Samford Debate Institute 2012 1/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Infrastructure Bank Affirmative Infrastructure Bank Affirmative................................................................................................................1FYI.............................................................................................................................................................21AC............................................................................................................................................................3***Inherency***......................................................................................................................................10Inherency- US infrastructure poor...........................................................................................................11Inherency- Investments ineffective..........................................................................................................12***Solvency***.......................................................................................................................................13Solvency- General....................................................................................................................................14Solvency- Private investment..................................................................................................................17***Economy Advantage***....................................................................................................................18Economy- iBank key................................................................................................................................19Economy- Jobs.........................................................................................................................................21Economy- Key to competitiveness..........................................................................................................22Impacts- Nuclear war...............................................................................................................................24Impacts- Hegemony.................................................................................................................................27Impacts- China war..................................................................................................................................28AT: Past recession disproves...................................................................................................................30AT: US not key to global economy.........................................................................................................31***Readiness Advantage***...................................................................................................................34Impacts- War............................................................................................................................................35Impacts- Leadership.................................................................................................................................36AT: Military key, not civilian..................................................................................................................37***Terrorism Advantage***...................................................................................................................38IB solves terrorism...................................................................................................................................39Impacts- Nuclear war...............................................................................................................................40Impacts- Retaliation.................................................................................................................................41AT: Mueller.............................................................................................................................................44***Add-Ons***.......................................................................................................................................45Protectionism Add-On.............................................................................................................................46EMP Add-On...........................................................................................................................................47Development Add-On..............................................................................................................................49***2AC Blocks***..................................................................................................................................512AC Elections DA...................................................................................................................................521AR Elections- Plan popular...................................................................................................................532AC Spending DA...................................................................................................................................542AC States CP..........................................................................................................................................551AR- States fail........................................................................................................................................56

Samford Debate Institute 2012 2/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

FYI This affirmative advocates that the government should create an “infrastructure bank” to boost and consolidate funding for different transportation projects in the United States.

How the infrastructure bank works:Plumer ’11 [Brad, reporter at the Washington Post, “How Obama’s plan for infrastructure bank would work,” Sept. 19, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-obamas-plan-for-infrastructure-bank-would-work/2011/09/19/gIQAfDgUgK_story.html]

One of the key aspects of President Obama’s jobs plan is an idea that’s been knocking around Washington for some time: a national infrastructure bank that would leverage private investment to fund new roads, bridges, mass transit and other public-works endeavors. Here’s how it would work. The proposal, modeled after a bipartisan bill in the Senate, would take $10 billion in start-up money and identify transportation, water or energy projects that lack funding. Eligible projects would need to be worth at least $100 million and provide “a clear public benefit.” The bank would then work with private investors to finance the project through cheap long-term loans or loan guarantees, with the government picking up no more than half the tab — ideally, much less — for any given project. Critics have deemed the idea risky for taxpayers, and those voices will no doubt get louder after the collapse of Solyndra, a California-based solar manufacturer that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Energy Department only to go bankrupt in August. Administration officials have, in turn, tried to allay fears about taxpayer losses by noting that the loans would only go toward projects that have “a dedicated revenue stream,” such as toll roads, to repay the loans. The bank would be managed by an independent seven-member board, with no more than four members from either party. The logic behind the bank isn’t hard to grasp. In recent years, reams of white papers have come out describing how much of the nation’s transportation, water and energy infrastructure is in shambles. A 2010 Government Accountability Office report, for one, found that a quarter of the country’s 600,000 bridges are either “structurally deficient” or inadequate to today’s traffic needs.

