscal integrity, this new earmark strategy could open the floodgates to me-too projects across the country that would otherwise be funded with local resources. Just thirty miles down the road from Culpeper is the town of Fredericksburg, which is now in the process of committing itself, and its budgetary resources, to a $6 million recreation complex with indoor and outdoor swimming pools. Now apprised of Culpeper’s prospective earmark, could the elected officials in Fredericksburg be faulted for ringing up a lobbyist of their own? And in the not-too-distant future it is quite likely that the federal budget process will no longer take place in the halls of Congress, as the Constitution requires, but in the dozens of offices of Washington’s top lobbyists —largely driven by generous contracts between the firms and their clients.

Pork creates a culture of fiscal irresponsibility that expands the deficit Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy, August 2005, Cato Institute, “Pork: A Microcosm of the Overspending Problem”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-24.pdf, Pork Erodes Fiscal Responsibility Republican leaders have allowed an “every man for himself” ethos to permeate Congress. Rather than focusing on national concerns such as security, members have become preoccupied with grabbing money for hometown projects. While politicians express concern about the deficit, their staffers spend most of their time trying to secure pork, and rarely look to find savings in the budget. The problem starts at the top: Republican leaders have shown no personal restraint on the budget. House Speaker Dennis Hastert is a champion at bringing pork home to Illinois. The Washington Post noted that Hastert “makes a habit of helping Illinois-based corporations,” such as Boeing, Caterpillar, and United Airlines.9 Hastert’s giveaways have included trying to get United a $1.6 billion loan guarantee and adding $250,000 to a defense bill for a candy company in his hometown to study chewing gum. The lack of principled GOP leadership has a corrosive effect on members who may be willing to support restraint, but who will not put their necks on the line without sacrifice at the top. Why should rank-and-file Republicans restrain themselves when their leader is the porkerinchief? The problem with pork is not just the particular money wasted, but also “the hidden cost of perpetuating a culture of fiscal irresponsibility. When politicians fund pork projects they sacrifice the authority to seek cuts in any other program,” noted Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).10

13

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link-Wind Wind costs at least $15 Billion a year Smart Money, 7/8, 2008, Igor Greenwald, Staff Writer, “Foreign Oil Cheaper Than Pickens Plan”, http://www.smartmoney.com/invisiblehand/index.cfm?story=20080708-foreign-oil, BB He proposes generating wind power to save the natural gas burned in our power plants and redirecting that gas into compressed vehicle fuel. This looks simple in PowerPoint or Flash. In reality, a wholesale transition is so cumbersome that $150-a-barrel oil has hardly budged it off the demonstration-project stage. Remote wind farms need expensive transmission lines linking to cities — which are liable to cost some $200 billion, according to the self-described "Man with the Plan." Compressed natural gas requires its own fuelling station network, as well as specially fitted and significantly more expensive vehicles. Neither seems likely to spread without substantial federal tax breaks. The Pickens Plan says nothing of the subsidy costs, but Dow Jones Newswires estimates $15 billion a year for the wind component of the project alone.

14

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link- Pork Barrel Spending Emergency funding operations like the plan increase pork barrel spending, disregarding fiscal responsibilities. Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in, and Alison Acosta Fraser is Director of, the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 4/17/2006 [ “The Senate's Deadly Sin: Larding Up Emergency Appropriations” Heritage Online] President George W. Bush requested an emergency appropriation of $92 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and another round of hurricane recovery. The House approved the request, but the Senate Appropriations Committee has loaded the measure with $14 billion in new spending, most unrelated to national security or hurricane recovery. Still not satisfied, Senators are now readying floor amendments to add as much as $10 billion more in spending, which would push the price tag to $24 billion above the President’s request.[1] This new spending is tremendously irresponsible considering the state of the budget. Congress has already boosted spending by 45 percent since 2001 to a post-war record of $23,760 per household.[2] On top of that, the Senate started this year by adding $16 billion to the President’s discretionary budget request.[3] This is at a time where the new Medicare prescription drug benefit is projected to cost over $1 trillion through 2016. Entitlement programs’ liabilities, public debt, and other liabilities such as veterans’ and federal employee retirement costs already total $375,000 for every full time worker in America. [4] The Senate’s actions show a clear disregard for this huge fiscal burden Americans already face. The Senate should reject all additional spending proposals, strip all items not part of the President’s request, and go one step further by identifying offsets to pay for the bill’s new spending. The President should draw a line in the sand by promising to veto any supplemental that is either beyond the scope of his request or above its total level of funding.

15

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link – Perception Failure to veto the plan will collapse Bush’s perception of fiscal restraint Christian Science Monitor, Gail Russell Chaddock, staff writer, 10/4/2007, “GOP looks to reclaim fiscal responsibility mantle”, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1004/p02s01-uspo.html, BB Washington - With the new fiscal year under way and no spending bills completed, President Bush and Congress are heading into a fight over fiscal responsibility that is likely to dominate politics on Capitol Hill until the end of the year. President Bush's veto of a popular bill to provide health insurance for poor children, the S-CHIP program, on Wednesday marked a first volley. The White House says the proposed bill is $30 billion more than what America can afford. Democrats say that the veto is a sign that Mr. Bush and Republican lawmakers who refuse to back a veto override have the wrong priorities. "Today the president showed the nation his true priorities: $700 billion for a war in Iraq, but no health care for low-income kids," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D) of Illinois, in a statement. But the 12 pending appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008 – and a new war-funding request expected this fall – will test the credibility of both sides of the aisle. For Republicans, battered by Bush's low approval ratings, the fall budget battles are a chance to show angry conservatives that the GOP is getting back to a concern over a restraint in spending. "This marks the president's last chance to reassert control over the budget process that's been allowed to flail along wildly for six years now," says Pete Sepp, a vice president at the National Taxpayers Union in Alexandria, Va. "If this is an effort to reestablish credentials [with fiscal conservatives], there is a lot more reestablishment to do beyond S-CHIP. The sincerity of this effort will be judged by the number of vetoes."

Plan will cause a break in fiscal discipline Concord Coalition, May 17, 2007, “CONCORD COALITION APPLAUDS PAYGO IN BUDGET RESOLUTION BUT WARNS THAT PROJECTED SURPLUS REQUIRES HARD CHOICES”, http://www.concordcoalition.org/press/2007/070517release-budgetconference.htm) WASHINGTON -- The Concord Coalition said today that the Congressional Budget Resolution to be voted on in the House and Senate this week would help restore fiscal discipline by applying a deficit neutral "pay-as-you-go" (paygo) standard to all entitlement expansion and tax cut legislation and by creating a "trigger" in the House to protect projected surpluses. Concord expressed concern, however, that the revenue numbers in the budget plan assume a waiver of paygo for certain tax cut extensions. This presumed waiver, along with the absence of cost cutting entitlement reform and an assumed slowing of discretionary spending growth in the outyears, makes the goal of a $41 billion surplus in 2012 seem optimistic. "Budget rules are only as strong as the political will to apply them. A close look at the pent-up spending and tax cut demands in the budget resolution's 23 reserve funds shows how important strict adherence to paygo will be for the desired surplus to result. In this budget, paygo acts as a fiscal levee against a flood of red ink. If that levee breaks, there is little chance of reducing the deficit, let alone of producing a surplus," said Concord Coalition executive director Robert L. Bixby.

16

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link – Ag Agriculture policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book) As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes $3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed 13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent); and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or 30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money. <<Every year appropriators and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) perform their little dance: USDA requests very little funding for special research grants through the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) and appropriators add millions of dollars for their own pet projects. The fiscal 2005 budget is no different. This tango with our tax dollars continued as USDA requested only $3 million while appropriators added $121 million for CSREES projects, or 3,933 percent more than the budget request. As a result, the fiscal 2005 Agriculture Appropriations Act has something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue. Total agriculture pork in fiscal 2005 was $526.1 million, or 44 percent more than the fiscal 2004 total of $365 million. The number of projects decreased by 1 percent, from 512 to 505.>>

17

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link – Hydrogen Hydrogen is expensive-requires $55 billion in subsidies Environmental News Service, J.R. Pegg, Staff Writer, 7/18/08, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2008/2008-07-18-10.asp WASHINGTON, DC, July 18, 2008 (ENS) - It will take massive subsidies from the U.S. government to make hydrogen fuel cell vehicles a significant part of the nation's transportation future, according to a National Research Council report released Thursday. The study finds that even under a best-case scenario only about two million hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be on American roads by 2020, less than one percent of the nation's estimated total number of cars and trucks. Achieving that goal would require the government to pump at least $55 billion in subsidies over the next 15 years to make hydrogen vehicles cost competitive with conventional cars and trucks, the report concluded. Current government spending has equaled some $879 million since 2004.

