Bhr Spending Da

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

SPENDING DISADVANTAGE 1NC Shell………………………………………………………………………………….. ……… 2-3 2NC Uniqueness Wall…………………………………………………………………………….. 4-5 - ext #1 – Paygo…………………………………………………………………………………… 6 - ext #4 – election………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 2NC Link Wall…………………………………………………………………………………….. 8-9 - riders ext…………………………………………………………………………………. ……….10 Alternative Energy Links (generic) ……………………………………………………………….. 11 Emissions Cuts**……………………………………………………………………………………12 Ethanol……………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 Hydrogen…………………………………………………………………………………………… 14 Nuke Power………………………………………………………………………………………... 15 Production Tax Credits**…………………………………………………………………………...16 RPS…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17 Wind…………………………………………………………………………………………………18 a2 Normal Means = Offsets……………………………………………………………………... 19-20 - Bush Veto Proves…………………………………………………………………………………. 21 2NC Internal Link Wall – Spending Snowballs………………………………………………… 22-24 Disad Turns the Case Economic Decline Jacks Renewables Development………………………………………………. 25-26 Economic Decline Jacks Environment.……………………………………………………………. 27 AFF Spending 2AC ……………………………………….……………………………………………. - ext #1 – Normal Means = Paygo………………………………………………………………… - ext #2 – a2 Blue Dogs…………………………………………………………………………… a2 Offshore Drilling Rider…………………………..…………………………………………….. NM = Offsets (PTC specific) ………………………..……………………………………………..

28 29 30 31 32

1

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Spending Disad 1NC (1/2)

A. UNIQUENESS – Congress is on track for balanced budget by 2012 – the 09 budget requires all initiatives abide by PayGo requirements SNS 6-5-08. (“Final Budget Resolution Reflects Blue Dog Priorities”, State News Service, lexis) Today, members

of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition applauded Budget Committee leaders in both the House and Senate for working together to successfully reach agreement on a fiscally responsible, PAYGO compliant FY '09 budget conference report. Over the past several months, Blue Dog members have worked extensively with Chairman Spratt and Chairman Conrad to ensure that the measure meets strict standards of fiscal discipline, including a firm commitment to the extension of statutory PAYGO requirements and the elimination of wasteful government spending. "With the Blue Dogs' leadership, we have adopted a fiscally responsible budget that complies with PAYGO, reaches balance by 2012 and eliminates wasteful spending," said Congressman Dennis Moore (D-KS), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy. "Putting together a budget that addresses our country's needs and priorities is often a difficult task, but we should not let this deter us from our efforts to restore fiscal discipline as a priority of Congress after years of mismanagement."

B. LINK – Plan represents a break from offsets, allowing for runaway spending Friel 6-14-08. (Brian, Management Matters columnist for Government Executive, “Dog Days”, The National Journal, lexis) Blue Dogs have made "pay-as-you-go" budgeting their central plank in this Congress. Creating a mandatory program like the education aid for veterans without a corresponding budget offset would add considerably to the federal debt and clearly violate their chief tenet: imposing more fiscal discipline on runaway government spending.

Specifically, alternative energy incentives require massive increases in spending Taylor 02. (Jerry, director of natural resource studies, “Evaluating the Case for Renewable Energy,” CATO Institute, Jan 10, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa422.pdf) The EIA reported that energy subsidies in fiscal year 1999 totaled $4 billion.71 The oil industry received $312 million,72 the coal industry received $489 million, and the natural gas industry received $1.2 billion (almost all of which was a tax credit for the production of alternative fuels, primarily gas from tight sands and coalbed methane).73 Renewable energy was the recipient of $1.1 billion in subsidies in 1999.74 Subsidies for fossil fuels amount to only 1 percent of total energy purchases75 and are, according to EIA, “too small to have a significant effect on the overall level of energy prices and consumption in the United States.”76 R&D dollars have not handicapped renewable energy technologies. Over the past 20 years, those technologies have received (in inflation-adjusted 1996 dollars) $24.2 billion in federal R&D subsidies, while nuclear energy has received $20.1 billion and fossil fuels only $15.5 billion.77 To the extent that nuclear power has received heavy favor from government, the primary victims have been oil, gas, and coal—not renewable energy. The best way to “level the playing field” is to eliminate subsidies for traditional sources rather than enact new programs for renewables

C. IMPACTS – A breakdown in fiscal discipline will crush the economy Copley News Service 03. (March 3) The spending discipline in Congress that, together with a roaring economy's gusher of tax revenues, helped produce balanced budgets after the mid-1990s slipped away by 2000. The Bush administration took office in 2001 with no particular commitment to spending restraint. The Bush tax cuts can't be blamed for the currently emerging deficits because most of those cuts don't take effect until later in this decade. The obvious culprit here is overspending. If it continues, the temporary deficits now in prospect could turn into a large structural deficit that, in time, could damage the economy. The right strategy against those

2

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

structural deficits is twofold: economic growth and spending restraint. In wartime, the imperative to curtail increases in nondefense spending is all the more urgent. In time, the Bush tax cuts will strengthen a sputtering economy.

Spending Disad 1NC (2/2)

E. Economic contraction would cause collapse, mass starvation, totalitarianism, and nuclear war Nyquist 05. (J.R, expert in geopolitics and international relations, WorldNetDaily contributing editor, “The Political Consequences of a Financial Crash,” February 4, http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0204.html) Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction during the second term of President Bush, the American people will likely support politicians who advocate further restrictions and controls on our market economy – guaranteeing its strangulation and the steady pauperization of the country. In Congress today, Sen. Edward Kennedy supports nearly all the economic dogmas listed above. It is easy to see, therefore, that the coming economic contraction, due in part to a policy of massive credit expansion, will have serious political consequences for the Republican Party (to the benefit of the Democrats). Furthermore, an economic contraction will encourage the formation of anti-capitalist majorities and a turning away from the free market system. The danger here is not merely economic. The political left openly favors the collapse of America’s strategic position abroad. The withdrawal of the United States from the Middle East, the Far East and Europe would catastrophically impact an international system that presently allows 6 billion people to live on the earth’s surface in relative peace. Should anti-capitalist dogmas overwhelm the global market and trading system that evolved under American leadership, the planet’s economy would contract and untold millions would die of starvation. Nationalistic totalitarianism, fueled by a politics of blame, would once again bring war to Asia and Europe. But this time the war would be waged with mass destruction weapons and the United States would be blamed because it is the center of global capitalism. Furthermore, if the anti-capitalist party gains power in Washington, we can expect to see policies of appeasement and unilateral disarmament enacted. American appeasement and disarmament, in this context, would be an admission of guilt before the court of world opinion. Russia and China, above all, would exploit this admission to justify aggressive wars, invasions and mass destruction attacks. A future financial crash, therefore, must be prevented at all costs. But we cannot do this. As one observer recently lamented, “We drank the poison and now we must die.”

3

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

2NC Uniqueness Wall (1/2)

1. Extend our SNS ev – The ’09 budget abides by the PayGo requirements, restoring fiscal discipline to Congress 2. PAYGO – a) Congress is on track for a budget surplus by 2012 – no current alternative energy projects require spending because they are financed by PayGo offsets SNS 6-5-08. (“Gillibrand votes for fiscally responsible budget and middle class tax cuts”, State News Service, lexis) "With a $9 trillion national debt, it is imperative that Congress returns to fiscal discipline and focus federal spending only on our national priorities," Congresswoman Gillibrand said. "Furthermore, this budget makes middle class tax cuts a priority, so that hardworking families can keep more of the money they earn." The budget is fiscally responsible, resulting in a budget surplus by 2012 and strictly adheres to Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) budget rules. As a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, Gillibrand has been a leader in making fiscal responsibility a priority for the Congress. She introduced a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that requires Congress to balance their budget every year. In addition, she is a sponsor of legislation that will implement spending caps on discretionary spending. The budget plan calls for significant tax relief for middle income families, including extension of marriage penalty relief and the child tax credit, as well as allowing for estate tax reform. It also includes an additional year of Alternative Minimum Tax relief. Congresswoman Gillibrand has made a permanent fix to the AMT, which would hit many upstate New York families in the coming years, a priority of hers in Congress. The budget responds to record high gas prices by making key investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency, which will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Additionally, the budget enhances national security by restoring our military readiness, providing a $4.9 billion increase over Fiscal Year 2008 for veterans a health care and increasing funding to protect America from terrorism.

b) Independently, PayGo solves for budget deficits Paul 6-29-08. (Mark, senior scholar at the New America Foundation, “Why the budget never adds up”, Los Angeles Times, pg. m6, lexis) But here again, no constitutional change is necessary to solve the problem. The governor and Legislature need only follow the example of Congress, which in 1990 joined with President George H.W. Bush to institute pay-as-you-go budgeting. Under

"paygo," as it's known in Washington, new spending programs and increases in existing ones must be paid for with increased revenue or offset by an equal spending cut in other, lower-priority items. Tax cuts must also be paid for by either balancing revenue increases or spending reductions. This self-imposed discipline played a key role in turning the enormous federal deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s into a surplus by 2000.

3. VETO/ Bush would veto any new spending for environment-friendly energy bills Inside EPA 7-18-08. (“Bipartisan energy clash may doom passage of EPA FY09 Spending Bill”, Vol. 29, No. 29, lexis) The House appropriations panel looks even less likely to move its EPA spending bill, sources say. Work on that legislation came to a halt last month when Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) attempted during a June 26 markup of the labor, health and human services bill to force a vote on the environment and interior FY09 bill. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-WI) halted the markup, and has made remarks indicating that a continuing resolution to fund agencies through FY09 is more likely than passing a spending bill. Even if Congress can pass an EPA spending bill, sources say that Bush would likely veto any legislation that includes spending above his requested levels -- and Democrats have vowed to boost a host of EPA programs that Bush proposed to cut in the administration's FY09 budget.