And, just in case you hoped to counterplan using everyone’s favorite wizard, be warned:Wasik ’11 [John, Reuters, “Job creation: Fixing America with an infrastructure bank,” August 5, http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/2011/08/05/job-creation-fixing-america-with-an-infrastructure-bank/]

The iBank may be able to accomplish what a decade of personal income and estate-tax cuts didn’t: Provide the necessary public-private capital to revive the economy. Not even Harry Potter can make magic work on the U.S. economy without some significant infrastructure investment.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 3/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

1AC Observation 1- Inherency

Current infrastructure investments are ineffective- a new infrastructure bank is vital to revitalize key projectsU.S. Department of Treasury 2-23-12 [“A NEW ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT,” http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economic-policy/Documents/20120323InfrastructureReport.pdf]

There are improvements that can be made in how we finance infrastructure investment. Governments on all levels face significant budget constraints. It is imperative that we maintain and strategically grow our investments in key areas, such as infrastructure, and finding additional sources of capital would increase our ability to do so, while also increasing efficiency in our project selection process. President Obama has proposed a National Infrastructure Bank to help finance infrastructure

projects. A well-designed infrastructure bank could: • increase overall investment in infrastructure by attracting private capital to co-invest in specific infrastructure projects; • improve the efficiency of our infrastructure investment by having a merit-based selection process for projects; and • fill the gaps in our infrastructure funding system, which currently disadvantage investments in multimodal and multi-jurisdictional infrastructure projects. One way to address the need for more infrastructure investment is to attract more private capital for direct investment in transportation infrastructure. There is currently very little direct private investment in our nation’s highway and transit systems. The lack of private investment in infrastructure is in large part due to the current method of funding infrastructure, which lacks effective mechanisms to attract and repay direct private investment in specific infrastructure projects. In addition, the private benefit for investors is less than the benefit for society as a whole because of positive externalities from infrastructure. A National Infrastructure Bank could address these problems by directly funding selected projects through a variety of means. The establishment of a National Infrastructure Bank would create the conditions for greater private sector co-investment in infrastructure projects. Additionally, with a few notable exceptions, federal funding for infrastructure investments is not distributed on the basis of a competition between projects using rigorous economic analysis or costbenefit comparisons. The current system virtually ensures that the distribution of investment in infrastructure is suboptimal from the standpoint of raising the productive capacity of the economy. To address the lack of merit-based funding, a National Infrastructure Bank would develop a framework to analytically examine potential infrastructure projects using a cost-benefit analysis, and would evaluate the distributional impact of both the costs and benefits of each project. Of course, not all costs and benefits from infrastructure projects can be quantified, but an effort should be made to quantify those that can be quantified and to take account of any additional benefits and costs to society. A rigorous analytical process would result in support for projects that yield the greatest returns to society, and would avoid investing taxpayer dollars in projects where total costs exceed total societal benefits. A National Infrastructure Bank would select projects along a sliding scale of support that most effectively utilizes the bank’s limited resources, targeting the most effective and efficient investments.

We only have a short window of opportunity- new federal funding is both necessary and availableAlden 6-14-12 [Edward, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, “The First Renewing America Progress Report and Scorecard: The Road to Nowhere,” http://blogs.cfr.org/renewing-america/2012/06/14/the-first-renewing-america-progress-report-and-scorecard-the-road-to-nowhere/]

There are encouraging signs from some state and local governments. Chicago is launching a $7 billion Infrastructure Trust that will rely primarily on private investor capital to finance city projects. New York state has created a new state infrastructure bank intended to leverage $15 billion in investments into state projects. But most big projects, and all interstate

Samford Debate Institute 2012 4/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

projects, require some active federal role, and that is still missing. One of the more tragic aspects of the federal gridlock over infrastructure is that the United States is missing a golden opportunity that the rest of the world is handing us, and one that probably won’t last for long. The turmoil in Europe and the lack of developed capital markets in the rest of the world have led investors to continue buying up U.S. Treasuries at record low interest rates that are not even keeping pace with inflation. They are paying the U.S. government, in other words, to hold their money. And they are doing so despite big U.S. budget deficits that in more normal times would drive interest rates higher. The United States should use some of that free money — along with the plentiful private capital that is searching for stable returns — to invest in projects that promise long-term payoffs in improved productivity that will strengthen the U.S. economy, as well as provide a much-needed short-term boost in employment. As the Progress Report and Scorecard clearly demonstrate, the United States has a lot of catching up to do. Now is the time to start.