18

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link – Taxes Pork Barrel projects are placed in Tax Bills Hon. Paul Ryan, a representative in congress from the state of Wisconsin, June 8, 2006, HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION, (Serial No. 109–19) The amount of pork-barrel spending included in the Federal budget continues to increase every year. According to Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), the Federal Government spent $29 billion on 9,963 pork-barrel projects in Fiscal Year 2006 (FY 2006), an increase of 6.3% from 2005, and an increase of over 900% since 1991. Overall, the Federal Government has spent $241 billion on pork-barrel projects between 1991 and 2005, an amount greater than two-thirds of our entire deficit in FY 2005. This includes irresponsible spending on items such as the $50 million Rain Forest Museum in Iowa; $13.5 million to pay for a program that helped finance the World Toilet Summit; and $1 million for the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative. To make matters worse, this total does not include earmarks placed in authorization bills or special-interest tax pork placed in tax legislation. As an example, last year’s highway authorization bill contained approximately 6,371 earmarks, with a total cost of $25 billion. Many of these pork-barrel spending projects are quietly inserted into the conference reports of appropriations, authorizing, and tax bills at the end of the process where there is little transparency and accountability. Not only do most Members not have the ability to scrutinize these provisions at all, but even if wasteful spending items are identified at this stage, Congress is unable to eliminate them using the amendment process. In fact, the only time that Members actually vote on these items is during an up-or-down vote on the entire conference report, which includes spending for many essential government programs in addition to the pork-barrel earmarks. In this situation, it is very difficult for any Member to vote against a bill that, as an overall package may be quite meritorious, despite the inclusion of wasteful spending items. Unfortunately, the current tools at the President’s disposal do not enable him to easily combat these wasteful spending items either. Even if the President identifies numerous pork-barrel projects in an appropriations or authorizing bill, he is unlikely to use his veto power because it must be applied to the bill as a whole and cannot be used to target individual items. This places the President in the same dilemma as Members of Congress. Does he veto an entire spending bill because of a few items of pork when this action may jeopardize funding for our troops, for our homeland security or for the education of our children? The President’s ability to propose the rescission of wasteful spending items under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 has been equally ineffective at eliminating wasteful spending items. The problem with the current authority is that it does not include any mechanism to guarantee congressional consideration of a rescission request, and many Presidential rescissions are simply ignored by the Congress. In fact, during the 1980’s, Congress routinely ignored President Reagan’s rescission requests, failing to act on over $25 billion in requests that were made by the Administration. The historic ineffectiveness of this tool has deterred Presidents from using it with any regularity

19

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link-Nuclear Nuclear power is expensive Wall Street Journal, Rebecca Smith, Staff Writer, 5/12/08, “New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055252677483933.html?mod=googlenews_wsj, BB A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Nuclear power is regaining favor as an alternative to other sources of power generation, such as coal-fired plants, which have fallen out of favor because they are major polluters. But the high cost could lead to sharply higher electricity bills for consumers and inevitably reignite debate about the nuclear industry's suitability to meet growing energy needs.

20

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link-Alternative Energy Spending on Alternative Energy Incentives will be perceived as wasteful Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor, Editor of Regulation Magazine, Senior Fellow @ CATO Institute, 2/3/2006, “Stuck on Empty”, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5438) President Bush began his energy riff by noting that since 2001, the federal government has spent nearly $10 billion on "cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources." Perhaps, but what do we have to show for it? Nothing. The market share for non-hydro renewable energy (presumably what the president is referring to when he talks about "reliable alternative energy sources") has languished between 1 and 3 percent for decades, depending upon how you define your terms. Still, past spending was offered as a rationale for a 22-percent increase in funding for "zero-emission" coal-fired plants, solar and wind technologies, and nuclear energy. Fuel from corn, weeds, grass, mulch, trees, and whatever else the combines can harvest were also given a tip of the president’s budgetary hat. For the most part, everybody who’s already getting a federal energy handout will get a little larger sack of taxpayer loot if the president has his way.

Alternative Energy is perceived as wasteful Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor, Editor of Regulation Magazine, Senior Fellow @ CATO Institute, 2/3/2006, “Stuck on Empty”, Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5438) Still, past spending was offered as a rationale for a 22-percent increase in funding for "zero-emission" coal-fired plants, solar and wind technologies, and nuclear energy. Fuel from corn, weeds, grass, mulch, trees, and whatever else the combines can harvest were also given a tip of the president’s budgetary hat. For the most part, everybody who’s already getting a federal energy handout will get a little larger sack of taxpayer loot if the president has his way. Most annoying was the president's contention that "we must also change how we power our automobiles." Who exactly is "we"? Automobile engineers employed by automobile companies — not politicians employed by government — are the parties responsible for designing automobiles, and it should stay that way. Government funded R&D projects to redesign the power train are nothing new. Success in any one of them, however, would be.The worst aspect of those programs isn't just that they waste taxpayer dollars or that they subsidize research that should be paid for by auto companies themselves. Rather, it's that they divert investment from more productive paths. For instance, while the Clinton administration was engaged in a similar undertaking called "The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles" and producing nothing of consequence, Japanese auto companies — without significant government help — were busy designing the hybrid powered engines that are now all the rage within the auto industry. Had Detroit not gone down the road paved by a government subsidy, it might be in a better position today to produce the kind of cars the president now hopes to subsidize.

21

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link- Alternative Energy Alternative Energy funding is riddled with earmarks Jacqueline Ruttiman and Emma Marris, Writer for Nature, Contributing Correspondent for Nature 2 March 2006, Nature 440, 12 , “Alternative energy plan criticized”, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7080/full/440012a.html, BB Bush's 'advanced energy initiative' made its debut in his State of the Union address on 31 January, when he called for a 22% funding increase for research into alternative energy technology. But budget analysts looking at the president's 2007 budget request say the proposed increase is more cautious, with funds moved into some research areas and removed from others. For instance, there is more money for research on solar energy, with a rise of 79% to $148 million, and biomass, up 65% to $150 million. But funding for energy conservation is down 6.3% to $289 million, and the geothermal programme is axed altogether. "The wider your view, the less glamorous it looks," says Kei Koizumi, a budget analyst at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "If you look just at biomass, it looks great. If you look at all renewables, it looks less great." Energy research, including work on fossil fuels, would decline overall under the president's budget, says Koizumi. He adds that there is no money set aside for later years for the energy initiative. Reaction elsewhere has been mixed. Solar enthusiasts are pleased with a budget increase for work on photovoltaic cells. Noah Kaye, spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association, called it "a key victory for a growing high-tech industry in the United States", but went on to call for production incentives such as tax breaks. Proponents of wind energy sang the same tune, only with less enthusiasm. Their research boost is just 13% to $44 million. The president's call for increased funding got a mixed reception from environmentalists. The funds just aren't enough, they say, and are too focused on research. "We need other policies including technology incentives, or caps on emissions," says Andrew Aulisi, a senior associate at the Washington-based World Resources Institute. "You need lots of different policies to get a handle on the climate and energy crisis. Even within R&D, the numbers are not that good." To make matters worse, analysts point out that a large part of the increased money is likely to be taken up by earmarks, in which legislators appoint money to projects in their home states. For example, the NREL has blamed the lay-offs on the large number of earmarks in the 2006 budget, which it says left it with a $28-million deficit in operating costs. Earmarks are rare at agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. But they made up 21% of the energy research and development budget last year, which is the highest ever, according to Koizumi. "The energy department has earmarks that they have no choice but to fund," adds George Douglas, a spokesman for the NREL. "It is taking away money that could be used in this type of research."

Alternative Energy is expensive Michael Kanellos, Staff Writer for CNET, 1/24/2007, “Why it's not easy being green”, http://news.cnet.com/Why-its-not-easybeing-green/2100-11395_3-6152851.html BB Second, installing an alternative-energy infrastructure isn't cheap, despite the influx of venture money into the field and the strong demand for technologies such as solar. If oil drops below $55 a barrel, most biofuel concepts will be unprofitable, Arvizu projected. Even if oil doesn't drop that low, it will cost a lot to get an ethanol-solar-wind society off the ground. To meet the Department of Energy's goal of making ethanol 30 percent of the U.S. transportation fuel budget, fuel manufacturers will have to invest $100 billion in refineries. To make wind power 20 percent of the source of the electricity in the U.S., it will take $500 billion in infrastructure investments.

22

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link-Alternative Energy Alternative Energy Incentives cost $3-4 Billion a year Michael Vickerman, director of RENEW Wisconsin, a nonprofit organization headquartered in Madison that promotes clean energy strategies for powering the state's economy in an environmentally responsible manner, 7/16/2008, “Michael Vickerman: It's crucial for Congress to extend renewable energy incentives”, The Capital Times, http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/296318, BB Extending the renewable energy tax credits would cost U.S. taxpayers somewhere between $3 billion and $4 billion a year, most of it going to wind generation. Some members of Congress consider that an unacceptably large expense. But these are not permanent incentives. In the case of wind power installations, which have a book life between 20 and 30 years, federal tax credits cover no more than 10 years of operation.

Environmental agencies do pork barrel spending, empirically proven Mike Lynch, Reason staff writer, July, 2002 “Reason” (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_3_34/ai_87425667) THE ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency (EPA) is legendary for tangling up businesses in red tape. Yet when it comes to passing out millions in taxpayer money, it exhibits a casual, devil may-care attitude. In 1999 the agency passed out $1.3 billion of its $7.5 billion budget in grants and contracts, often in complete disregard of the federal government's competitive bidding process. A May 2001 report from the EPA'S Office of the Inspector General (QIG) discovered that the "EPA often awards non-competitive assistance agreements to recipients based on the unsupported belief that those recipients were the only entities capable of performing the work." That's bureaucratese for, "It gave the money to friends." To justify the awards, the envirocrats retreat to the boilerplate retort that recipients were "uniquely qualified." In March 2002 the QIG returned to find that sweetheart deals accounted for "1 out of every 5 dollars of the $1 billion" the EPA awarded in 1999 and 2000. Suspicious that the agency was using taxpayer money to fund groups that were "uniquely qualified" to lobby for more money for the EPA, the Landmark Legal Foundation took the agency to court in September 2000 to force it to disclose grant recipients. Some highlights of the $2 billion awarded noncompetitively since 1993 included $47,000 to help the Seattle Mariners start a recycling program at their new $500 million ballpark, $1,500 for academics to design a solid waste board game called the "Can Man Game," and $379 million to senior citizen groups to recruit and pay senior citizens to work for the EPA. The agency even funds its ostensible enemies, providing $2 million in grants to the National Association of Homebuilders and $4.9 million to the Natural Resources Defense Council, both of which have sued the agency in the past.