4

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

5

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

2NC Uniqueness Wall (2/2)

4. ELECTION – Legislators have postponed all pre-election spending – including Iraq National Journal 7-11-08. (“Top News”, lexis) "Some fights of the 110th Congress have lost their oomph in the waning months before the November elections, with both parties content to run out the clock on messy matters like the war in Iraq, spending bills and various disputes with the White House," AP reports. "Democrats dropped any pretense of trying to address some of the stickiest issues when their Senate leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, told reporters Thursday that Congress will punt until next year its biggest job, setting most of the government's spending priorities."

5. BLUE DOGS – Post-November, Blue Dog Dems will further their stronghold on Congress, holding the line on spending Friel 6-14-08. (Brian, Management Matters columnist for Government Executive, “Dog Days”, The National Journal, lexis) By many measures, the Blue Dog Coalition--a 49-member group of fiscally conservative, business-friendly House Democrats from generally Republican-leaning districts--is on a roll. The November 2006 elections ushered in numerous likeminded moderate freshmen, 13 of whom joined the Blue Dogs, helping to put the Democrats in control of the House for the first time in a dozen years and install Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as speaker. Two Blue Dog-endorsed Democrats recently captured GOP-held

seats in special elections in Mississippi and Louisiana. And the group is setting itself up for even more wins this November. Money has been flowing their way, too. Contributions to the Blue Dog political action committee have nearly tripled during this election cycle compared with the previous one. Since January 2007, the coalition's PAC has collected more money than nearly every other member-run leadership PAC in the House. "We expect to grow and have an even larger group in the 111th Congress," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., one of three Blue Dog co-chairs. In a June 3 interview with National Journal, Ross and other Blue Dog leaders sounded upbeat about their prospects, and with good reason. Pelosi recognizes that without the Blue Dogs, she would still be the minority leader. 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. So the leaders usually consider the group's moderate views. Otherwise, the more-liberal leanings of the rest of the 235-member House Democratic Caucus could force the Blue Dogs to cast votes that might cost them their seats--and ultimately topple their party from power. "Our leadership has been very inclusive and has been willing to listen to our concerns," said Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., the Blue Dog whip.

6. GRIDLOCK prevents new spending form passing Palm Beach Post 7-27-08. (“Total Failure? Speaker Pelosi Needs to Stare into a Mirror”, pg. 6e, lexis) Her response was in retaliation to President Bush's comment that the Democratic--led Congress has yet to pass a spending bill. Rep. Pelosi's track record as speaker of the House is one of gridlock and inability to promote and pass meaningful legislation to improve the nation. Her lack of leadership is one of the prime reasons the public's approval rating of Congress is at an all-time low of 18 percent.

7. EARMARKS – legislators pledged to avoid pork barrel spending Business Wire 7-24-08. (“CAGW Names Rep. Mica Porker of the Month”, lexis) The concept of an earmark ban has gained traction in the wake of these abuses. In March, a Senate amendment to the 2009 budget resolution to impose a year-long moratorium on congressional earmarks was co-sponsored by Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), John McCain (RAriz.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), among others, but lost 29-71. Forty

6

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Representatives and seven Senators have made personal pledges not to request any earmarks this year. An earmark ban will allow members to reform the appropriations process, devote more attention to critical national issues, and help keep money in taxpayers' wallets instead of diverting it to Washington where it can be converted into pork.

Spending U – Ext #1 – PayGo

All new initiatives under the 110th Congress have been through PayGo, requiring no new deficit spending US Fed News 08. (“Rep. Costa Honored by Blue Dog Coalition for Leadership in Restoring Fiscal Responsibility to Government”, April 30, lexis) Under the leadership of Representative Costa and the Blue Dog Coalition, the House rules package for the 110th Congress includes key principles of the Coalition's plan to restore fiscal responsibility and accountability to the federal government. Specifically, the package requires pay-as-you-go budget discipline, known as "PAYGO," with no new deficit spending. This rule was in place when the nation had its first balanced budget in nearly 30 years from 1998 to 2001.

7

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Spending U – Ext #4 – Election

1. Extend National Journal – Congress has decided to postpone all new spending – including Iraq – until after the election 2. And doesn’t trigger our specific link – no new energy funding till after the election Inside EPA 7-18-08. (“Bipartisan energy clash may doom passage of EPA FY09 Spending Bill”, Vol. 29, No. 29, lexis) Sources have previously said that committee-level approval of an EPA FY09 spending bill could ease passage of similar legislation under the next president in the 111th Congress, by acting as a marker for negotiations. State officials, Democrats and other sources have also previously predicted that Congress would punt EPA's spending bill to next year with the belief that whoever wins the presidential election in November will be more amenable to boosting EPA's funding figures than Bush.

8

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

2NC Link Wall (1/2) 1. Plan causes massive expenditures 2. SNOWBALLS – Any non-PayGo spending will snowball, launching us into a fiscal death spiral St Louis Post Dispatch Lesson Plan 03. (February 13) Once deficit spending gets started, it’s hard to stop, he noted. Better to control it now, rather than wait until the baby boomers start demanding their Social Security checks in 2011. To put the brakes on deficit spending a decade ago, Congress enacted pay-as-you-go rules that forced tax cuts and spending increases to be matched by budget cuts elsewhere. Those rules are expiring now, and that’s dangerous.

3. STAND ALONE SPENDING bills create a dangerous precedent that breaks down fiscal restraint Rod Grams, Senator, [Congressional Press Releases] 3/20/95 As stand-alone legislation, particularly when compared against the rest of the monstrous federal budget, individual park projects may not appear so ominous. Collectively, however, they account for billions of dollars in federal spending every year. And by putting the legislative priorities of a few ahead of the fiscal priorities of an entire nation, they set a dangerous precedent.

3. POINTS OF ORDER LINK/ The plan’s fiat requires the Senate to waive points of order that normally restrict funding from being allocated of the omnibus spending bill – markets will see it as fiscally irresponsible Garrett 00. (Elizabeth, Prof of Law and Deputy Dean @ U Chicago Law, 100 Colum. L. Rev. 702) accompanying legislative documents contain the budget committees' allocations of discretionary funds to the appropriations and other committees. 59 All these allocations, as well as the spending and revenue aggregates, are enforced through substantive points of order that can be raised by any lawmaker to prevent consideration of an appropriations bill in violation of the allocations. In the Senate, this substantive point of order can be waived only by a three-fifths vote, just as is required to waive many other objections to violations of budget process rules. The political costs of blatantly ignoring the budget resolution, even though it is not binding law, may be too great for lawmakers to contemplate seriously. When a concurrent resolution has In addition,

60

been passed in the same form by a majority of both houses, press coverage and electoral attacks by challengers may well focus the public's attention on divergence between the aspirations set by

Votes that are inconsistent with spending targets can be characterized as fiscally irresponsible; if constituents care about the larger macrobudgetary issues, such votes may have unfortunate electoral consequences. In short, even though a majority, or the resolutions and the reality of the appropriations process. 61

62

even a supermajority, of legislators might like to enact appropriations bills that violate the budget resolution, they may be unwilling to vote expressly to change or eliminate the caps set in the budget resolution.

4. COMMITTEE CHAIR LINK/ a) The plan undermines the Budget Committee chairperson’s ability to reconcile the budget Garrett 00. (Elizabeth, Prof of Law and Deputy Dean @ U Chicago Law, 100 Colum. L. Rev. 702) Reconciliation "has been the principal means by which Congress has enacted legislation reducing the deficit. The process has two stages: issuance of reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution and enactment of a reconciliation bill that changes revenue or spending laws." As part of establishing the aggregate spending and revenue targets in the budget resolution, the budget committees instruct [*720] the other substantive committees to make changes in entitlement spending and tax laws necessary to reach the targets. ... CARD CONTINUES... 77

Traditionally, committees exert enormous control over the legislative process because they effectively determine which proposals will be considered by the full body and which will not. Congress passes very few of the bills that are proposed each session, and the vast majority of the failed proposals never emerge from committee. 86 Under reconciliation, not only must the committees report some legislation to the body, but it will also often take a form

9

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

that the committees would not have chosen if they had more power over the shape of the bill. For example, the Ways and Means and Finance Committees might prefer not to cut Medicare spending by the amount mandated by reconciliation instructions, even in an environment where they determine the way such savings are achieved.