Thus we offer the following plan:

The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment by establishing a national transportation infrastructure bank.

Advantage 1 is the Economy:

Infrastructure in the United States is rapidly deteriorating, which will cause economic disasterStrauss ’12 [Rebecca Strauss, associate director of Renewing America Publications at the Council on Foreign Relations, “Federal Transportation Infrastructure Policy,” June, online]

Concerns over the state of U.S. transportation infrastructure are higher on the federal policy agenda than at any time since President Dwight D. Eisenhower championed the creation of the interstate highway system in the 1950s. A generation of U.S. infrastructure built fifty years ago is reaching the end of its lifecycle, and new construction has not kept pace with population growth. Meanwhile, international competitors, particularly China, are making massive investments in state-of-the-art transportation systems. Moving people and goods efficiently matters for the U.S. economy. The economic cost of traffic congestion alone in wasted time and fuel was estimated at $101 billion, or $713 per commuter, in 2010.1 According to one estimate, the country’s economic growth would have been 0.2 percentage points higher in 2011 if necessary transportation infrastructure maintenance and improvements had been made.2 If current spending levels persist, by 2020 the drag on growth could be 1.2 percentage points. With interest rates remaining at historic lows and unemployment near double-digit highs, an opportunity exists to marry shorter-term job creation with investments that will pay longer-term benefits to U.S. economic competitiveness. Transportation infrastructure includes everything from roads and airports to ports and water navigation systems. “Surface” transportation—or roads, bridges, highways, transit, and rail is by far the largest component of federal capital infrastructure spending, at 77 percent, and is also the locus of the major transportation policy debates.3 President Barack Obama has made infrastructure investment a top priority. Infrastructure expenditures were the second-largest component of his 2009 stimulus package, in which he laid out the nation’s most ambitious transportation vision—building a high-speed rail system from scratch— since Eisenhower. He is also the first president to propose legislation creating an independent “infrastructure bank” to help funnel private investment into public projects. Republicans have been cautious about increasing public spending without offsets, but House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has said that Republicans are “not opposed to responsible spending to repair and improve infrastructure.” 4 Yet pending federal legislation would do little to address the country’s transportation infrastructure problem. Overall investment would be kept at current and inadequate levels, and spending priorities would also remain unchanged. State and local governments, in partnership with the private sector, will be forced to take the lead to find innovative ways to meet the country’s infrastructure needs. TRANSPORTA T ION INFRASTRUCTURE I N V E S TMENT NEEDS The United States is struggling just to maintain the roads, bridges, and rail lines it built decades ago. According to two federal transportation commissions, maintenance on the nation’s highways and transit systems would require increasing the $48 billion the federal government currently spends annually on

Samford Debate Institute 2012 5/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

capital investments to $78 billion or $87 billion, respectively—an increase of at least 60 percent.5 And the longer the country waits to start repairs, the more costly the repairs will become .

The plan has immediate effects- it guides current infrastructure spending and solves competitivenessRohatyn ‘11 [Felix G. Rohatyn is special adviser to the chairman and chief executive officer of Lazard and former chairman of New York’s Municipal Assistance Corp., “Time for a U.S. infrastructure bank,” Sept. 12, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58786.html]