23

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link-Alternative Energy (Alternative) Energy policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book) As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes $3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed 13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent); and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or 30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money. <><<$51,132,000 for projects in the state of Senate Appropriations subcommittee member Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and the district of House appropriator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), including: $36,693,000 for Yazoo River and Basin projects; $3,750,000 for the Mississippi Environmental Infrastructure Program; $3,000,000 for the Mississippi Technology Alliance Alternative Energy Enterprises Program; $1,500,000 for the Mississippi State University Biodiesel from Feedstock Project; $1,060,000 for Pascagoula Harbor ($550,000 for operation and maintenance, and $510,000 for construction); and $100,000 for Okatibbee Lake. $43,813,000 for projects in the state of Senate appropriator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and the district of House appropriator David Vitter (R-La.), including: $11,450,000 for the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway ($9,000,000 for construction and $2,450,000 for operation and maintenance. A January 9, 2000 Washington Post article stated that the waterway "still carries less than 0.1 percent of the commercial traffic on America's government-run river transport system — even though it receives a remarkable 3.4 percent of the system's federal funds." In 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said the $2 billion worth of construction costs won’t be justified until 2046); $2,000,000 for a sugar-based ethanol biorefinery at Louisiana State University; and $500,000 for Livingston Parish alternative fuel plant construction.>>

24

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link-Alternative Energy Renewable energy policies are economically and politically implausible Climate Progress, An insider’s view of climate science, politics and solution, February 15th, 2008 “The Subsidy Tease — Part III” (http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/15/the-subsidy-tease-part-iii/” A recent issue of Scientific American featured a “Solar Grand Plan.” Its authors described a way for the United States to obtain nearly 100% of its electricity and 90% of its total energy, including transportation, from solar, wind, biomass and geothermal resources by the century’s end. Electricity would cost a comfortable 5 cents per kilowatt hour. U.S. carbon emissions would be reduced 62% from their 2005 levels. Some 600 coal and gas-fired power plants would be displaced. The federal investment would be $400 billion over the next 40 years ($10 billion a year) to deploy renewable technologies and suitable transmission infrastructure. If that future seems too good to be true, then look at two other studies during the past 13 months that have reached similar conclusions, one sponsored by the American Solar Energy Society, the other by the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. All three concur that energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies can satisfy the nation’s demand for power without additional nuclear or fossil-fueled power plants. If $400 billion seems unaffordable, consider: It’s less money than the federal government already has spent on the Iraq war, only a third of the $1.2 trillion that some experts now predict the war will cost, and only a sixth of the federal government’s current annual subsidies for fossil and nuclear energy. And if a Solar Grand Plan seems politically implausible, read the newspaper. Last November, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said we have until 2020 to make major changes in greenhouse gas emissions. Two weeks ago the chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell told his staff that world oil demand will outpace supply within seven years. That means rapidly rising oil prices, more recession (the last five recessions in the U.S. were preceded by high oil prices), more power for oil-producing nations like Iran and Russia, and more likelihood of international conflicts.

25

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link – Foreign Aid Foreign aid policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book) As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes $3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed 13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent); and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or 30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money. <>

26

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link – Military Military policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book) As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes $3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed 13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent); and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or 30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money. <>

27

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link – Military Homeland Security policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book) As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes $3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed 13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent); and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or 30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money. <<$104,000,000 added for the Port Security Grant Program. The grants are provided "for projects to improve dockside and perimeter security that is vital to securing our critical national seaports. These awards will contribute to important security upgrades such as surveillance equipment, access controls to restricted areas, communications equipment, and the construction of new command and control facilities." The department requested $46,000,000 for the program, but both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees added funds. Despite appropriating more money, the House Appropriations Committee was "concerned that port security grants made to independent terminal operators are not coordinated at the State, local port authority, or Captain of the Port levels. Therefore, the Committee directs that…the coordination of all port security grants with the State, local port authority, and the Captain of the Port, to ensure all vested parties are aware and that the limited resources are maximized." On September 13, 2004, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the recipients of the fourth round of port security grants. Premier Yachts, Inc., a private for-profit company with revenues of $40 million in 2003, was awarded three port security grants totaling $208,100. Premier offers "fine dining and entertainment cruises" through its Odyssey, Mystic Blue, and Seadog Cruises in Boston, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. Nothing like wining and dining at the taxpayers’ expense.>>

28

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link – Military Military Construction policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book) As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes $3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed 13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent); and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or 30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money.<<Appropriators paid a little more attention to the Pentagon’s priorities than their parochial pork in the fiscal 2005 Military Construction Appropriations Act, but taxpayers still paid for too many wasteful projects. Total earmarks decreased by 28 percent, from 199 to 143, and the total amount of pork decreased by 5 percent, from $1 billion in fiscal 2004 to $974 million in fiscal 2005.>>

29

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link education/health/science Education/Health/Science policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book) As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes $3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed 13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent); and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or 30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) got it right in a November 20, 2004 press release: "[E]very year, it’s the same thing — Congress passes spending bills loaded with pork projects." The fiscal 2005 Labor/HHS Appropriations Act is the poster child for the appropriators’ excess. Of the 3,071 projects, 98 percent were added in conference; the total is a 57.4 percent increase over the 1,951 projects in fiscal 2004. The projects cost $1.69 billion, an increase of 79.6 percent over fiscal 2004’s $943 million<<$48,854,000 added in conference in the state of Senate Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Tom Harkin (Diowa) and the district of House appropriator Tom Latham (Riowa), including: $15,000,000 for the Iowa Department of Education to continue the Harkin Grant Program (according to a September 4, 2004 press release, "Since 1998, Iowa schools have received a total of $101 million in Harkin Grants, the only federal program of its kind"); $3,000,000 for the Iowa Department of Public Health to initiate the Harkin Wellness Grant Program; $1,000,000 for the State Historical Society of Iowa in Des Moines, for the development of exhibits for the World Food Prize; $235,000 for the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls to support youth fitness and obesity efforts for rural preschool children; $200,000 for the Iowa Games to continue the Lighten Up Iowa Program (the games are held by the Iowa Sports Foundation [ISF], which claims on its website that "the ISF receives no state or government financial support."); and $100,000 for National History Day for a history competition in Iowa.<<$17,140,000 added in conference for projects in the district of House Labor/HHS Appropriations subcommittee member Anne Northup (R-Ky.), including: $14,500,000 for the University of Louisville ($10,250,000 for the Baxter III Research Building;>> $1,500,000 for Eckerd College in St. Petersburg in the district of House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young (R-Fla.): $1,000,000 to upgrade educational computing and technology and $500,000 for leadership training programs. The programs are part of the college’s Leadership Development Institute and its network associate, the Center for Creative Leadership. The institute has a long list of corporate participants (including JP Morgan, Citibank, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Pentagon, and Tropicana), and the center "has delivered internationally acclaimed programs to thousands of local, national, and international clients."<<$450,000 added in conference for the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown for educational outreach using baseball to teach students through distance learning technology in the district of Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.). Its website states that "baseball has connections to a variety of academic disciplines, including mathematics, history, geography, technology, sociology, cultural diversity, character education, economics, women's history." The hall of fame has received $1,569,000 since fiscal 2001 for educational outreach programs. The Baseball Hall of Fame; a commission to examine steroid use among professional baseball players — looks like Congress put fiscal conservatism on the bench and is throwing the taxpayers a bunch of junk.>>

30

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link – development Development policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book) As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes $3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed 13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent); and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or 30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money<>

31

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link – Interior Policies Interior policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book) As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes $3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed 13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent); and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or 30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money.<< Following the trend of ever-growing appropriations bills, the fiscal 2005 Interior Appropriations Act was bursting with pork, totaling $680 million, a 52 percent increase over last year’s $446 million. Total projects increased by 17.5 percent, from 473 in fiscal 2004 to 556 in fiscal 2005.>>

32

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link – Terrorism Terrorism policies involve in pork barreling, Empirically Proven Thomas A. Schatz, president of Congressional Pig Book Summary, and David E. Williams, vice president “2005 congressional pig book summary”( The 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details 570 of the juciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book) As reality television shows proliferate, Congress continues to live in its own unreal world, believing there are no consequences to a steady diet of pork fat. While programs like "Extreme Makeover" take a person, family, or home and transform them into something new and beautiful, the latest round of appropriations bills demonstrates that Congress and the federal budget are in dire need of a fiscal makeover. The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer. The 2005 Congressional Pig Book is the latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 15-year exposé of pork-barrel spending. This year’s list includes $3,270,000 for the Capitol Visitor Center; $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation; and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame. Once again, Congress porked out at record levels. For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed 13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than last year’s total of $22.9 billion. In fact, the total cost of pork has increased by 21 percent since fiscal 2003. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $212 billion. The top three increases in pork from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2005 were: Homeland Security from $423 million to $1.72 billion (306 percent); Energy and Water from $714 million to $1.88 billion (163 percent); and Labor/HHS from $943 million to $1.7 billion (80 percent). Alaska again led the nation with $985 per capita ($646 million), or 30 times the national pork average of $33. The runners up were the District of Columbia with $461 per capita ($257 million) and Hawaii with $454 per capita ($574 million). Senators have once again proven that membership has its privileges: your money.<>

33

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link – Farm Bills Farm Bills empirically come in pork barrels Taxpayer for Common Sense, making government work, Feb 18, 2005 “A Litmus Test on Spending” (http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_tag.php?action=view&proj_id=608&tag=subsidies&type=Project) When it comes to congressional pork barrel spending, there has been no holier sacred cow than farm subsidies. So when President Bush announced a modest proposal to reduce individual farm payments to $250,000 per farm, he put his administration on a collision course with one of Congress's fastest moving trains. Time and again, no matter how much lip service is paid to reining in these outdated, depression-era farm programs, Congress buckles under the pressure and continues its blank check farm policy. The 1996 farm bill was supposed to reduce this spending and return the farm sector to the free-market. Instead, total farm spending more than doubled. In 2002, riding a wave of false budget surpluses, Congress reversed gears, re-wrote the farm bill, and threw in everything but the kitchen sink. Instead of fixing the failures of the previous bill, Congress ended up passing the most expensive farm legislation in history. Since 1998, average annual farm payments have gone from $7 billion to $18 billion. The FY 2006 budget estimates 2005 farm subsidy spending will top $24 billion. Worse, farm payments have become increasingly concentrated, flowing to fewer and fewer individual farmers. According to the USDA, only 8 percent of producers receive 78 percent of subsidies. At the top of the subsidy food chain, huge corporate operations receive payments in the millions, while the average for 80 percent of farmers is under $1,000. Instead of keeping farmers on the land, these huge government payments to only the largest, most productive farms are forcing many small farmers out of business. Farm payments are based on production levels, so the bigger the farm, the bigger the government check. Large corporate operations are able to plant more crops, so they get the biggest slice of the subsidy pie. These large farms then turn around and use their outsized government checks to buy up even more farm land. Unable to compete, small farmers are left with no choice but to sell their land to the very operations that are putting them out of business.