2NC Link Wall (2/2) b) It’s key to containing deficits – Congress needs to stay in line to contain runaway spending Baltimore Sun 06. (December, Lexis) Over the last six years, Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital have behaved like the late coach George Allen of the Washington Redskins, whose owner lamented that Mr. Allen had

the Democratic takeover of Congress may have begun a new era in which the two parties compete to see who can squeeze a nickel hardest. Administration budget director Rob Portman said the other day that President Bush will not hesitate to use his veto to keep Congress from overspending. That would be a change for a president who has never an unlimited budget, yet managed to exceed it. But

vetoed a spending bill, and who has presided over a rapid expansion of the federal budget. It suggests he may be ready to embrace frugality at last. You would think that is bad news for the

House Democrats have committed themselves to a measure that would stop their spending spree before it begins. It's a rule called "pay-as-you-go" (also known as "paygo"), which says: Any measure that would raise spending opposition party, which has a long list of programs it would like to fund. But

or reduce revenue must be offset by equivalent spending cuts or revenue increases elsewhere in the budget. If you can't pay for it, supporters contend, you should do without it. Not long ago, this was orthodox Republican doctrine. After the GOP took over the House in 1994, Newt Gingrich's troops approved a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. But the amendment died, and House Republicans are suffering from amnesia. They now say pay-as-you-go rules should apply only to spending increases, not tax cuts. They, and the administration, argue that requiring all changes to be deficit-neutral could lead to tax increases. As Rep. John A. Boehner says, "If you put the paygo rules in and you increase spending, the only answer is to raise taxes." He says that like it's a bad thing. But consider the alternatives. Under pay-as-you-go, Democrats cannot increase spending unless they are prepared to tell Americans, "We're raising

Without the constraint of pay-as-you-go, on the other hand, Democrats can shovel out money as fast as the Treasury can borrow it. Having that option available will only stimulate new outlays. With the restriction, spending may rise. But without it, spending would certainly rise. For proof, we need only look at the recent past. In the 1990s, your taxes, and here's how." That would be a significant curb on their appetite for new programs.

Congress functioned under a strict pay-as-you-go law, which provided for automatic budget cuts whenever a bill didn't pay for itself. The restriction was one of several measures that helped to

starting in 1999, lawmakers began waiving the rule, and in 2002 they junked it entirely. How did that work out? In the last six years, federal spending (adjusted for inflation) has risen at more than triple the rate it did in the previous six years. The surplus drowned in a flood of red ink. In explaining why the president rejects applying pay-as-you-go to tax cuts, budget director Portman inadvertently eliminate the deficit and create a budget surplus. But

illuminated the need for an inclusive rule. "It's not that we are undertaxed as much as we need to get our spending in line with our revenue," he told The Washington Times. Exactly. And if payas-you-go had been scrupulously followed over the last six years, spending would already be in line with revenue. Restoring the rule now would keep it from getting further out of line.

4. RIDERS – **only read with Bush Good Politics** a) GOP will attach an offshore drilling rider to the plan’s energy appropriations bill Inside EPA 7-18-08. (“Bipartisan energy clash may doom passage of EPA FY09 Spending Bill”, Vol. 29, No. 29, lexis) The battle over legislative approaches to tackle soaring energy prices is spilling over into the appropriations debate, with congressional sources saying that work on the House version of EPA's FY09 spending bill is at a halt due to concerns GOP lawmakers will use it as a vehicle to force votes on OCS drilling and other energy issues.

b) OCS drilling costs tons and gets little in return Gas Daily 00. (“EOG Resources focuses on North American gas”, Vol. 17, No. 69, April 10, lexis) Historically, EOG Resources has concentrated on onshore drilling. Papa said he plans to retain that focus, although the company will continue to participate in some drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico. "The underlying economics of [Outer Continental] Shelf drilling are that the remaining targets are pretty small and the cost to complete wells too expensive," he said. "We have only a tiny presence in the deepwater."

c) And it turns the case – jacks the environment Energy Information Administration, September 2005 (Office of Oil and Gas. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2005/offshore/offshore.pdf)

A variety of environmental risks are associated with offshore natural gas and oil exploration and production, among them such things as discharges or spills of toxic materials whether intentional or accidental, interference with marine life, damage to coastal habitats owing to construction and operations of producing infrastructure, and effects on the economic base of coastal communities. During the 1960s increasing environmental awareness set the stage for the development of numerous environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders that have affected natural gas and oil activities on Federal offshore areas. All natural gas and oil activities must now pass through a large number of environmental reviews by Federal, State and local agencies. Federal agencies that play a role in regulating and coordinating environmental laws include the DOI, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric

10

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The following section describes the major Federal environmental legislation that has been enacted in the past several decades to safeguard the environment and protect coastal and marine communities.

11

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Spending Links – Riders Extension

Energy appropriations stalled because GOP will attach OCS drilling Inside EPA 7-18-08. (“Bipartisan energy clash may doom passage of EPA FY09 Spending Bill”, Vol. 29, No. 29, lexis) For years, the interior and environment appropriations bill -- which includes EPA's funding -- has contained a moratorium on offshore drilling, but President Bush July 14 lifted an executive moratorium on the practice in an effort to increase pressure on Congress to open the outer continental shelf for drilling. Progress on the House interior and environment spending bill has halted due to a proposed provision to open the outer continental shelf for oil and gas drilling and a similar provision may be offered on the Senate bill, which is tentatively slated for a July 23 markup in the appropriations committee's environment panel, one congressional source says. The Senate EPA FY09 appropriations bill is set for a full committee markup July 24.

GOP will attach offshore riders to the EPA spending bills Inside EPA 7-18-08. (“Bipartisan energy clash may doom passage of EPA FY09 Spending Bill”, Vol. 29, No. 29, lexis) Bipartisan energy disputes could doom passage of EPA's fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill, with House Democrats hesitant to move their version of the agency's spending bill over fears it will become a vehicle for Republicans to force votes on issues like opening the outer continental shelf (OCS) to oil and gas drilling. President Bush recently lifted an executive moratorium on offshore drilling, and GOP lawmakers quickly put pressure on Democrats to pass legislation lifting a separate congressional ban and open up new areas for drilling. However, House and Senate Democrats are opposing such a move and pushing a "use it or lose it" bill that would force the oil industry to start drilling on 68 million acres of existing undeveloped leased federal land.

This is super expensive WP 84. (“Sen. Johnston’s Prescription for Merger Fever”, Washington Post, pg. h17, March 11, lexis) A: Not at all. You can make an argument that integration gives you economies of scale. But today most of the oil is found by independents--certainly most of the onshore oil. The reason is, they're more flexible, they can move faster, they are not as burdened with bureaucratic inefficencies. Now, you have to be of a certain size to compete on the OCS Outer Continental Shelf, where drilling for oil is very expensive . Nobody has said that Gulf is not big enough to compete on the OCS, or Getty, or other major companies. They're all big enough to compete on the OCS, and once you get that big, then bigger than that there's no advantage. It can be a disadvantage.

12

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Generic Link – Alternative Energy Incentives

Government subsidies of renewables are prohibitively expensive Taylor 02. (Jerry, director of natural resource studies, “Evaluating the Case for Renewable Energy,” CATO Institute, Jan 10, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa422.pdf) Renewable sources of electricity are more expensive than combined-cycle natural gas. This fundamental fact inhibits their use now and in the future. Advocates of renewable energy argue that the demand for renewables would rise if conventionally generated electricity were priced to reflect its pollution costs. But the main effect of reducing nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and mercury emissions would be to induce a shift from coal to natural gas rather than renewable energy. Only a severe reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would advance renewable energy technologies, but such initiatives would still fail to give those technologies double-digit market shares and would be expensive. Without policy privileges, the renewable energy industry (at least the portion that generates electricity for the power grid) would cease to exist. Advocates of renewable energy understand that and are now promoting direct use of government authority to mandate the use of renewable sources. Such policies use the power of government to impose the consumption preferences of advocates of renewables on others without any legitimate philosophical or economic basis.

Renewable energy costs billions Greene 06. (Nathaniel, NRDC Senior policy analyst, September 22, 2006, National Resources Defense Council, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ngreene/big_dollars_for_renewable_ener.html) The Clinton Global Initiative is wrapping up here in NYC. This week's meetings saw the announcement of $4 billion in investments in biofuels and other energy technologies to cut global warming pollution. Yesterday, Sir Richard Branson said that he would invest $3 billion. And today President Clinton announced a $1 billion renewable energy investment fund (Clinton debuts $1B renewable-energy fund, by Nahal Toosi, Associated Press, 9/22/06). You know the old saying: a billion here and a billion there and soon you start talking about real money. Nothing can substitute for good government policies, but these are big sums and if they're used well, they will make a difference.

13

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Specific Links – Emissions Cuts**

Mandating cuts in CO2 emissions would devastate the economy and cause spending Thorning 00. (Margo, PhD and ACCF Senior VP and Chief Economist, American Council for Capital Formation, March 30, http://www.accf.org/pdf/ThorningTestimony.pdf) In light of the current debate about how to use the projected federal budget surpluses, policymakers need to consider the potentially large negative impact on GDP growth and federal budget receipts of proposals that address the possible threat of global warming by requiring sharp, near-term cutbacks in CO2 emissions. As described above, estimates provided by various academic, private-sector, and EIA modelers show that requiring the United States to reduce CO2 emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008–2012 (the EIA projects U.S. CO2 emissions will be about 40 percent above this target by 2010) would reduce GDP growth in the range of 1 to 4 percent per year. Using a simple calculation based on the relationship of increases in GDP to federal tax receipts, if growth falls by 3 percent per year, the projected on-budget surplus in 2010 would decline from $195 billion to $57 billion (see Figure 3). Therefore, implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would make it much more difficult to sustain tax cuts, “save” Social Security, or promote the retirement security of the baby boom generation, and could require sharp changes in fiscal policy in order to avoid deficit spending. These budgetary impacts should be considered as policymakers shape the U.S. response to the potential threat of climate change.