Even as Congress debates fiscal strategies, our country’s competitors and partners around the globe make massive investments in public infrastructure. Meanwhile, our nation’s roads and bridges, schools and hospitals, airports and railways, ports and dams, waterlines and air-control systems are rapidly and dangerously deteriorating. We should view infrastructure financing as an investment rather than an expense and should establish a national, capital budget for infrastructure. This idea is not new. Five years ago, former Sen. Warren Rudman and I co-chaired a commission on public infrastructure at the Center for Strategic and International Studies — a bipartisan group of congressional and business leaders, governors and bankers that unanimously recommended an infrastructure bank and called for a capital budget. Yet these proposals were — and perhaps still are — unable to gain political traction. China, India and European nations are spending the equivalent of hundreds of billions of dollars on efficient public transportation, energy and water systems. Here in the United States, a five-year investment of $2.2 trillion is needed simply to make U.S. infrastructure dependable and safe, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. The obvious, negative effect of this situation on our global competitiveness, quality of life and ability to create American jobs is a problem we no longer can ignore. This national infrastructure bank should be owned by the federal government but not operated by it. In this, it would be similar to the World Bank and European Investment Bank. Funded with a capital base of $50 billion to $60 billion, the infrastructure bank would have the power to insure bonds of state and local governments, provide targeted and precise subsidies and issue its own 30-to-50-year bonds to finance itself with conservative 3:1 gearing. Such a bank could easily leverage $250 billion of new capital in its first few years and as much as $1 trillion over a decade. Run by an independent board nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the bank would finance projects of regional and national significance, directing funds to their most important uses. It would also provide a valuable guidance-system for the $73 billion that the federal government spends annually on infrastructure and avoid wasteful “earmark” appropriations. The money would come from funds now dedicated to existing federal programs.

Specifically, the plan is key to stabilize the job market and overall economic growthBloomberg ’11 [“A Bank That Can Get Americans on the Road and on the Job: View,” August 10, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-11/a-bank-that-can-get-americans-on-the-road-and-on-the-job-view.html]

Among the legion of problems facing the U.S., two stand out: Unemployment remains appallingly high, and the public works undergirding our economy are in alarmingly bad shape. Creating a national infrastructure bank presents a harmonized solution to these two problems that should be feasible even in austere times. Airports and transportation networks, levees and dams, water and energy systems are deteriorating. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that 25 percent of our bridges are deficient, 7 billion gallons of clean water are wasted each day because of leaking pipes, and a third of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. The costs of all this to U.S. businesses -- in delays, accidents, lost productivity, red tape -- are enormous. Yet improving such facilities adequately, the ASCE estimates, would require a five-year investment of $2.2 trillion. If you’ve been within shouting distance of Washington lately, you know that finding anything near such a sum is an impossibility. So a revitalization program that doesn’t rely entirely on federal munificence is crucial. Enter the infrastructure bank, which would provide loans or loan guarantees for big projects deemed to be in the public interest -- and attract private investment by offering cheap access to capital and a path to profit from tolls, fares and other charges. The bank could leverage the government’s outlay to lend more. An initial $5 billion a year for five years could result in $50 billion or more in loans. And because these loans would be paid back with interest, the institution could become self- sustaining. Financing for such a bank should be seen as an investment, not “spending.” Replacing Jobs The

Samford Debate Institute 2012 6/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

resulting projects would not only improve lives and safety, but would also go some way toward replacing the many construction jobs lost in the recession and housing meltdown. Every dollar spent on public infrastructure yields a $1.59 boost to gross domestic product, estimates Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics.

Economic decline causes World War IIIO'Donnell ’09 [Sean, Baltimore Republican Examiner writer and Marine Corps Reserve squad leader, "Will this recession lead to World War III?," 2-26-09, http://www.examiner.com/x- 3108-Baltimore-Republican- Examiner~y2009m2d26-Will-this- recession-lead-to-World-War- III]

Could the current economic crisis affecting this country and the world lead to another world war? The answer may be found by looking back in history. One of the causes of World War I was the economic rivalry that existed between the nations of Europe. In the 19th century France and Great Britain became wealthy through colonialism and the control of foreign resources. This forced other up-and-coming nations (such as Germany) to be more competitive in world trade which led to rivalries and ultimately, to war. After the Great Depression ruined the economies of Europe in the 1930s, fascist movements arose to seek economic and social control. From there fanatics like Hitler and Mussolini took over Germany and Italy and led them both into World War II. With most of North America and Western Europe currently experiencing a recession, will competition for resources and economic rivalries with the Middle East, Asia, or South American cause another world war ? Add in nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism and things look even worse. Hopefully the economy gets better before it gets worse and the terrifying possibility of World War III is averted. However sometimes history repeats itself.