34

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link – emergency spending Emergency Spending kills social security and surplus budgets Peter Sperry, former Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, September 3, 1999 “Executive Memorandum #621-( http://www.heritage.org/rese arch /budget/EM621.cfm) Prior to leaving for its August 1999 recess, the Senate approved a $7.6 billion "emergency" agricultural spending package that will consume about half of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected on-budget surplus for fiscal year (FY) 1999. Although emergency appropriations do not count against budget caps, increased spending, regardless of how its classified, eliminates the possibility of Congress keeping its other commitments, like protecting Social Security and passing tax cuts. During the floor debate, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, noted that federal assistance payments for crop year 1999 will total $16.6 billion, excluding the "emergency" spending package. According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, there are 1,911,824 farms, of which 685,029 receive federal monies, yielding an average subsidy of $24,233 per farm. Nevertheless, the Senate voted to increase the agricultural assistance payments for this crop year by almost $8 billion, which will increase total payments to $24.2 billion, or $35,327 per farm. The Senate's generous allocation of taxpayer funds was prompted by concern that the East Coast drought and falling commodity prices would lead to unacceptably low net farm incomes. Confirmation came from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which reported that unless emergency measures were enacted, net farm income in 1999 would be $300 million lower than in 1998. If correct, it would mean that over half a million farms subsidized by the federal government might earn an average of $438 less in 1999 than they had in 1998. Apparently, this "emergency" justifies rescinding recent commitments to dedicate the first federal surplus in 30 years to saving Social Security, reducing taxes, and paying down the national debt. Conclusion. The level of "emergency" spending approved by the Senate makes a mockery of its recent passage of tax cuts for working Americans and threatens to do the same to congressional commitments to protect 100 percent of the surplus for Social Security. Although the CBO projected a $14 billion on-budget surplus available for allocation for FY 2000, many Members of Congress have already indicated that all or most of an on-budget surplus will be used to fund the 13 regular appropriations bills. Consequently, any "emergency" spending will exhaust the on-budget surplus and eat into the Social Security surplus. Americans are a generous people willing to assist their neighbors when necessary. Nonetheless, Congress should not abuse taxpayers' generosity by extending "emergency" assistance to those who do not need it. Farm households with an unsubsidized net taxable income of more that $50,000 per year do not need tax subsidies. Likewise, Americans who derive less than 25 percent of their household income from agriculture do not need federal subsidies to sustain their hobbies. Congress should restrict emergency agricultural assistance to only those farmers who demonstrate a loss of income that threatens the survival of their family or business. Middle-income taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize someone else's "lifestyle" choices or six-figure incomes.

35

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Link – elections cause snowball Congress will use any opportunity to earmark to appeal to their constituents Jim DeMint, Jim DeMint represents South Carolina in the U.S. Senate., Herald Journal, July 13, 2008 , “We must reform the Washington status quo”, http://www.goupstate.com/article/20080713/NEWS/807130303/1132/OPINION&title=We_must_reform_the_Washington_status_quo, BB The earmark process is actually pretty simple. Powerful appropriations committees in the House and Senate give each member of Congress a slush fund to spend on their favorite projects. The politician simply creates a list of top projects, and they usually get funded, no questions asked. Members of the committee get more to spend than others, and chairmen get even more. This is why Alaska and West Virginia continually get millions more in earmarks than states like South Carolina and Georgia. Politicians facing tough re-elections get extra taxpayer dollars to give to their states so that they can be seen as "effective legislators." This means that funding goes to universities based not on the quality of the schools but whether they are represented by a senior member on the right committee. It is also important to remember that there is another downside to the earmarking practice. The billions of dollars that we waste on congressional pet projects is borrowed money. We are borrowing from Social Security, from our grandchildren, from China even - and for what? We borrow so we can secure our next election rather than the future for the next generation.

Blue Dogs are able to maintain pay go Denise Ross, covered South Dakota politics since 1999. She now publishes Hoghouse Blog and can be heard weekly as a political junkie guest on South Dakota Public Radio. , 7/17/2008, Black Hills Pioneer, “‘Blue Dog’ Herseth Sandlin at center of House fiscal watchdog group”, http://www.bhpioneer.com/articles/2008/07/17/opinion/doc487fb5450094f111315432.txt, BB “With Democrats potentially controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in 2009, House leaders must not ignore the Blue Dogs’ concerns if they want to keep the majority,” reports a recent National Journal cover story titled “Dog Days.” Herseth Sandlin was one of four of the 49 Blue Dogs chosen for the National Journal interview and cover photo. South Dakota’s congresswoman seems to have found growing power within a group that is itself growing in power. The Blue Dogs have grown from 23 members when they first formed in 1994 after the GOP’s historic takeover of Congress, and they have expanded from mostly Southern representatives to include members from the Midwest and West. They even have six members from the Northeast. More importantly, recent heretofore unimaginable Democratic victories in red districts have been won by candidates endorsed by and funded by the Blue Dogs. And, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco ponders her party’s majority in the House, she knows much of the credit must go to the Blue Dogs, according to the National Journal. “She and other House Democratic leaders are well aware that if just 19 Blue Dogs oppose them on party-line votes, the majority can’t pass legislation,” reported the magazine. The Blue Dogs have unified around what’s called “pay-go” in Capitol Hill shorthand, or a “pay as you go” budget rule that requires Congress to pay for new spending with either a tax increase or other spending cuts. That rule has been waived a handful of times but only cautiously due to the Blue Dogs’ collective swing-vote status.

36

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Dollar Key to econ Continuing to lower the dollar leads to global economic collapse Scott Champion, analyst with the Centre for Global Negotiations, “Will a US dollar collapse end American Hegmenony?”, Share International, 6/2003, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:c7OliQOGgIEJ:shareno.net/dollarcollapse.htm+economic+collapse+and+hegemony&hl=en, BB For many years the US has been the economic engine for the world, standing in as purchaser of last resort for the world’s supply of goods in times of global economic distress. Now the US itself is in trouble. If the US attempts to fight the rapidly gaining forces of deflation by encouraging a depreciating dollar, it will export deflation to the rest of the world because foreign currencies will rise relative to the dollar. This will damage foreign economies and inhibit their ability to buy goods and services, including those from the US. Since the short-term benefit of a weak dollar to US corporations’ earnings will show up quickly, while the long-term damage to the global economy will become apparent only with the passage of time, it is a fair assumption that the US will take the easy route and worry about the global fallout later. The problem with this approach for the Bush administration is that there are great risks to a weak dollar policy. The world economy is awash in dollars, and when there is too much of something the price or value usually drops, sometimes precipitously. If confidence in the dollar or dollar assets, such as Treasury bonds, declines, the world may, at some point, reconsider its involvement with US assets. The results of such a reappraisal could be anything from mildly damaging to catastrophic. Seventy-five per cent of the world’s central-bank assets are held in US dollars (as Treasury bonds). These bankers do not want their primary asset to suffer a significant decline.

A Dollar Free-fall would collapse the economy Dr. C. Fred Bergsten, Director Peterson Institute for International Economics, December 5, 2007, CQ Congressional Testimony, “BUDGET IMPLICATION OF STATE OF U.S. ECONOMY”, lexis, BB A further decline of the dollar, if gradual and orderly as has been the case since 2002, is a desirable and indeed necessary component of completing the adjustment of the unsustainable US and international imbalances. However, markets frequently overreact and a free fall of the dollar could trigger sharp and sudden increases in US inflation and thus interest rates (especially if energy prices were to rise further at the same time). This would push the economy in the direction of the stagflation of the 1970s (albeit presumably with less intensity on either the "stag" or "flation" sides of the equation that occurred at that time). Such a scenario could, at a minimum, limit the ability of the Federal Reserve to reduce interest rates to counter the economic slowdown (and provide additional liquidity to the financial markets). It might even force the Fed to raise rates to halt the currency depreciation. I believe this is in fact the greatest risk to the "modest slowdown" prospect posited above as the most likely course for the US economy over the next year or so. Hence the United States might have to pay dearly now, in the teeth of a financial crisis and possible recession (in an election year), for living so far beyond its means for so long and thus becoming dependent on large continuing inflows of capital from the rest of the world. There are of course steps that the United States can take to minimize these risks. For this Committee and the Congress as a whole, the most important is by assuring continued reductions in the structural budget deficit with the goal of restoring the modest surpluses of 1998-2001 when economic growth returns to trend levels of 21/2-3 per cent.

37

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Fiscal D Key to Econ Perception of fiscal discipline is key to avoid economic collapse David Dapice, Associate Professor of Economics at Tufts University and the economist of the Vietnam Program at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, “Dealing with a Declining Dollar – Part II”, YaleGlobal, 9 February 2005, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5254, BB If US domestic politics make serious deficit reduction unlikely, the uneasy international bond buyers may ultimately force the administration's hand. If the Republicans wish to avoid wearing a "Herbert Hoover necklace" (President Hoover's policies brought about the crash of 1929.) around their necks for a generation, they may decide that preventing a dollar collapse is even more important than expanding spending and extending tax cuts. Or they might gamble that others have more to lose, and continue to run both federal and current account deficits that push the limits of foreign asset buyers' acceptance. The willingness of foreign central banks to accumulate dollar assets for mercantilist purposes makes this bet seem safer in the short term, but also makes it riskier over time. The whole world has a stake in the outcome of this debate, but few can vote – except with their money. Investors might cast the deciding votes; though if it comes to that, there could be more losers than winners. For those who wish to glimpse the "tipping point" – if indeed there is one – the pace of Federal Reserve short-term interest rate hikes might provide a clue. If foreigners begin to sell Treasury bills, which still yield little more than inflation, the Fed would have little choice but to raise interest rates more quickly than it has indicated. These increases would transmit themselves to longer-term interest rates as well, and would drive up mortgage and other borrowing costs. Corporate investment, construction, and durable goods purchases (cars, furniture) would all diminish. Exports would benefit, but the net impact would be negative. If the rate hikes were steep enough, a recession would likely ensue.