14

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Specific Links – Ethanol

1. Ethanol incentives cost billions Lyne 07. (Jack, Executive Editor of Interactive Publishing Ethanol and Incentives: Fueling a Boon or a Boondoggle? http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/incentive/ti0708.htm, August) At first glance, it looked like an idea fairly oozing with potential: Pump corn-based ethanol into the tanks of American autos, and voila! In one fell swoop, the U.S. could slash its toxic emissions and foreign oil dependence, in the bargain boosting the nation's long-suffering farmers. Corn-based ethanol seemed like it would yield a bumper crop of winners all around. Or will it? A number of observers are beginning to question just how good an idea that fuel really is. Unquestionably, it's a very expensive idea. U.S. federal and state subsidies for ethanol in 2006 totaled more than US$5 billion. Total incentives for American-made ethanol – almost all of it corn-based – equal about $1 a gallon. "We are already subsidizing corn ethanol [in the U.S.] with more money than we spend on high-mileage cars or on quality mass transit," says Michael Dworkin, director of the Vermont Law School Institute for Energy and the Environment. "As long as we spend more on subsidizing energy suppliers than we do on investments in energy efficiency, we are on a path to pain." But more spending on ethanol subsidies is apparently looming. When it returns from its month-long recess, the U.S. Congress will likely enact a stiff increase in taxpayers' yearly tab. A compromise committee will review separate Senate and House proposals that could jack up mandated ethanol incentives to somewhere between $131 billion and $205 billion over the next 15 years.

2. Incentives for ethanol are expensive – cost over 200 billion Lyne 07. (Jack, Executive Editor of Interactive Publishing Ethanol and Incentives: Fueling a Boon or a Boondoggle? http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/incentive/ti0708.htm, August) "We are already subsidizing corn ethanol [in the U.S.] with more money than we spend on high-mileage cars or on quality mass transit," says Michael Dworkin, director of the Vermont Law School Institute for Energy and the Environment. "As long as we spend more on subsidizing energy suppliers than we do on investments in energy efficiency, we are on a path to pain." But more spending on ethanol subsidies is apparently looming. When it returns from its month-long recess, the U.S. Congress will likely enact a stiff increase in taxpayers' yearly tab. A compromise committee will review separate Senate and House proposals that could jack up mandated ethanol incentives to somewhere between $131 billion and $205 billion over the next 15 years.

3. Even if our evidence is specific to corn-based, the aff has to win that they would subsidize cellulosic ethanol even more to make it cost competitive – only supercharges our link

4. Cellulosic Ethanol is at least 5 times more expensive than current fuel. Jerry Taylor June 21, 2007 (Senior Fellow at the CATO institute further quals: http://www.cato.org/people/jerrytaylor, “Alternative Energy in the Dock,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/taylor-poweringamerica.pdf) Cellulosic ethanol, from an economic standpoint, is the worst transportation fuel of all. Guy Caruso, the head of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) at the U.S. Department of Energy, estimates that the capital costs associated with cellulosic ethanol production would be five times greater than those associated with conventional corn ethanol production.11 If so, then cellulosic ethanol would cost about $7.50 per gallon today before we even consider the price of the feedstock. We can only speculate about production costs, however, because there is no cellulosic ethanol industry on planet

15

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Earth. That alone speaks volumes about the economic competitiveness of cellulosic ethanol.

16

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Specific Links – Hydrogen

Hydrogen fuel initiatives cost billions – not yet economically competitive Anthrop 04. (Donald, professor emeritus of environmental studies at San Jose State University, “Hydrogen’s Empty Environmental Promise,” CATO Institute, Dec 7, http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp90.pdf) Hydrogen energy is all the rage among American politicians at the moment. A $1.8 billion, 10-year federal program to underwrite research in hydrogen-powered fuel cells— termed the “FreedomCar initiative” by the Bush administration—is a popular component of energy legislation passed by both the House and the Senate in 2003. In his campaign for the White House, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA) put forth an even more ambitious, $5 billion hydrogen fuel-cell initiative. And even though all observers agree that economically viable hydrogen-powered vehicles will not be available for at least a couple of decades (if then),1 California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is promoting the use of state funds to help start building a statewide network of hydrogen refueling stations in the here and now.2 If hydrogen refueling stations are available, the theory goes, automakers will build vehicles powered by fuel cells and people will buy them. Before any more taxpayer money is spent pursuing the dream of a “hydrogen economy,” however, policymakers need to get out their calculators and seriously consider the environmental costs of bringing this dream to reality. If they do, they’ll find that harnessing hydrogen for widespread use in the energy sector will consume more energy than it will save, and it will worsen, not better, environmental quality.

Hydrogen cars are economically unfeasible Anthrop 04. (Donald, professor emeritus of environmental studies at San Jose State University, “Hydrogen’s Empty Environmental Promise,” CATO Institute, Dec 7, http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp90.pdf) The economic problems involved in delivering hydrogen to fuel cells are difficult to remedy because they stem from fundamental thermodynamics. Although technological improvement may well increase the efficiency with which energy is used along some if not all of the production chain, the challenges are so immense that the confident predictions of imminent economic breakthroughs heard from the political class are hard to take seriously.25 Decisions about the relative merits of various emerging technologies are best left to the marketplace, where private investors have every incentive to make the soundest bets. If hydrogen-powered fuel cells hold economic promise, investors will have every incentive to promote their development. If they do not, then investors will rightly put their money elsewhere. Subsidies simply impose politically inspired judgments on market actors, and there is no reason to think that those judgments are better informed than the ones that reign in the marketplace.

17

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Specific Links – Nuclear Power

Nuclear power costs the government billions in insurance alone – does not even account for production NEF 05. (New Economics Foundation, June, http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php? url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.neweconomics.org%2Fgen%2Fuploads %2Fsewyo355prhbgunpscr51d2w29062005080838.pdf&images=yes) The nuclear power industry is underinsured. The limited insurance it does have is effectively subsidised by public funds. The nuclear industry is unable to get commercial insurance cover and governments have had to step in, taking on the burden instead. This is a substantial, and largely hidden subsidy to the industry. In several countries, law sets the maximum liability for any nuclear facility. Under the Canadian Nuclear Liability Act, the limit for an installation is CAD$75 million and is underwritten by the Federal Government. In the United States, coverage for a `catastrophic nuclear accident' is set in law under the Price-Anderson Act of 1957 at a much larger US$9 billion, although this too has been labelled `inadequate'. Arguing for the industry to meet more of its own insurance costs, Senate Democrat and chair of the Senate's Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety subcommittee Harry Reid said, during negotiations to renew legislation for the insurance programme, "We cannot allow nuclear power plants to operate without adequate insurance." The September 11 attacks on New York and Washington raised fears about the vulnerability of nuclear installations to attack. In response, American Nuclear Insurers, which administers the industry's collective insurance pool, limited the industry individual operator's liability to $200 million. In the US, such a government- backed insurance programme for industry is considered unique to nuclear.

Nuclear energy is a huge financial burden NEF 05. (New Economics Foundation, June, http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php? url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.neweconomics.org%2Fgen%2Fuploads %2Fsewyo355prhbgunpscr51d2w29062005080838.pdf&images=yes) One of nuclear power's main problems is that it has proved incompatible with any kind of market system for energy. Its high, unpredictable costs and unknowable and potentially uncontainable liabilities deter investors. Its inflexible method of power generation renders the industry largely incapable of responding to changing market conditions by varying output. The bailout of British Energy in 2001 was attributed to a fluctuating market price that went below nuclear power's operating cost, and to which the sector could not respond by simply switching reactors off.

18

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Specific Links – Production Tax Credits**

Extending tax credits would be the death spiral for Congress – will be financed out of deficit, causing multi-trillion dollar increases in debt PR Newswire 6-10-08. (“'Tax Extenders' Bill the Latest Test of Congress's Commitment to Fiscal Discipline”, lexis) Unfortunately, key congressional Republicans are now arguing that any extension of existing tax provisions should be deficit financed, on principle. This claim will make it much tougher for Congress to live up to its pledge of fiscal discipline and could ultimately lead to multi-trillion dollar increases in the national debt, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Plan would not be done through offsets – Democratic leadership will cave in to pressure Global Power Report 7-3-08. (“Senate Republicans revive efforts to extend renewable energy credits”, pg. 31, lexis) House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland has said repeatedly that he will not bring such a bill to the floor if it lacks offsets, even after the November elections. Republicans, however, wonder if the House will really hold that hard a line on offsets into the fall. A Republican aide on July 1 said that Hoyer seemed unwilling to pass an extension for the alternative minimum tax credit in 2007 without including pay-for provisions, right up until he did. "Hoyer has a history on this issue of holding to the party line up until he's not," said the aide.

19

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Specific Links – Renewable Portfolio Standards** Congressional RPS is super expensive – it’s not yet cost competitive and so requires massive government subsidies Taylor 02. (Jerry, director of natural resource studies, “Evaluating the Case for Renewable Energy,” CATO Institute, Jan 10, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa422.pdf) Ten states have adopted renewable energy portfolio standards (RPS), which require that a certain percentage of the state’s electricity supply be produced from eligible renewable energy sources.79 The Clinton administration proposed a federal RPS that would require all U.S. electricity suppliers to obtain renewable energy credits equal to 7.5 percent of sales from 2010 through expiration in 2015. Under the administration’s plan, credits could be obtained by generating electricity with specified renewables (one credit for every kilowatt-hour), purchasing credits from others, or purchasing credits unsupported by generation from the Department of Energy at 1.5 cents per credit, effectively setting a cap on the price of renewable energy. Because actual renewable sources of electricity have costs that

exceed 1.5 cents per kWh, retail suppliers would for the most part buy credits from the Department of Energy rather than actually purchase or produce renewable energy. The EIA estimated that the Clinton RPS would increase renewables’ market share only to 3.4 percent in 2020.80 Approximately 82 percent of the 36 billion kWh increase in renewable energy would come from mixing biomass (essentially, wood chips, paper, and various specialty plants) with coal in existing coal-fired power plants.81 Removing the 2015 sunset provision would increase the predicted market share for renewables to 4.2 percent.82 The impact of the Clinton RPS on electricity prices would be small because the credit system spreads the cost of the 1.5 cent tax across all electricity sales. Costs would peak in 2010 under each of the various RPS plans (up to a 3.2 percent increase in price under a no cap, no sunset RPS) but would fall by about half under each RPS alternative by 2020.83 Since the unveiling of the Clinton proposal, proponents have introduced even more aggressive RPS plans in Congress. Most of those legislative proposals require that between 10 and 20 percent of retail electricity sales by 2020 come from specified nonhydro renewable energy sources without any sort of price cap on the cost of tradable renewable energy permits and without any sunset provision. A “hard” 20 percent RPS would provide the equivalent of a 5 cent per kWh subsidy for renewablefired electricity,84 increasing the amount of renewable energy sold on the market from the 135 billion kWh otherwise projected in 2020 to 932 billion kWh, a 690 percent increase.85 Approximately 57 percent would come from biomass cofired with coal, 30 percent from windpowered turbines, 11 percent from geothermal facilities, and 2 percent from landfill gas.86 According to EIA, electricity prices would be 3 percent higher in 2010 and 4 percent higher in 2020 under a hard 20 percent RPS.87 In sum, moderate RPS programs accomplish little and aggressive RPS programs would prove quite expensive. Moreover, because the primary beneficiary of those programs would be biomass, which would be mixed with coal in existing coal-fired power plants, the environmental benefits would be far less than we might expect. That even aggressive RPS programs are insufficient to significantly expand the market share

of wind- and solar-powered electricity underscores just how uncompetitive those technologies are today in the marketplace.

RPS is expensive both in designing and implementing Center for Resource Solutions 03. (Meredith, June, http://www.resourcesolutions.org/lib/librarypdfs/IntPolicy-Administrative.Costs.of.4.Policies.pdf) There are two primary costs to government in implementing and administering a renewable portfolio standard (RPS). The first is the design of the policy, and the second comes from monitoring and verifying compliance with the policy. In the international experience, the RPS is often a part of a larger electricity law and the design of the policy is left to the administrative or rulemaking arm of government (e.g., the public utilities commission). This process can range in time from four months to nearly two years, and usually occurs after the law is promulgated. The two primary cost centers for this work from the government’s perspective are staff time and consultant’ fees.1 The range in these costs varies greatly depending on the complexity of the law, size of the market, number of companies impacted, degree of public input, and other factors. Because of the huge variation, we do not attempt to estimate costs with precision here. However, we note that government staffing needs for these activities in U.S. states rarely exceeds 2 fulltime equivalent (staff). If a 6-month process for developing the RPS is used, and additional legal and consulting fees are included, this might equate to $100,000 – $300,000 for the implementation of a state RPS. A national RPS, on the other hand, might expect far greater policy development costs. The other primary cost to government in administering an RPS is monitoring and verifying compliance with the policy. Most US states and countries that have passed an RPS have used one of two primary methods of verifying compliance with the law. The first is a contract path accounting method, and the second is a certificate-based accounting method.

20

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Specific Links – Wind

Wind Energy Policies Cost billions of dollars Ryser and Carr ’08 (Jeff and Housley; Electric Utility Week; June 2, 2008; Texas PUC to convene hearings on spending up to $6.38 billion to bring wind to local centers; Lexis) This executive said power providers throughout the state are becoming increasingly aware of the need to do something to reduce congestion in ERCOT's western zones, where wind prices are often negatives. He notes that what has come to be called "the wind event" of February 26, when the wind stopped blowing in West Texas and auxillary units were not turned on fast enough to avoid a short outage, has made power providers in the state far more conscious of the importance of protecting wind assets. "New transmission will be built," this executive said. "The only debate is over how much?" The April 2 study that the PUC will hold hearings on starting June 11 vetted scenarios that range from 1,435 to 2,634 miles of new 345-kV right-of-way costing between an estimated $2.95 billion and $6.38 billion.

Wind energy is expensive The Sunday Times ’08 (Richard Woods; pg. 17; The wind farmer; July 6, 2008; lexis) Turbines still suffer from being at the mercy of whether the wind blows or not. And wind-generated electricity relies on government subsidy to be competitive DOES HE HAVE AN ANSWER? Technological advances now enable turbines to operate in a wider range of conditions, thus lowering costs. However, wind energy remains more expensive than electricity from gas or coal

Wind energy is too expensive – other forms of alternative energy are better The Jerusalem Post ’08 (Judy Siegel-Itzkovich; pg. 8; Turning over an old leaf; June 15, 2008; Lexis) The current high prices of agricultural products he continues can partially be explained as an artificial bump. The price of rice has gone up, even though rice yields this year are supposed to be the highest ever. But the people of China, India and Indonesia are getting richer; they can afford to buy more food, and due to the US banking crisis, investors looking for alternatives are buying grain futures. There isn't a global shortage of corn or soybeans. I think it's a necessary first step to build the infrastructure for biofuels, but since such crops are often subsidized by governments, in the longer term we should go to alternative sources. In the US, we must find large-scale and sustainable alternatives for national security, and solar or wind energy is still too expensive, insists Arntzen.

21

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

a2 Normal Means = Offsets (1/2) 1. Counterinterpretation and Voting Issue – If funding traded off with something it should be put in the plan text to give the aff predictability. Prevent 2AC clarifications that crush neg ground and strategy. 2. NORMAL MEANS IS NOT A TRADE-OFF – a) GOP and White House block any alternative energy incentive legislation that includes offsets – plan would have to be deficit spending to pass Geman 08. (Ben, E&E Daily Senior Reporter, “Renewable Energy: Baucus, Grassley offer new energy tax plan”, Environment and Energy Daily, Vol. 10, No. 9, April 18, lexis) Energy tax bills narrowly failed in the Senate last year. They died amid GOP filibusters launched over provisions that would repeal billions of dollars in oil industry tax breaks to offset the alternative energy incentives. The White House has also threatened to veto energy tax measures that raise taxes on oil companies.

b) Plan is treated as emergency spending- it doesn’t tradeoff within the budget Turpen 02. (Elizabeth, Senior Associate and co-director of the Cooperative Nonproliferation program at The Henry L. Stimson Center, “Following the Money: The Bush Administration FY03 Budget Request and Current Funding for Selected Defense, State, and Energy Department Program,” April, pg 78-79, http://www.stimson.org/newcentury/pdf/Chapter5.pdf) An exception to the general rules of budgeting procedure with respect to appropriations legislation is the “emergency supplemental.” An emergency supplemental is a request sent from the president to Congress for additional appropriations to cover an unforeseen contingency, thus the “emergency” designation. Unlike the normal budgeting process, emergency requests fall outside of the guidelines set by the Congressional Budget Resolution, as well as the budget caps placed on individual spending bills by the Appropriations Committee. Whereas the normal budgeting process is a zero-sum game—any additional funding for a specific program must be “offset” by a reduction to a different program—emergency supplementals can be increased without “counting” against other programs or objectives. For example, President Bill Clinton’s 1999 emergency supplemental request for military operations in Kosovo came to the Hill at $14 billion; the Republican majority saw an opportunity to “backfill” Pentagon accounts believed to have been shortchanged and passed a $19 billion supplemental. President George W. Bush’s 2003 request for $87 billion to continue operations in Iraq and Afghanistan was passed, but not without considerable debate over the $22 billion that was designated for reconstruction as opposed to military operations. By utilizing the option of an emergency supplemental, the difficult zerosum tradeoff against other desired spending is avoided. Emergency supplementals are a way to “have your cake and eat it too.” The reality is that all presidents use the supplemental option in cases of real emergencies as well as for politically expedient purposes.

3. APPROPRIATIONS LINKS/ a) Opening up the appropriations process to reallocate funds for the plan causes an avalanche of back door, pork barrel earmarks New York Sun 06. (Matt Kibbe, President and CEO of Freedom Works, “Hey, Big Spender”, Citizens for a Sound Economy, June 22, http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2634) The wasteful

spending is epitomized by the explosion of pork barrel spending projects - more politely referred to as "earmarks" - that proliferate in large budget legislation. These projects, like the now famous $223 million "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, have increased by 900% since 1991. In 1996, 958 earmarked projects cost taxpayers $12.5 billion. The 2005 Congress passed 13,999 earmarks that cost $27.3 billion, or almost $100 for every American man, woman and child. Rep. Jim Moran, a Democrat of Virginia, recently showed just how brazen members of Congress have become with pork barrel spending when he proudly told an audience in his Northern Virginia district that if the Democrats took back Congress, as the new chairman of a House appropriations subcommittee he would, "earmark the [stuff] out of it." Members of Congress have indeed become deft at "earmarking the [stuff]" out of bills

and inventing new ways to soak taxpayers to pay for their pet vanity projects. In many cases, earmarks are not even contained in the initial legislation that passes the House or Senate. Instead, conference negotiators slip them in the backdoor, attaching them to large appropriations bills that can no longer be amended. Congress is then forced into an up-or-down vote on the entire legislation. At that point it's much more difficult for Congress to vote against legislation - some because they're getting a gold plated swimming pool for their district in the bill and others because they support the main piece of the legislation to which the earmark has been attached.