Lack of Fiscal Discipline leads to Economic Collapse Gerald J. Swanson, Professor; Thomas R. Brown Chair in Economic Education @ Eller College, America the Broke, 2004, pg. 13, BB Because foreign investors view the dollar as nothing more than another asset they buy in hopes of making a return, increasing economic turmoil in the United States would probably provoke them to sell some, if not all, of their dollar assets, causing the currency’s value to drop farther. As this vicious cycle gathered speed, foreign investors might quit buying Treasury securities altogether. They might even start cashing in the bonds they already held. That would force the government to print the money it couldn’t borrow—a surefire trigger for inflation and another blow to the value of the dollar. What would happen then? We can only guess, because such a debacle has never occurred in modern times. At the very least, the United States—and because of our wide-ranging influence the rest of the world, too—would be plunged into economic chaos, all because of our unwillingness to reign in our reckless spending.

38

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Fiscal D Key to Econ The lack of fiscal discipline is killing the economy now The Huffington Post, Paul Abrams, Staff Writer, 7/16/08, “How to Get the Economy from its Vicious to a Virtuous Cycle -- But Radical Righties Won't Let it Happen”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/how-to-get-the-economy-fr_b_113067.html The economy has deteriorated, and will continue to spiral downward, but the reasons for the vicious cycle have been ignored, and thus the cures not even discussed. That represents a victory for the radical rightwing ideologues and a major defeat for the people of the United States. The major reason for the downward spiral is the upward spiral in the US deficits and debt. Remember, our dear leader inherited a projected surplus of $5 Trillion, and succeeded in transforming that into a debt of an additional $4 Trillion, the most spectacular case of fiscal mismanagement in world history.

Pay-go key to avoiding economic collapse The Huffington Post, Paul Abrams, Staff Writer, 7/16/08, “How to Get the Economy from its Vicious to a Virtuous Cycle -- But Radical Righties Won't Let it Happen”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/how-to-get-the-economy-fr_b_113067.html But, we know what works.... because we did it in the early '90s. We were coming out of the Savings & Loan Crisis, the economy was doing poorly, George H.W. Bush kept proclaiming we were not in recession. But HW acted, and did so against his "read-my-lips" pledge, earning him the undying enmity of the radical righties, but taking the major first step that righted the economy. He raised revenues by raising taxes. Bill Clinton then upped the ante again, and, in the midst of an economic downturn, the myths of the radical righties exploded -- the economy actually reversed itself and grew despite the slightly increased tax rates. Here's how. The major problem at the time was that the deficits were reflected by high interest rates. That kept investment low, and the interest on the debt high, becoming a major component of government spending that accomplished nothing. By restraining spending via pay-as-you-go (aka, "pay-go"), and taking in more revenues through higher taxes on the wealthy, interest rates came down, and the economy took off.

39

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Fiscal D Key to Econ Lack of Fiscal Discipline Collapses the economy—Interests Rates rise leading to a financial train wreck David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the US, 3-10-2008, USA Today, “How the US can avoid a fiscal wreck,”, Pg. 11A, lexis, BB In my view, we have a five- to 10-year window of opportunity to act. If policymakers don't, it is only a matter of time before interest rates begin to skyrocket and the U.S. debt is reduced to "junk bond" status. Higher interest rates will have an adverse effect on the federal budget, on the economy, on the finances of American households and potentially on the relative standard of living for most Americans. It is time for an open and honest national dialogue with Americans on what they can realistically expect from the federal government and how they are going to pay for it. The plain and simple truth is that we are in a deep fiscal hole, and we are still digging. The U.S. government's total liabilities and unfunded commitments for future Social Security and Medicare benefits and other items are estimated at $53 trillion, up from about $20 trillion at the start of this decade, and are rising at a rate of $2 trillion to $3 trillion a year. This fiscal gap translates into an IOU of about $455,000 for every American household. In other words, our government has made a whole lot of promises that it will be hard-pressed to keep without increasing taxes to levels far beyond what the American people have tolerated historically. By refusing to make tough choices and by charging up the nation's credit card, we are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren. If we continue as we have, policymakers will eventually have two options: raise taxes dramatically or slash government programs and services. To avoid this fiscal train wreck, we need to make three changes as soon as possible: *First, we need to impose strong budget controls, written into law, to constrain federal spending as well as the many tax preferences that reduce revenue and represent a type of back door spending.

Fiscal Discipline is key to avoid economic collapse Journal Star 7/14/2006, “Billions of reasons not to celebrate”, http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2006/07/14/editorial_main/doc44b6dee6efb90992919704.txt But at this point, only the naïve and gullible still cling to the hope that tax cuts alone are enough to restore fiscal sanity. The real need is for fiscal discipline. Spending and taxes must be brought into balance. In defense of current fiscal policy, the White House and some economists say the deficit should be measured against the size of the economy. By that yardstick, the 2006 deficit is 2.3 percent of the gross domestic product, better than 17 of the past 25 years. But in today’s strong economy, the United States ought to be preparing for the retirement of the baby-boom generation by getting its financial house in order. The nation ought to be paying down its debt. Instead, Bush is maxing out the national credit card. Interest paid on the national debt is the fifth largest item in the federal budget. Last year, the “debt tax” was equivalent to $1,190 per American. Almost half that money was sent out of the country to foreign investors. Some of the nation’s top think tanks, representing both conservative and liberal sides of the spectrum, have joined with U.S. Comptroller David Walker in a national “Fiscal Wake-Up Tour” to draw attention to the federal government’s poor financial health. “What we have going are the elements of a perfect storm — a potent mix of ignorance, apathy and inaction in all sectors of American society,” Walker wrote recently. “If we continue on our present course, a fiscal crisis is not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when.’”

40

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Fiscal D Key to Econ Loss of Fiscal Discipline leads to runaway inflation The Daily Observer, 3/14/2008, “Gambia; The Big Read - Saihou Sanyang On the Tenets of Good Governance (Part 2)”, lexis, BB Fiscal discipline is mainly concerned with the stabilizing function of macroeconomic fundamentals wherein the capable state seeks to pursue policies that underpin balanced growth and allow for free enterprise to flourish (perfect competition as opposed to monopoly) alongside a consumer society whose welfare is maximized. In order to ensure stability, government budgets should adhere to high fiscal discipline which requires that government spending is planned and implemented in such a way that spending and taxing levels are affordable. Of the three items of the budget, fiscal discipline mostly refers to the deficit and it's financing. High levels of borrowing to finance the budget deficit means higher debt service in future years and less spending on priority areas like poverty reduction (alleviation). High deficits may lead to spiralling (run away) inflation and therefore, comprise price level stability. The perceived loss of fiscal discipline cripples the US economy

Bergsten 04 (C. Fred, director of the Institute for International Economics, "The Risks Ahead for the World Economy," Economist, 9/9, http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3172404) Robert Rubin, former secretary of the Treasury, also stresses the psychological importance for financial markets of expectations concerning the American budget position. If that deficit is viewed as likely to rise substantially, without any correction in sight, confidence in America's financial instruments and currency could crack. The dollar could fall sharply as it did in 1971-73, 1978-79, 1985-87 and 1994-95. Market interest rates would rise substantially and the Federal Reserve would probably have to push them still higher to limit the acceleration of inflation. These risks could be intensified by the change in leadership that will presumably take place at the Federal Reserve Board in less than two years, inevitably creating new uncertainties after 25 years of superb stewardship by Mr Volcker and Alan Greenspan. A very hard landing is not inevitable but neither is it unlikely.

41

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Fiscal D Key to check Russia Decline in fiscal discipline leads to Russian Resurgence The International Herald Tribune, August 18, 2007, “A debt culture gone awry; America's handicap”, Hamid Varzi, an economist and banker based in Tehran, Pg. 5, lexis, BB U.S. debt affects all nations, but in surprisingly different ways: Third world farmers suffer from the effects of gigantic U.S. farm subsidies aimed at reducing the trade deficit, while Russia has actually profited from America's lack of discipline. Flush with funds generated from a decade of trade and account surpluses, Russia views U.S. sensitivity to its expansionist energy policy as a response to America's own failure to reduce energy waste and exploit alternative energy sources when it had the opportunity to do so. In sum, American economic decadence has become a source of Russian strength.

42

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Fiscal D K deficit A loss of fiscal discipline balloons the deficit Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, June 8, 2008, “How to impose fiscal discipline”, The Washington Times, lexis, BB Fiscal responsibility is about more than balancing the nation's checkbook; it is about keeping our promises to our seniors and our young people and promoting job creation and prosperity. Without fiscal discipline, America will pass on a legacy of debt, fail to meet the demands the baby-boom generation will place on Social Security and Medicare, and undermine access to capital, the lifeblood of new and growing businesses. In 2007, the new Democratic Congress began to restore our nation's fiscal health while inheriting a fiscal challenge of historic proportions. President Bush and the Republican Congress turned a $5.6 trillion, 10-year surplus inherited from the Clinton administration into a $3 trillion deficit. Thanks largely to the cost of the war in Iraq and the Republican penchant for tax cuts for the wealthy, the deficit ballooned to $248 billion in 2006.

43

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Fiscal D K Biz Con Fiscal Discipline Key to business Confidence// Deficit spending is the greatest risk to the economy USA Today 3/21/2005, “Economists: Federal deficit a bigger risk than terrorism”, http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/survey/2005-03-21-deficit-threat-nabe_x.htm_ WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The budget deficit has overtaken terrorism as the greatest short-term risk to the U.S. economy, and concern about the current gap is rising, a survey of U.S. businesses shows. In a survey of 172 members of the National Association for Business Economics, 27% said the deficit or government spending is the largest short-term threat to the economy, up from 23% who thought so in August. (Related: Top economic forecasters.) Terrorism dropped to second on the list, with 24% saying it is the biggest threat, down from 40%. Those most concerned about the deficit in the current account — the largest measure of U.S. trade with other nations — tripled, to 15% from 5% in August. "Longer term, the costs related to the aging of the population dominate the challenges to sustaining economic growth. However, the panel is doubtful that this Congress will pass needed Social Security reforms," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, who conducted the analysis for the report.