22

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

a2 Normal Means = Offsets (2/2) b) This signals a reversal of fiscal discipline – provoking a quick negative response from world financial markets Summers 01. (Larry, former Treasury secretary and president-designate of Harvard, “Keep Growth Alive!” Blueprint Magazine, April 25, http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=125&subid=162&contentid=3296) Fiscal discipline has been critical to our economic success of the last eight years, and it will be critical in the years ahead, especially as we tackle the demands of an aging society. It would be a significant error to threaten our fiscal discipline by enacting an excessive tax cut. In the past decade, the American economy underwent a transformation and became the envy of the world. As the 1990s began, unemployment and interest rates were high, and confidence in the economy was low. Key U.S. businesses seemed to have lost their competitive edge. Today, all that has changed. Even with the current slowdown, the U.S. economy is the world leader. Unemployment is still low, and wages across the income spectrum have risen. Many factors contributed to the transformation of the U.S. economy. First and foremost, of course, was the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit of American workers, farmers, and businessmen. Technological advances gave birth to new businesses and new ways of conducting business, which helped productivity to increase. Thanks to fiscal discipline, we moved

from a vicious cycle of rising public debt, higher interest rates, lower private investment, and slower productivity growth to the opposite: a virtuous cycle of lower deficits and eventually higher surpluses, debt reduction, low interestrates, increased private investment, and greater productivity growth. Because of this prudent budget management, roughly $2.5 trillion that would otherwise have been absorbed by government borrowing was instead invested in making America more productive. Debt reduction is essential to sustaining our economic expansion and for laying the groundwork for a healthy economy for years to come. An excessive tax cut on the order of $1.6 trillion would threaten our ability to do exactly that. This was powerfully demonstrated by the stimulative impact of deficit reduction in the 1990s, as increased investment demand resulting in a lower cost of capital more than outweighed any demand losses to the economy that resulted from lower government spending. Such a huge tax cut is fundamentally flawed for three reasons. First is the possibility that it will consume the surpluses at the expense of other priorities. Although the projected surpluses look enormous right now, fiscal forecasts are always uncertain. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that its most recent budget surplus projections could have a range of uncertainty of some $600 billion in either direction over the next five years, and $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years. With an excessive tax cut, we risk returning to budget deficits, putting at risk our ability to pay down the debt and to pay for the demands of an aging society. Second, a major tax cut whose benefits are tilted toward upper income individuals is inherently unfair. This is especially true if the tax cuts bring a return to deficits, which could cause a reduction in government benefits, disproportionately hurting lower income individuals who depend more on those benefits. Tax cuts should be targeted toward those who most need the relief -- lower-income families and individuals. Finally, some have made the case that tax cuts are necessary to provide a fiscal stimulus for a slowing economy. However, a plan that "back loads" many of the tax cuts, not implementing them for years, would have an effect that is the reverse from the one intended: The fiscal stimulus would come too late to prevent a slowdown now, yet the upward pressure on interest rates would come much earlier. As an undergraduate in the 1970s, I was taught that expansionary fiscal policy -- higher budget deficits -- could boost economic performance, as deficits were considered a useful stimulus to growth in an economy producing well short of its capacity. This Keynesian idea still is the right prescription for certain economies at certain times. But over the last several decades, there has been a major revision in economic thinking about fiscal policy. Now, economists place much greater emphasis on the importance of supply factors for long-term growth. They believe that by crowding out investment, budget deficits can slow productivity growth. In an economy close to full capacity, excessive stimulus can even increase inflationary pressures, raise risk premiums, and lead to higher interest rates. In addition, financial markets have become more forward-looking and more sensitive to changes in fiscal policy. As a result, dramatic budget changes are more likely to provoke an aggressive and

immediate offsetting response from financial markets.

23

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

a2 Normal Means is Offsets – Ext Bush Veto

1. Normal means isn’t a tradeoff -- Bush would veto any alternative energy incentives with offsets guaranteed Chemical Week 07. (“Chemical Makers Oppose House Energy Bill”, August 22, lexis) Among chemical makers' biggest concerns is an associated tax package passed by the House that would offset the costs of alternative energy incentives by eliminating an estimated $ 16 billion in existing oil and gas industry tax benefits, ACC says. "ACC worries that such a new level of taxes on the industry that supplies feedstocks to ACC member companies will increase costs of supplies already inflated by worldwide demand," the group says. ACC also criticized House lawmakers for passing the associated tax hill that would make "significant structural changes to the tax law with little discussion and without hearings." President Bush has said he would veto the House energy and tax bills because they do not create "more energy security, but rather would lead to less domestic oil and gas production, higher energy costs, and higher taxes."

2. Even if Bush supported the plan, he’d veto because of the offset The Hill 7-15-08. (“Senate follows House to override Medicare bill veto”, http://thehill.com/leading-thenews/congress-overrides-bushs-medicare-veto-2008-07-15.html) Like many congressional Republicans, Bush supports the underlying aim of the bill, which is to revoke the cut in Medicare payments to doctors that took effect on July 1. The president, however, objected to other provisions of the bill. Chiefly, Bush opposes the Democratic plan to offset the cost of the physician payment fix by reducing spending on private Medicare Advantage plans by as much as $14 billion.

3. Bush vetoes are normally sustained – only by getting the GOP on board can the veto be overridden The Hill 7-15-08. (“Senate follows House to override Medicare bill veto”, http://thehill.com/leading-thenews/congress-overrides-bushs-medicare-veto-2008-07-15.html) The votes mark just the third time Congress has successfully voted to override a veto by Bush. The president has vetoed nine pieces of legislation during his terms in the White House; he vetoed the Medicare bill earlier Tuesday. In both chambers, more Republicans voted to override the veto than voted for the bills, underscoring how GOP lawmakers have grown more emboldened to buck Bush, a lame-duck president, during an election year.

4. Extend Geman – they have already conceded that GOP lawmakers would move to block their plan legislation – there’s no way they could sustain a veto override as normal means of passage.

24

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Internal Link Extension – Spending Snowballs (1/3) 1. If we win that they spends any money then it guarantees a link – our Copley news service evidence indicates the economy is on the brink of a massive decline – any new spending will crush the economy. 2. New Congress brought spending in line – violating new spending restrictions will cause a snowball in new spending, destroying the budget. Baltimore Sun 06. (December 6, lexis) Over the last six years, Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capital have behaved like the late coach George Allen of the Washington Redskins, whose owner lamented that Mr. Allen had

the Democratic takeover of Congress may have begun a new era in which the two parties compete to see who can squeeze a nickel hardest. Administration budget director Rob Portman said the other day that President Bush will not hesitate to use his veto to keep Congress from overspending. That would be a change for a president who has never an unlimited budget, yet managed to exceed it. But

vetoed a spending bill, and who has presided over a rapid expansion of the federal budget. It suggests he may be ready to embrace frugality at last. You would think that is bad news for the

House Democrats have committed themselves to a measure that would stop their spending spree before it begins. It's a rule called "pay-as-you-go" (also known as "paygo"), which says: Any measure that would raise spending opposition party, which has a long list of programs it would like to fund. But

or reduce revenue must be offset by equivalent spending cuts or revenue increases elsewhere in the budget. If you can't pay for it, supporters contend, you should do without it. Not long ago, this was orthodox Republican doctrine. After the GOP took over the House in 1994, Newt Gingrich's troops approved a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. But the amendment died, and House Republicans are suffering from amnesia. They now say pay-as-you-go rules should apply only to spending increases, not tax cuts. They, and the administration, argue that requiring all changes to be deficit-neutral could lead to tax increases. As Rep. John A. Boehner says, "If you put the paygo rules in and you increase spending, the only answer is to raise taxes." He says that like it's a bad thing. But consider the alternatives. Under pay-as-you-go, Democrats cannot increase spending unless they are prepared to tell Americans, "We're raising

Without the constraint of pay-as-you-go, on the other hand, Democrats can shovel out money as fast as the Treasury can borrow it. Having that option available will only stimulate new outlays. With the restriction, spending may rise. But without it, spending would certainly rise. For proof, we need only look at the recent past. In the 1990s, your taxes, and here's how." That would be a significant curb on their appetite for new programs.

Congress functioned under a strict pay-as-you-go law, which provided for automatic budget cuts whenever a bill didn't pay for itself. The restriction was one of several measures that helped to

starting in 1999, lawmakers began waiving the rule, and in 2002 they junked it entirely. How did that work out? In the last six years, federal spending (adjusted for inflation) has risen at more than triple the rate it did in the previous six years. The surplus drowned in a flood of red ink. In explaining why the president rejects applying pay-as-you-go to tax cuts, budget director Portman inadvertently eliminate the deficit and create a budget surplus. But

illuminated the need for an inclusive rule. "It's not that we are undertaxed as much as we need to get our spending in line with our revenue," he told The Washington Times. Exactly. And if payas-you-go had been scrupulously followed over the last six years, spending would already be in line with revenue. Restoring the rule now would keep it from getting further out of line.

3. DEFICITS/ Spending trades off with efforts to control the deficit and crush the economy Hartford Courant 3/2/03 The Republican approach differs from the old Democratic formula in one big way: The GOP has taken the lead in cutting taxes. Mr. Bush and his allies in Congress want to piggyback a $670

Tax cuts combined with higher spending might have more appeal to voters than tax and tax, spend and spend, but there is a price to pay: budget deficits that have replaced the surpluses of recent years. Many of the programs earmarked for more money by Mr. Bush are deserving. But there needs to be priority-setting. The nation can't afford big increases in spending and big tax cuts at the same time. The combination is profligate. As former Sen. Paul H. Douglas, the Illinois Democrat, once wrote about pork-barrel spending: "As groups win their battle for special expenditures, they lose the more important war for general economy. They are like drunkards who shout for temperance in the intervals between cocktails." billion tax cut on the $1 trillion-plus tax cuts that were enacted during his first year in office.

4. There is a low threshold for the DA – the economy can only deal with a small amount of fiscal strain Greenspan, FDCH Political Transcripts, 2/12/03 Because it's fairly evidence that if one merely look at an array of, as I said in my remarks, free-standing projects, they all look good. They would have never made it, in a sense, to the semifinals

that there is an aggregate amount of fiscal capacity in any economy. And we are very clearly straining the capacity of this system, owing to the inexorable retirement of a very significant part of our population, starting at the end of this decade and carrying on, as you know, beyond that. So I should say, without getting into any of the individual programs, because that's a very crucial and important choice that the Congress must make for the American people. I do say to you that, looking at it from the point of view of an economist looking at what we can afford and what we can't afford, there are limits, and you have to choose what we do within those limits. if they really weren't extraordinarily good projects. The only problem is

25

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Internal Link Extension – Spending Snowballs (2/3) 5. INFLATION INTERNAL/ a) Spending  inflation Moore and Kerpen, president and research associate at the club for growth, [National Review] 10/30/01 Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman is perhaps most famous for reminding us that “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” The

money to pay for the government spending doesn’t fall out of Heaven. The government spending is either financed through higher taxes, higher federal borrowing, or by printing money. But all of these financing mechanism depress the economy at least as much as the new spending stimulates it. Government taxes reduce consumer and business investment and spending. Government borrowing increases interest rates (or so we are told by Robert Rubin). Printing dollars causes inflation and therefore makes every dollar that we all hold in our pockets worth less in purchasing power. In other words, all these financing techniques make private citizens poorer, so how can the government spending make us richer?

b) Our link is supercharged by off-budget sacred cows Westley 03. (Christopher, Prof. of Economics- Jackson State University, Costs of War on Iraq, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Feb 14, http://mises.org/story/1165) This decision is not exactly a profile in courage, especially for a president who, in his inaugural, humbly spoke of "confronting problems instead of passing them on to future generations." Since off-budget spending is most often financed by revving up the dollar's printing press, it is likely that another

cost of this war will be a general increase in the price level in years hence, furthering the downward slide of real incomes that has been occurring over the last three decades.

c) Even a little inflation will kill over a billion people in the short-term Tampa Tribune 1/20/96 In 1995, world production failed to meet demand for the third consecutive year, said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C. As a result, grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17 percent of annual consumption in 1994-1995 to 13 percent at the end of the 1995-1996 season, he said. That's troubling, Pinstrup-Andersen noted, since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food security. During the food crisis of the early 1970s, world grain stocks were at 15 percent. "Even if they are merely blips, higher international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food," he said. "Rising prices can

also quickly put food out of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar a day or less."

6. FISCAL DISCIPLINE/ Spending signals a reversal of fiscal discipline – provoking a quick negative response from world financial markets Summers 01. (Lawrence H., former Treasury secretary and president-designate of Harvard, “Keep Growth Alive!” Blueprint Magazine, April 25, http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=125&subid=162&contentid=3296) Fiscal discipline has been critical to our economic success of the last eight years, and it will be critical in the years ahead, especially as we tackle the demands of an aging society. It would be a significant error to threaten our fiscal discipline by enacting an excessive tax cut. In the past decade, the American economy underwent a transformation and became the envy of the world. As the 1990s began, unemployment and interest rates were high, and confidence in the economy was low. Key U.S. businesses seemed to have lost their competitive edge. Today, all that has changed. Even with the current slowdown, the U.S. economy is the world leader. Unemployment is still low, and wages across the income spectrum have risen. Many factors contributed to the transformation of the U.S. economy. First and foremost, of course, was the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit of American workers, farmers, and businessmen. Technological advances gave birth to new businesses and new ways of conducting business, which helped productivity to increase. Thanks

to fiscal discipline, we moved from a vicious cycle of rising public debt, higher interest rates, lower private investment, and slower productivity growth to the opposite: a virtuous cycle of lower deficits and eventually higher surpluses, debt reduction, low interestrates, increased private investment, and greater productivity growth. Because of this prudent budget management, roughly $2.5 trillion that would otherwise have been absorbed by government borrowing was instead invested in making America more productive. Debt reduction is essential to sustaining our economic expansion and for laying the groundwork for a healthy economy for years to come. An excessive tax cut on the order of $1.6 trillion would threaten our ability to do exactly that. This was powerfully demonstrated by the stimulative impact of deficit reduction in the 1990s, as increased investment demand resulting in a lower cost of capital more than outweighed any demand losses to the economy that resulted from lower government spending. Such a huge tax cut is fundamentally flawed for three reasons. First is the possibility that it will consume the surpluses at the expense of other priorities. Although the projected surpluses look enormous right now, fiscal forecasts are always uncertain. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that its most recent budget surplus projections could have a range of uncertainty of some $600 billion in either direction over the next five years, and $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years. With an excessive tax cut, we risk returning to budget deficits, putting at risk our ability to pay down the debt and to pay for the demands of an aging society. Second, a major tax cut whose benefits are tilted toward upper income individuals is inherently unfair. This is especially true if the tax cuts bring a return to deficits, which could cause a reduction in government benefits, disproportionately hurting lower income individuals who depend more on those benefits. Tax cuts should be targeted toward those who most need the relief -- lower-income families and individuals. Finally, some have made the case that tax cuts are necessary to provide a fiscal stimulus for a slowing economy. However, a plan that "back loads" many of the tax cuts, not implementing them for years, would have an effect that is the reverse from the one intended: The fiscal stimulus would come too late to prevent a slowdown now, yet the upward pressure on interest rates would come much earlier. As an undergraduate in the 1970s, I was taught that expansionary fiscal policy -- higher budget deficits -- could boost economic performance, as deficits were considered a useful stimulus to growth in an economy producing well short of its capacity. This Keynesian idea still is the right prescription for certain economies at certain times. But over the last several decades, there has been a major revision in economic thinking about fiscal policy. Now, economists place much greater emphasis on the importance of supply factors for long-term growth. They believe that by crowding out investment, budget deficits can slow productivity growth. In an economy close to full capacity, excessive stimulus can even increase inflationary pressures, raise risk premiums, and lead to

26

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

higher interest rates. In addition, financial markets have become more forward-looking and more sensitive to changes in fiscal policy. As a result, dramatic

budget changes are

more likely to provoke an aggressive and immediate offsetting response from financial markets.

Internal Link Extension – Spending Snowballs (3/3) 7. INVESTOR PULLOUT/ Growing deficits cause investors to pull out of US markets, crashing the economy Orszag 04. (Peter R., Senior Fellow Economic Studies, “Sustained Budget Deficits: Longer-Run U.S. Economic Performance and the Risk of Financial and Fiscal Disarray” January 5, http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/orszag/20040105.htm) The adverse consequences of sustained large budget deficits may well be far larger and occur more suddenly than traditional analysis suggests, however. Substantial deficits projected far into the future can cause a fundamental shift in market expectations and a related loss of confidence both at home and abroad. The unfavorable dynamic effects that could ensue are largely if not entirely excluded from the conventional analysis of budget deficits. This omission is understandable and appropriate in the context of deficits that are small and temporary; it is increasingly untenable, however, in an environment with deficits that are large and permanent. Substantial ongoing deficits may severely and adversely affect expectations and confidence, which in turn can

generate a self-reinforcing negative cycle among the underlying fiscal deficit, financial markets, and the real economy: As traders, investors, and creditors become increasingly concerned that the government would resort to high inflation to reduce the real value of government debt or that a fiscal deadlock with unpredictable consequences would arise, investor confidence may be severely undermined; The fiscal and current account imbalances may also cause a loss of confidence among participants in foreign exchange markets and in international credit markets, as participants in those markets become alarmed not only by the ongoing budget deficits but also by related large current account deficits; The loss of investor and creditor confidence, both at home and abroad, may cause investors and creditors to reallocate funds away from dollarbased investments, causing a depreciation of the exchange rate, and to demand sharply higher interest rates on U.S. government debt; The increase of interest rates, depreciation of the exchange rate, and decline in confidence can reduce stock prices and household wealth, raise the costs of financing to business, and reduce private-sector domestic spending; The disruptions to financial markets may impede the intermediation between lenders and borrowers that is vital to modern economies, as long-maturity credit markets witness potentially substantial increases in interest rates and become relatively illiquid, and the reduction in asset prices adversely affects the balance sheets of banks and other financial intermediaries; The inability of the federal government to restore fiscal balance may directly reduce business and consumer confidence, as the view of the ongoing deficits as a symbol of the nation's inability to address its economic problems permeates society, and the reduction in confidence can discourage investment and real economic activity; These various effects can feed on each other to create a mutually reinforcing cycle; for example, increased interest rates and diminished economic activity may further worsen the fiscal imbalance, which can then cause a further loss of confidence and potentially spark another round of negative feedback effects.

8. INTEREST RATES/ a) Bernanke would hike interest rates in response to government spending Bernanke 06. (Ben, Chairman of Federal Reserve Board, Inflation Targeting: Lessons from the International Experience, p. 214) Even so, accountability is complicated by the need for constant discipline in fiscal matters on the part of the elected government. In the absence of such discipline, the ability of monetary policy makers to control inflation without resorting to painfully restrictive measures is undercut. This tension between fiscal policy and monetary policy is common when the focus of monetary policy is on price stability, while the focus of fiscal policy is on other matters. It appears that inflation targeting in Israel, as in Canada and New Zealand, has at least forced the government to acknowledge the effects of government spending on inflation and inflation expectations.

b) Interest rate hikes would devastate corporations and our economy Foley 07. (Stephen, journalist for the Independent, October 20, 2007, bNet, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20071020/ai_n21064455) Gathering fears of a recession in the United States sent shares tumbling before the weekend, a miserable end to a week of disappointing financial results and gloomy predictions on future growth from corporate America.