44

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Fiscal D K Heg Fiscal Discipline is key to Heg The International Herald Tribune, August 18, 2007, “A debt culture gone awry; America's handicap”, Hamid Varzi, an economist and banker based in Tehran, Pg. 5, lexis, BB Supply-siders ignore the crucial distinction between, on the one hand, debt employed as an investment vehicle to enhance competitiveness and, on the other, debt used to pay off current expenses and to create even more debt. The bottom line is that America is awash in red ink and seeks the wrong solutions to its debt problems. A return to fiscal responsibility would make America far stronger, both domestically and internationally, than would a continuation of current policies that falsely project strength through idle protectionist threats and failed military aggression. Current tensions between the United States and the rest of the world will continue as long as America's military bark is louder than its economic bite. A solution to the U.S. debt problem requires radical measures, including: the elimination of corporate tax loopholes, a reversal of tax breaks for the ultra-rich, a bipartisan campaign to eliminate budget ''pork,'' imposition of stringent limits on corporate debt and speculative lending, a vast reduction in military expenditure and, finally, an additional 50 cent per gallon gasoline tax that would slash the federal deficit, curtail energy waste and spur technological breakthroughs . Let us hope America heeds the warnings , dispenses with junk-food economics and embraces a crucial diet of fiscal discipline. It remains to be seen, however, whether America's political leaders have the courage to instigate such reforms, and whether Congress is finally willing to do something for the future of ordinary, hard-working Americans.

45

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Debt -> Recession Deficits Cause a recesision Melanie Colburn, Mother Jones Staff Writer, June 5, 2006 (Mother Jones is an independent nonprofit whose roots lie in a commitment to social justice implemented through first rate investigative reporting-“Why Deficits Matter”http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/06/deficit_worries.html) Although the ramifications of persistent and growing federal deficits are not often well-understood by the public, they will become increasingly relevant in the future. Eventually, all those debts will have to be paid off, in the form of higher taxes or spending cuts (unless, of course, the United States inflates its way out of debt or defaults—both unnerving, if far-fetched, possibilities). The country may also face higher borrowing costs in the future, in the form of hikes in interest rates, which could hamper the American economy and even induce a recession. If that's not bad enough, in just a few years, budget deficits will grow even bigger as the government faces increasing costs associated with the retirement of the baby boomer generation. By not preparing for this inevitability, the federal government is essentially doing what an individual in debt might do—that is, paying off current obligations by taking out additional loans—but instead of mortgaging a house, the government is borrowing from future economic growth. "By borrowing from abroad to finance U.S. investment, we our shortchanging our future standard of living," says Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "From a generational perspective, throwing a fiscal party and passing along the bill is extremely unfair."

Deficits undermine economic growth Gramlich, FRB member, governor, 2/24/04 “the federal reserve board” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/ boarddocs/ speeches/20 04/2 0040624/default.htm) Fiscal policy can have important long-run effects on the health of the economy, particularly through its impact on national saving and the growth of productivity. National savings can be generated privately, by households and business, or publicly, by government. Although fiscal policy can, in theory, help boost private saving, this has proven difficult, in practice. Instead, the most important effect of fiscal policy on national saving has been through the direct government budget. When the government runs deficits, it siphons off private savings (reducing national saving), leaving less available for capital investment. With less capital investment, less new equipment is provided to workers, and, all else being equal, future productivity growth rates and levels are lower. Productivity growth is the principal source of improvement in economic well-being. The faster productivity increases over time, the more rapidly living standards increase. Maintaining a rapid rate of trend productivity growth is particularly important in light of the coming budgetary pressures associated with the retirement of the baby boom generation. A more productive economy will ease the financing of Social Security and Medicare benefits for tomorrow's retirees without placing an undue burden on tomorrow's workers. In contrast, if we allow debt to build now and in coming years, we will have both lower output to meet future obligations as well as the added burden of financing a growing amount of debt. Indeed, under numerous scenarios, our current debt path is unsustainable: Without changes to taxes or spending, we may reach a point where ever-larger amounts of debt must be issued to pay ever-larger interest charges.

Deficit spending leads to economic downturn Missourian, ROSEANN MORING AND CATHERINE MCCOMB, Staff Writers, 7/19/2008 , “Ninth District congressional candidates comment on economy”, State Rep. Judy Baker also said the government’s expenditures in Iraq are out of control. “When you start paying private companies’ employees more than our troops, there’s a problem,” she said. But Baker said the government’s deficit spending is what has caused the economy’s downturn. “We need to take a look at government spending on all levels. There is still a lot of discretionary spending that is probably irrational and unnecessary,” she said.

46

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Debt -> Recession Debt kills US competitiveness and retards economic growth J. Randy Forbes, US Rep, The Progress-Index,, 7/20/2008 “Cutting the budget excess”, http://www.progressindex.com/articles/2008/07/20/editorial/pi_progindex.20080720.a.pg5.pi0720forbes_s1.1763623_edi.txt Right now, our federal government is in debt over $9 trillion dollars. This means that every man, woman, and child in the U.S. owes the federal government $30,903.41 for expenses the government paid using borrowed dollars, and that number continues to rise. Growth in federal debt has a significant impact on our economic output and threatens our economic stability - because the government needs to borrow money, and when a big borrower like the government enters the credit market, dollars become scarce. The lack of available dollars in the credit market leads to higher interest rates, and costly loans make it more difficult for businesses to earn a profit. Our federal debt impacts employment growth and our ability to advance technologically and compete globally. For families already facing a slowing economy, a struggling housing market, and skyrocketing gas prices, a growing deficit that they have little control over creates a financial pit in their stomach of the worst kind.

47

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Debt -> military aggression High debt levels leads to anti-american military aggression The International Herald Tribune, August 18, 2007, “A debt culture gone awry; America's handicap”, Hamid Varzi, an economist and banker based in Tehran, Pg. 5, lexis, BB The U.S. economy, once the envy of the world, is now viewed across the globe with suspicion. America has become shackled by an immovable mountain of debt that endangers its prosperity and threatens to bring the rest of the world economy crashing down with it. The ongoing sub-prime mortgage crisis, a result of irresponsible lending policies designed to generate commissions for unscrupulous brokers, presages far deeper problems in a U.S. economy that is beginning to resemble a giant smoke-and-mirrors Ponzi scheme. And this has not been lost on the rest of the world. This new reality has had unfortunate side effects that go beyond economics. As a banker working in the heart of the Muslim world, I have been amazed by the depth and breadth of anti-Americanism, even among U.S. allies, manifested in reactions ranging from fierce anger to stoic fatalism. Muslims outside the United States interpret America's policies in the Middle East not as an effort to spread democracy but as a blatant neocolonialist attempt to solve its economic problems by force. Arabs and Persians alike argue that America's fiscal irresponsibility has forced the nation to seek solutions through military aggression.

48

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

US Deficit -> global econ collapse An Increase in the deficit threatens global economic collapse The Guardian, Jeremey Rifkin, Staff Writer, 25 March, 2004 “A Perfect Storm About To Hit”, http://www.countercurrents.org/eco-rifkin250304.htm, BB An ever-weaker dollar makes foreign investors less interested in financing the mushrooming US debt. The US could raise interest rates, making it more attractive for foreign investors, but that would mean higher interest rates for US companies and consumers, which could dampen the already weak recovery and send us back into a recession in the US and around the world. So we have all the conditions coming together to create the perfect economic storm: record oil prices triggering a restriction in US economic growth and an increase in the federal budget deficit, accompanied by further erosion in the value of the dollar - with increased budget deficits and the diminished value of the dollar leading in turn to higher interest rates to convince foreign investors to lend the US additional money, followed by a further retraction of the US economy as rising interest rates lead to a drop in domestic investment and consumption. The cascade of events touches off a tsunami that engulfs the rest of the global economy, submerging the world in deep recession.

A rising deficit is the greatest threat to the world economy C. Fred Bergsten, Director Peterson Institute for International Economics, February 1, 2007, CQ Congressional Testimony, “CURRENT ACCOUNT DEFICIT AND FOREIGN DEBT OF THE U.S.”, The huge and growing international trade and current account imbalances, centered on the US external deficits and net debtor position, represent the single greatest threat to the continued prosperity and stability of the United States and world economies. They could at any time trigger a large and rapid decline in the exchange rate of the dollar that would initiate sharp increases in US inflation and interest rates, bringing on stagflation at a minimum and quite possibly a deep recession. Even in the absence of such a crisis, continued failure to address the imbalances constructively will inevitably lead to a costly and perhaps wrenching adjustment of the US and world economies. They could also lead to a disruption of US trade policy, threatening the openness of the global trading system.

49

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

2AC (1/2) 1. Congress is overriding defenders of fiscal discipline Belville News-Democrat, James Rosen, staff writer for McClatchy Newspapers 7/19/2008,“Senator who opposed expanding global AIDS program vows to keep up pressure”, Before voting 80-16 to pass the AIDS bill, the Senate defeated DeMint's amendments to cut its cost to $35 billion over five years and to prohibit funds from being used for alleged "coercive abortion and forced sterilization" in China or other countries.

2. No Evidence indicating an increase in earmarks collapses fiscal discipline 3. No Link—Spending Trades-off Pay-go rules are in effect Increasing Alternative Energy incentives trades-off John Stephen, Republican candidate for Congress, Union Leader, 7/18/08, “John Stephen: On energy costs, Washington offers no real answers”, http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Stephen%3A+On+energy+costs%2C+Washington+offers+no+real+answers &articleId=58250a2c-89b0-4696-925a-977411675a71 You see, extending the tax credits would mean that individuals and businesses would keep $19 billion more of their money, instead of sending it to Washington. Under the House rules, that money "loss" would have to be offset by new taxes or spending cuts. Now, no Congress in its right mind would hike taxes in an election year, so that means that to keep these incentives for renewable energy in place, Washington would have to do what the rest of America is doing to meet the rising costs of energy prices -- roll up its sleeves and make the tough decisions on spending.