27

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Caterpillar, the maker of diggers, diesel engines and power generators - one of the most important bellwethers of global industry - said many of its markets were already in recession, and predicted that the economy as a whole would follow suit if the Federal Reserve did not act to cut US interest rates.

Disad Turns Case – Economic Decline Jacks Renewables (1/2)

1. Economic crisis cause government to raid renewable energy funds

2. Bad economic climate crushes emerging renewable firms

3. Jacks investment in renewables

28

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Disad Turns Case – Economic Decline Jacks Renewables (2/2)

4. The potential of renewable energy is limited by economic constraints

29

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Disad Turns Case – Economic Decline Jacks the Environment

30

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Spending Disad 2AC 1. DOUBLE BIND – Either a) Normal means for all new alternative energy incentives are spending offsets National Journal 08. (“The Week on the Hill”, May 24, lexis) The House on May 21 voted 263-160 to approve a $56 billion bill extending and expanding a number of tax provisions, including a package of alternative-energy incentives that Democrats said would begin to address record gas prices. Thirty-five Republicans crossed the aisle to support the measure, which contains highly popular items such as extension of the research and development tax credit and the state and local sales tax deduction. "This forward-looking legislation invests in renewable energy, creates hundreds of thousands of good-paying green jobs, spurs American innovation, and cuts taxes for millions of Americans--and it does so ... in a fiscally responsible way," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said. The White House threatened a veto because of the budgetary offsets used to pay for the legislation, which Republicans derided as tax hikes. "The Democrats' solution seems to always be the same: tax, tax, tax," Ways and Means Committee ranking member Jim McCrery, R-La., said. The measure would be offset by repealing benefits for individuals receiving compensation in offshore accounts that they can currently defer taxes on, and by delaying for 10 years a tax break for multinational corporations' overseas income that was set to go into effect in January. The Senate has not acted on its version of the taxextenders bill. --Peter Cohn/CongressDaily

OR b) The precedent of ignoring PayGo has already been set – terminally not uniques their disad Friel 6-14-08. (Brian, Management Matters columnist for Government Executive, “Dog Days”, The National Journal, lexis) Robert Bixby,

head of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group, said that waiving paygo on the veterans benefit sets a precedent for other programs, such as an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Bush and Republicans opposed last year because Democrats insisted on a paygo offset--a tobacco-tax increase. "For really important things, we've established that paygo doesn't need to apply," Bixby said. "We didn't apply it for veterans. Is children's health less important than education for veterans?"

2. Blue Dogs won’t be able force fiscal discipline Friel 6-14-08. (Brian, Management Matters columnist for Government Executive, “Dog Days”, The National Journal, lexis) At press time, the

Blue Dogs continued threatening to hold up the war-funding bill if leaders didn't accommodate their concerns. But House leaders were confidently pushing yet another paygo violation, an $11 billion unemployment benefits extension. Boyd said that Pelosi promised the Blue Dogs a vote this summer on legislation making paygo a statutory requirement, binding the House, the Senate, and the White House. The recent battle exposed potential problems down the road for the Blue Dogs.

Especially if Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the White House next year, the more-liberal factions of the party may be willing to overrule the coalition on fiscal discipline in order to fulfill desires to increase spending on a variety of domestic programs that have grown slowly under Bush.

31

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Spending Disad 1AR – Ext #1 – Normal Means is PayGo**

1. Extend the Double Bind – either their SNS uniqueness evidence proves normal means for all new legislation is funded through PayGo offsets or Congress is ignoring the PayGo precedent in the squo – that’s our Friel ev 2. Extend normal means is PayGo – our National Journal evidence is the only one descriptive of how alternative energy incentive packages are passed through Congress. 3. More ev that all alternative energy projects operate under the PAYGO scheme SNS 6-5-08. (“Gillibrand votes for fiscally responsible budget and middle class tax cuts”, State News Service, lexis) "With a $9 trillion national debt, it is imperative that Congress returns to fiscal discipline and focus federal spending only on our national priorities," Congresswoman Gillibrand said. "Furthermore, this budget makes middle class tax cuts a priority, so that hardworking families can keep more of the money they earn."

The budget is fiscally responsible, resulting in a budget surplus by 2012 and strictly adheres to Pay-As-YouGo (PAYGO) budget rules. As a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, Gillibrand has been a leader in making fiscal responsibility a priority for the Congress. She introduced a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that requires Congress to balance their budget every year. In addition, she is a sponsor of legislation that will implement spending caps on discretionary spending. The budget plan calls for significant tax relief for middle income families, including extension of marriage penalty relief and the child tax credit, as well as allowing for estate tax reform. It also includes an additional year of Alternative Minimum Tax relief. Congresswoman Gillibrand has made a permanent fix to the AMT, which would hit many upstate New York families in the coming years, a priority of hers in Congress. The budget responds to record high gas prices by making key investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency, which will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Additionally, the budget enhances national security by restoring our military readiness, providing a $4.9 billion increase over Fiscal Year 2008 for veterans a health care and increasing funding to protect America from terrorism.

32

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Spending Disad 1AR – Ext #2 – a2 Blue Dogs

1. Extend Friel – post-November, liberal Dems will jack fiscal discipline by ignoring PayGo for domestic programs Friel 6-14-08. (Brian, Management Matters columnist for Government Executive, “Dog Days”, The National Journal, lexis) At press time, the

Blue Dogs continued threatening to hold up the war-funding bill if leaders didn't accommodate their concerns. But House leaders were confidently pushing yet another paygo violation, an $11 billion unemployment benefits extension. Boyd said that Pelosi promised the Blue Dogs a vote this summer on legislation making paygo a statutory requirement, binding the House, the Senate, and the White House. The recent battle exposed potential problems down the road for the Blue Dogs.

Especially if Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the White House next year, the more-liberal factions of the party may be willing to overrule the coalition on fiscal discipline in order to fulfill desires to increase spending on a variety of domestic programs that have grown slowly under Bush.

2. Blue Dogs cannot force Congress to follow them Friel 6-14-08. (Brian, Management Matters columnist for Government Executive, “Dog Days”, The National Journal, lexis) During a few other high-profile debates over the past two years, including on a measure providing relief from the alternative minimum tax and on economic stimulus legislation, Blue Dogs also demanded that the cost be offset, only to be overruled by Democratic leaders. The current disagreement over the veterans benefit is certainly giving the coalition more headaches. It also suggests that the Blue Dogs face a bigger problem in the next Congress. Even with their current political successes, more policy run-ins like this could come back to haunt them.

3. Blue Dogs have no clout – Iraq spending proves Friel 6-14-08. (Brian, Management Matters columnist for Government Executive, “Dog Days”, The National Journal, lexis) But a telling and potentially worrisome exception to the Blue Dogs' newfound clout was on display less than an hour after the interview with NJ, when coalition members emerged from a closed-door meeting with House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis. Obey had told them that Democratic leaders were preparing to buck the Blue Dogs by bringing to the floor, as part of the Iraq war supplemental spending bill, a major expansion of education benefits for military veterans whose cost would not be offset by tax increases or spending cuts.

33

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

a2 Offshore Drilling Rider

Normal means proves no link – plan would not make it through the floor vote if an offshore drilling rider was attached Inside EPA 7-18-08. (“Bipartisan energy clash may doom passage of EPA FY09 Spending Bill”, Vol. 29, No. 29, lexis) Offshore drilling may also become an issue at the Senate markups, since a Senate GOP source says Republican energy amendments to the spending bill are likely. Any energy rider on the bill may hinder its chances for a floor vote, as Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has been vocal in opposing offshore drilling.

34

SDI 08 SPENDING DISAD

BHR __/__

Aff NM = Offsets -- Production Tax Credits Specific**

Alternative energy PTCs will be funded through offsets – only way to get Dems to pass ** Global Power Report 7-3-08. (“Senate Republicans revive efforts to extend renewable energy credits”, pg. 31, lexis) Production tax credits for wind, biomass and other technologies and investment tax credits for solar energy and fuel cells are set to expire at the end of 2008. While there is bipartisan consensus that these should be extended, there is disagreement over how and whether to pay for them. Republicans have insisted that since the tax credits already exist, they need not be paid for with reductions in spending or new taxes somewhere else. Under the Republican-controlled 111th Congress, similar tax cuts were extended without revenue raising provisions, and Senate Republicans in this Congress have consistently blocked attempts by majority Democrats to bring bills to the floor that include such provisions. Republicans stymied the most recent House-passed bill, H.R. 6049, in June. It would have paid for the extensions by changing the tax rules for employees of offshore corporations, including hedge funds. Democrats, meanwhile, continue to point to the Congressional Budget Office, which counts the incentives as revenue lost to the federal treasury. They demand that the incentives be offset with new federal income, as was the case with an extension bill enacted last year. The House Blue Dog Coalition, which is composed of 39 fiscally conservative Democrats from swing districts, has made enforcing congressional budget rules its top priority since its members helped their party take control of that chamber in 2007. The House leadership has said repeatedly

that it has no plans to cross the Blue Dogs by passing an incentives package that relies on deficit spending. "House Democratic leaders have made it clear that they will not approve an extenders bill that increases the deficit," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus in a June letter to McConnell and Grassley.

35