4. No Link- Alternative Energy can be funded without an increase States New Service 6/23/2008, “KIRK/BIGGERT: U.S. "MOON SHOT" PROGRAM TO GET OFF FOREIGN OIL "APOLLO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ACT" ON SCALE OF NASA'S MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM TO LOWER GAS PRICES, BOOST ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES AND IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY”, lexis With Chicagoland leading the nation in gas prices, U.S. Representatives Mark Kirk and Judy Biggert joined with environmental, business and research leaders today to announce new legislation dramatically boosting the federal government's commitment to energy independence. With the backdrop of Chicago's premier space museum, the Adler Planetarium, the legislation is modeled on NASA's $20 billion effort to land an American on the moon. The "Apollo Energy Independence Act" establishes long-term market incentives to spur breakthroughs for the development and deployment of alternative energies, vehicles and fuel. Increases in support for alternative energy are offset by spending reductions in earmark and subsidy programs to ensure the bill does not require additional borrowing or taxes.

5. Environmental Spending saves the economy Mark Lynas, a climate change writer and activist, author of the acclaimed book 'High Tide' and fortnightly columnist for the New Statesman. He was selected by National Geographic as an 'Emerging Explorer' for 2006, 7/17/2008, “A Green New Deal”, http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/07/lynas-towards-economy-climate,BB The Green New Deal Group is not talking about incremental changes, however. It is calling for nothing less than a return to pre-war Keynesianism - complete with big increases in public investment spending and much tighter controls on international finance - with a "war economy" social mobilisation harnessed, this time not towards fighting fascism, but towards heading off ecological crisis. What is novel is that this call is directed not just at stabilising the climate, but also at stabilising the economy - lower interest rates and higher government spending are aimed at ending the credit crunch as much as tackling the oil and climate crunches.

6. No Threshold- Don’t say how much spending collapses fiscal discipline

50

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

2AC (2/2) 7. Earmarks Happening now, there’s bipartisan love for it. Huffington Post, The internet newspaper, June 18, 2008, “Bipartisanship Thrives -- At Least When it Comes to Earmarks” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/bipartisanship-thrives_b_107667.html) Earmarks -- the Rasputin of Congressional budget politics - are back on the scene. If you don't remember your late tsarist Russian history, Rasputin was the "mad monk" with scary eyes, decadent tastes and way too much influence over Tsarina Alexandra. Eventually he was poisoned, shot, beaten, and finally drowned by a group of dissident Russian nobles. He drank enough poison to kill multiple humans and had three bullets in his back, but he still led his killers on a chase through St. Petersburg before they finally caught up with him, clubbed him and threw him in the Neva River. There were even rumors that he sat up during his cremation. The Congressional earmark industry is proving equally hardy despite repeated attempts to kill or at least weaken it, according to the Washington Post. The current House defense authorization bill contains almost $10 billion dollars of earmarks according to figures compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. The Senate bill hasn't been approved yet, but Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Mel Martinez (R-FL) are among those listed as requesting earmarks. Okay, so we have members from the House and the Senate, from the liberal northeast and the conservative south, men and the women, Democrats, Republicans, an Independent, and what can they finally agree on - the ritual of slipping those tasty little earmarks into the defense budget. And they've agreed to do this when the country is at war and faces a budget deficit approaching half a trillion dollars for this fiscal year.

8. The United States Economy is really resilient William B. Bonvillian is Legislative Director and Chief Counsel to Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Issues in Science and Technology, fall 2004-Meeting the New Challenge to U.S. Economic Competitiveness In the 1980s, when the United States faced significant competitive challenges from Japan and Germany, U.S. industry, labor, and government worked out a series of competitiveness policies and approaches that helped pave the way for the nation’s revitalized economic leadership in the 1990s. In the mid-1980s President Reagan appointed Hewlett Packard president John Young to head a bipartisan competitiveness commission, which recommended a practical policy approach designed to defuse ideological squabbling. Although many of its recommendations were enacted slowly or not at all, the commission created a new focus on public-private partnerships, on R&D investments (especially in IT), and on successful competition in trade rather than protectionism. This became the generally accepted response and provided the building blocks for the 1990s boom. The Young Commission was followed by Congress’s Competitiveness Policy Council through 1997. These efforts were successful in redefining the economic debate in part because they built on the experiences, wellremembered at the time, of industry and government collaboration that was so successful in World War II and in responding to Sputnik. Those are much more distant memories in this new century, but we should revisit the Young Commission model. The private sector Council on Competitiveness, originally led by Young, has assembled a group of leading industry, labor, and academic leaders to prepare a National Innovation Initiative, which could provide a blueprint for action. Legislation has been introduced in the Senate to establish a new bipartisan competitiveness commission that would have the prestige and leverage to stimulate government action. The U.S. economy is the most flexible and resilient in the world. The country possesses a highly talented workforce, powerful and efficient capital markets, the strongest R&D system, and the energy of entrepreneurs and many dynamic companies. That by itself will not guarantee success in a changing economy, but it gives the country the wherewithal to adapt to an evolving world. Challenges to U.S. dominance are visible everywhere. Strong economic growth is vital to the U.S. national mission, and innovation is the key to that growth. The United States needs to fashion a new competitiveness agenda designed to speed the velocity of innovation to meet the great challenges of the new century. Once that agenda has been crafted, the nation must find the political will to implement it.

51

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

FISCAL D Low No Fiscal Discipline—Mortage Giant Bailouts Sharon Schmickle, Writer for MinnPost, 7/14/2008, “Mortgage giants in crisis -- yet the public seems locked in 'whatever' mode”, http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/07/14/2554/mortgage_giants_in_crisis_--_yet_the_public_seems_locked_in_whatever_mode, BB Even the toughest critics are saying the government had no choice at this point but to rescue Fannie and Freddie. The fallout from their failure would have been catastrophic. The anti-serenity piece for this picture is in the background. The government already is in debt to the tune of nearly $10 trillion, a level that would have been seen as a crisis in itself when President Bush's father occupied the Oval Office in the early 1990s. Now the White House plans to ask Congress to raise the debt ceiling for the Fannie-Freddie bailout. It is so '90s, but I'll ask anyway: Where are the deficit hawks? If they had squawked as loudly during this decade, we would not be suffering such a profound sense of insecurity over the government's ability to handle the Fannie-Freddie debacle. The deficit-spending issue surfaced last week at a town-hall meeting the presumed GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain, staged in Denver. "We must also get government's fiscal house in order," McCain said. "American workers and families pay their bills and balance their budgets, and I will demand the same of the government. A government that spends wisely and balances its budget is a catalyst for economic growth and the creation of good and secure jobs."

Federal Spending exceeds Federal Revenue Steve Chapman, Writer for the Chicago Tribune, 7/10/08, “Obama, McCain and the coming fiscal disaster”, Chicago Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0710chapmanjul10,0,7110404.column BB Federal budget policy is a dry subject with far too many numbers and charts, which makes it uninviting to most Americans. But the theme of the current budget story is one that could have come from a blockbuster summer movie: We are doomed. There is a fiscal asteroid on course to pulverize us, and no one is coming to the rescue. The problem is simple and depressingly familiar. This year, federal spending will exceed federal revenue by more than $400 billion. Given the weak state of the economy, the deficit will get worse before it gets better.

No Fiscal Discipline—Congress is unwilling to cut programs Gregory Bresiger, managing editor of Traders Magazine and a writer for the Mises Institute, the Free Market and the New York Post, 7/04/08, “The non-issue that should be an issue”, SmallGovTimes, http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/08jul04.non.issues/) Indeed, Democrats say little or nothing in the federal budget can be cut. The government must expand its responsibilities. It must provide health care and financial security for all. Also, there must be more spending for national security. Still, there is little serious discussion about what all this would cost, though sometimes, even in the heat of partisan battles, some truth emerges. "Our country is in a sinkhole of debt, and it is almost as if we have adopted a philosophy of 'all you can spend' around here. Spending is out of control," says Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo) in criticizing the Democrats' recently proposed federal budget. Nevertheless, despite making an effective case that red ink is endless, Enzi should look at his own party. Republicans, who controlled Congress for 12 years until the end of 2006, haven't been much better than Democrats. Republicans used to talk about reducing the welfare state. I remember when candidate Ronald Reagan in 1980 promised to end the Energy and Education departments. Some Republicans, who themselves have caught the entitlementspending/social-engineering bug, now propose the creation of a federal department of families. Indeed many Republicans, who once said they were against the welfare state, now brag they are better at running the welfare state than the Democrats. I remember a speech on this theme given by George Will to the Security Traders Association some two years ago. ("Wonderful speech," I told Will as he walked out and started to gloat at what he thought was another compliment. "Yes, sir. Now I know why I'm a libertarian!" Deflated, the Republican welfare statist growled and hurried away.)

52

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

FISCAL D Low Congress has spent billions on Veteran Entitlement, Emergency Relief, and Unemployment Gail Russell Chaddock, Staff Writer of the Christian Science Monitor, 6/30/08, “Congress's spending goes unchecked, with more likely”, Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0630/p25s01-uspo.html , BB Washington - Before leaving town last week, Congress wrapped up a $162 billion war-funding bill and expanded America's entitlement system by giving veterans the biggest boost in college benefits since the World War II GI bill. Lawmakers also added a 13-week extension to unemployment benefits and approved $2.7 billion in emergency relief for the storm-lashed Midwest. Despite commitments to fiscal discipline on both sides of the aisle, none of it is paid for – at least not by today's taxpayers. "There is absolutely no appetite to make hard choices," says Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, citing the war-funding bill. "There's never been any attempt to pay for the war, and now that's being used to expand a major entitlement program for veterans, which might be a good idea, but we ought to pay for it."

Earmarking is great problem in status quo Dr. James Dobson, Ph.D. Founder and Chairman of Focus on the Family, April 29, 2008 “The Asteroid That is Our Economy That is to Come” (http://undcr.com/?p=217) It’s not that the government doesn’t have enough money–it’s that it’s mishandling money and spending the lion’s share of it in the wrong places. Of prime concern is the issue of “earmarking,” which refers to provisions in legislation that direct federal funds to be spent on the politician’s pet projects, often in his or her home district. It is called “bringing home the bacon” and is one of the ways they stay in office. Republicans and Democrats alike have been guilty of abusing this practice for years now. At the 11th hour, earmarks are quietly slipped into massive spending bills by members of Congress. Do you remember the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” fiasco? Congress tried to fund a $230 million bridge that led to an Alaskan town of 50 people.10 The funding was ultimately axed–but only after public outrage demanded it. A few of the saner voices in Congress have called for a serious reform of the earmark system, or even for the elimination of earmarks altogether. But alas, during its budget proceedings, the Senate failed to implement even a temporary ban on this wasteful and irresponsible practice. It’s worth noting that the three front-running presidential contenders did, in fact, vote for the temporary ban, perhaps because they are in the spotlight and know how unpopular pork-barrel spending is with the American public. Nevertheless, for the majority of Senators in both parties, earmarks are a sacred cow. Or is that a cash cow? Whatever the case, the effort to end earmarks went down in flames in a 29-to-71 vote.11 Alas, the asteroid is heading our way!

53

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

FISCAL D Low Bush is irresponsible, low fiscal discipline and is corrupt. Pork barrels everything? Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative figure head and writer in American politics. He is the current chairman of conservativehq.com, August 9, 2006, “Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause- pages 6,7)



54

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

FISCAL D Low CARD CONTINUED FROM Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative figure head and writer in American politics. He is the current chairman of conservativehq.com, August 9, 2006, “Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause- pages 6,7)

55

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

NO SPILLOVER – EARMARKS Earmarks Happening now, there’s bipartisan love for it. Huffington Post, The internet newspaper, June 18, 2008, “Bipartisanship Thrives -- At Least When it Comes to Earmarks” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/bipartisanship-thrives_b_107667.html) Earmarks -- the Rasputin of Congressional budget politics - are back on the scene. If you don't remember your late tsarist Russian history, Rasputin was the "mad monk" with scary eyes, decadent tastes and way too much influence over Tsarina Alexandra. Eventually he was poisoned, shot, beaten, and finally drowned by a group of dissident Russian nobles. He drank enough poison to kill multiple humans and had three bullets in his back, but he still led his killers on a chase through St. Petersburg before they finally caught up with him, clubbed him and threw him in the Neva River. There were even rumors that he sat up during his cremation. The Congressional earmark industry is proving equally hardy despite repeated attempts to kill or at least weaken it, according to the Washington Post. The current House defense authorization bill contains almost $10 billion dollars of earmarks according to figures compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. The Senate bill hasn't been approved yet, but Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Mel Martinez (R-FL) are among those listed as requesting earmarks. Okay, so we have members from the House and the Senate, from the liberal northeast and the conservative south, men and the women, Democrats, Republicans, an Independent, and what can they finally agree on - the ritual of slipping those tasty little earmarks into the defense budget. And they've agreed to do this when the country is at war and faces a budget deficit approaching half a trillion dollars for this fiscal year.

56

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

No increase in money Alternative Energy can funded without an increase States New Service 6/23/2008, “KIRK/BIGGERT: U.S. "MOON SHOT" PROGRAM TO GET OFF FOREIGN OIL "APOLLO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ACT" ON SCALE OF NASA'S MOST SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM TO LOWER GAS PRICES, BOOST ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES AND IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY”, lexis With Chicagoland leading the nation in gas prices, U.S. Representatives Mark Kirk and Judy Biggert joined with environmental, business and research leaders today to announce new legislation dramatically boosting the federal government's commitment to energy independence. With the backdrop of Chicago's premier space museum, the Adler Planetarium, the legislation is modeled on NASA's $20 billion effort to land an American on the moon. The "Apollo Energy Independence Act" establishes long-term market incentives to spur breakthroughs for the development and deployment of alternative energies, vehicles and fuel. Increases in support for alternative energy are offset by spending reductions in earmark and subsidy programs to ensure the bill does not require additional borrowing or taxes.

57

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

McCain & Obama Fiscal D low Obama and Mccain will both be fiscally irresponsible. Steve Chapman, He attended Harvard University, where he was on the staff of The Harvard Crimson, and graduated with honors in 1976. He has been a fellow at the American Academy in Berlin and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, July 10, 2008, “Obama, McCain and the coming fiscal disaster” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chioped0710chapmanjul10,0,7110404.column The problem is simple and depressingly familiar. This year, federal spending will exceed federal revenue by more than $400 billion. Given the weak state of the economy, the deficit will get worse before it gets better. Actually, it may never get better, because the current shortfall coincides with the start of the most dreaded fiscal event of all time: the retirement of the Baby Boomers, who will soon consume eye-popping amounts in Social Security and Medicare. The latest proof came when McCain unveiled his economic plan, in which he vows to eliminate the deficit in four years. His plan to balance the budget is simple: He plans to balance the budget. Exactly which programs he will trim to reach that goal are anyone's guess. For someone with a reputation as a fearless foe of congressional earmarks and pork-barrel waste, McCain is amazingly timid in taking on the rest of the budget. About his only specific proposal is a one-year freeze in those discretionary programs that don't involve defense or veterans. McCain doesn't say how much that would save, but it wouldn't be a lot. Those expenditures amount to only 17 percent of all federal outlays. Eighty-three percent of the budget would keep on growing. After a year, so would the other 17 percent. He vows to follow up with "comprehensive spending controls." But promising to control spending in general means promising to control nothing in particular. Just because voters will go along with a vague limit on total outlays doesn't mean they are willing to surrender funds going to them or their favorite causes. It's one thing to inform a toddler that he shouldn't eat too much candy. It's another to take the Tootsie Roll Pop out of his hand. The Republican standard-bearer, however, acts as though the task will be easy. Among the methods offered in this plan: "Eliminate broken programs. The federal government itself admits that one in five programs do not perform." How about naming one? How about promising to pound a stake through its heart? When it comes to spending, though, Obama is even worse. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation added up all the promises made by the two candidates and found that McCain's would cost taxpayers an extra $68 billion a year. Obama's add up to $344 billion a year. The Illinois senator's pledge to get tough on unnecessary expenditures is as solid as cotton candy. Among his vows is to "slash earmarks to no greater than what they were in 2001," but earmarks make up less than 2 percent of the budget. Trying to restore fiscal discipline by cutting earmarks is like trying to lose weight by adopting an exercise program for your left index finger. Obama claims he'll pay for all his new spending with new revenues and spending cuts. But like McCain, he has been hazy on the details. And it will be far easier for him to get Congress to approve new spending than to enact the measures needed to pay for it. Unless Obama is willing to take on his own party with the veto pen, we should expect four more years of irresponsible budgeting. His only defense is that he would not have to make up as much lost revenue as his rival. The Tax Policy Center says his tax plan would cut federal receipts by $2.7 trillion over the next decade, compared with $3.6 trillion for McCain. The details differ, but the basic picture is the same regardless of who wins: Washington will spend more, red ink will roll down like a mighty river, and we as a nation will continue to dodge the critical choices we face.

Obama will have low fiscal discipline, calculations prove Washington Times, a full-service, general interest daily newspaper in the nation's capital, September 30, 2007 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/30/obamas-flawed-fiscal-plan/) Obama has been busy devising his own fiscal train wreck. First came the low-ball estimate for his universal health-insurance proposal, the annual cost he calculated to be between $50 billion and $65 billion. Mr. Obama said he could pay for his plan by reinstating Clinton-era income-tax rates (20 percent on capital gains and 39.6 percent on salary and dividend income) on those earning more than $250,000 a year. Mr. Obama's middle-class tax proposal offers no relief for the alternative minimum tax, which threatens to cost taxpayers (most of whom are in the middle- and upper-middle-class ranges) more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Yet he clearly intends to cancel those pending tax increases, although his plan fails to provide a dime toward that end. Mr. Obama's fiscal policy doesn't add up. After spending his first two and a half years in the Senate blasting the Bush administration for its irresponsible budget policies, Sen. Barack

58

Fiscal Discipline DDI 2008 SS Fadi

Spending -> boost econ Environmental Spending is key to saving the economy Mark Lynas, a climate change writer and activist, author of the acclaimed book 'High Tide' and fortnightly columnist for the New Statesman. He was selected by National Geographic as an 'Emerging Explorer' for 2006, 7/17/2008, “A Green New Deal”, http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/07/lynas-towards-economy-climate,BB The Green New Deal Group is not talking about incremental changes, however. It is calling for nothing less than a return to pre-war Keynesianism - complete with big increases in public investment spending and much tighter controls on international finance - with a "war economy" social mobilisation harnessed, this time not towards fighting fascism, but towards heading off ecological crisis. What is novel is that this call is directed not just at stabilising the climate, but also at stabilising the economy - lower interest rates and higher government spending are aimed at ending the credit crunch as much as tackling the oil and climate crunches.

Increasing Environmental spending solves the economic crisis Andrew Simms, policy director of nef (the new economics foundation) the award-winning UK think-and-do tank, and head of nef's Climate Change Programme, The Guardian, 7/4/08, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/04/greenpolitics.climatechange For all their bluster, the architects of environmental backlash seem utterly bereft of their own ideas about what to do differently. The green movement, on the other hand, overflows with proposals. One initiative, soon to be launched, is the call for a "Green New Deal". Organised by a group of environmentalists and experts in finance, it proposes joined-up policies to tackle the triple crunch. At its heart is an acknowledgement of the profoundly distorting role of footloose and feckless finance. The Green New Deal will call for the re-regulation of finance and taxation, linked to a transformational economic programme to substantially reduce fossil fuel use. In the process, it will create countless green-collar jobs to tackle the unemployment and decline in demand caused by the credit crunch. The Green New Deal is a modern translation of the politics of hope and pragmatism employed by Roosevelt in the 1930s. Then, as now, someone needed to pick up the pieces of a system failed by short-termism and unenlightened self-interest.

59