Advantage 2 is Terrorism:

Terrorists are most likely to attack US infrastructure—strong infrastructure deters such attacks:

Matthew Harwood, 2010 (staff writer). January 15, 2010. “Crumbling Infrastructure a National Security Concern, Experts Say.”http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/crumbling-infrastructure-a-national-security-concern-experts-say-006649

And because the United States is the world’s dominant military power, the only real way for enemies to attack the country is through its infrastructure, including cyberspace, making infrastructure resilience critical. “If [an attack] does happen, and very little of consequence happens, we get a national security benefit,” Flynn argued. “There’s a deterrent value to investing in this .” But if on the other hand adversaries can repeatedly attack a brittle critical infrastructure, Americans will lose faith in the everyday services and networks that are the source of U.S. prosperity and see them as a weaknesses.

Terrorists will use nuclear weapons triggering global nuclear war and extinctionMohamed Sid-Ahmed, 2004 (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm, 26 August - 1 September 2004)What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds . This could lead to a third world war , from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 7/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

A new terrorist attack causes nuclear miscalculation with Russia and ChinaAyson ‘10 [Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld]

A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable.

It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack , and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a

considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might

rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces , including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert . In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty . One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply

had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear

retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses

Samford Debate Institute 2012 8/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even

go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint.

Advantage 3 is Readiness:

Strong economic infrastructure is critical to high-tech military equipment & overall readiness:

Michael Beckley, 2010 (Department of Political Science, Columbia University) 'Economic Development and Military Effectiveness', Journal of Strategic Studies, 33:1, 43 – 79, February 2010http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a919386071&fulltext=713240928#references

Finally, militaries often rely directly on civilian equipment, supplies, and techniques. For example, in 1973 Israeli milk trucks carried ammunition across the Suez Canal, and El Al's passenger planes delivered high-priority spare parts and ammunition.37 Today, the American military depends on private companies to provide logistical services and to produce information technologies, such as fiber optic-laced clothing, head-mounted computer displays, global satellite phones, impromptu wireless networks, and rugged laptop computers. Two of the most important modern weapons systems, stealth and multispectral technologies, depend on innovative manufacturing and design technologies that reside in the commercial sector , and three-quarters of the computing power in the Aegis cruiser depends on commercial equipment.38 In these respects, a solid economic infrastructure enhances military effectiveness during wars, as well as in the periods that precede them . In earlier eras, copying and imitation through espionage were viable options for laggard states seeking to catch up with technological leaders. In the early 1900s, it only took three years for Germany to copy and produce its own version of the British super battleship HMS Dreadnought. The first US detonation of a nuclear weapon in 1945 was followed by a Soviet detonation only four years later. Today, however, military technologies are much more difficult to copy because they are not stand-alone pieces of hardware. Military power used to consist primarily of weapons platforms and troops; today it is comprised of systems, which link weapons and troops to sensors, satellites, and command centers. Countries may be able to purchase certain aspects of these systems from abroad, but only developed states will have the supporting infrastructure necessary to assimilate state-of-the-art military technologies and integrate them into a cohesive, lethal whole.

America’s dominant position of power solves multiple great power warsThayer ’06 [Bradley, Professor of Defense and Strategic Studies, In Defense of Primacy, National Interest, Proquest]

THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons:

Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly . As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)."

Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the

international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S.

leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war.

Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood,

Samford Debate Institute 2012 9/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

particularly war's worst form: great power wars . Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism: Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American

worldview.( n3) So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 10/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

***Inherency***

Samford Debate Institute 2012 11/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Inherency- US infrastructure poor US infrastructure is on the decline- national competitors are outpacing usStrauss ’12 [Rebecca Strauss, associate director of Renewing America Publications at the Council on Foreign Relations, “Federal Transportation Infrastructure Policy,” June, online]

The World Economic Forum ranked the overall quality of U.S. infrastructure at twenty-fourth globally in 2011.10 As recently as 2002, it was fifth. Since then, several economic competitors moved in front of the United States in the rankings, including Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Spain. China is still far behind in the rankings at sixty-ninth. But China is likely to move up, and move up fast. It built a highway system equivalent in size to the U.S. interstate highway system in fifteen years. The United States took thirty-five years. By 2015, China intends to build roughly fifty new airports. Infrastructure takes years, if not decades, to plan, build, and deliver payoffs. Current rankings reflect past investment decisions. Given the United States’ level of investment, its relative decline in overall quality of infrastructure will likely continue.

US infrastructure is in tatters- a new iBank is key to solveWasik ’11 [John, Reuters, “Job creation: Fixing America with an infrastructure bank,” August 5, http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/2011/08/05/job-creation-fixing-america-with-an-infrastructure-bank/]

If the iBank became reality — and really it’s a necessity to compete in a globalized economy — there’s no shortage of projects. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, more than $2 trillion is needed to fix U.S. bridges, dams, waterways and wastewater plants. The sheer scale of a big fix is staggering: Some 69,000 bridges need to be repaired. The outdated electrical grid needs to be modernized everywhere. You can build solar plants and windmills all you want, but if you have no power lines to transport the electrons from the deserts and plains, you’re whistling in the wind.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 12/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Inherency- Investments ineffective Current infrastructure financing is ineffective and hurts investment Staley ’09 [Sam, Dir., Urban Land Use Policy, Reason Foundation), MOBILITY FIRST: A NEW VISION FOR TRANSPORTATION IN GLOBALLY COMPETITIVE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY]

Over half the funds flowing into our surface transportation infra structure comes from fuel and vehicle taxes. Unfortunately, fuel taxes are an increasingly unsustainable funding source. Inflation steadily erodes the pur chasing power of fuel tax revenues, which are rarely increased since raising gas taxes is politically unpopular. At the same time fuel efficiency for cars has increased 54 percent since 1975. Thus, more people pay less in taxes for each mile they drive, even as that mile is more expensive to maintain, and even as the demand for road travel increases. And it's going to get worse. Fuel efficiency standards passed in 2007 require new auto fleets to improve 40 percent from today to an average 35 miles a gallon by 2020. This means fuel tax revenues will continue to shrink relative to use of the system. Economists have a term for this: fiscal illusion. We have created a false perception that we are pay ing for a public service through taxes when, in fact, we are not.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 13/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

***Solvency***

Samford Debate Institute 2012 14/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Solvency- General An infrastructure bank solves key projectsStrauss ’12 [Rebecca Strauss, associate director of Renewing America Publications at the Council on Foreign Relations, “Federal Transportation Infrastructure Policy,” June, online]

The president, most Democratic members of Congress, and some Republicans favor a new infrastructure bank. Like TIFIA, it would supply federal credit assistance and loan guarantees to help finance large-scale, interstate, and multimodal projects with leveraged private capital. An initial federal infusion of $10 billion could raise $100 billion to $200 billion from capital markets. Unlike TIFIA, the bank would finance all infrastructure projects, including transportation, water, energy, and technology. It would be an independent entity with an independent board. The advantages are many, proponents argue. The bank would correct a market failure, meeting public infrastructure financing needs with the private capital market. Private investors would be guaranteed a conservative, long-term spread of returns. Public infrastructure would be paid for with fewer tax dollars. And the bank’s independence would free it from the political grip of Congress and the Department of Transportation.

Establishing a US national infrastructure bank on the European Investment Bank model would brink equity and capital into infrastructure development:

Jonathan D. Miller, 2010 (URBAN LAND INSTITUTE). Online. Accessed August 18, 2010 at Infrastructure 2010: Investment Imperative (http://www.uli.org/sitecore/~/media/Documents/ResearchAndPublications/Reports/Infrastructure/IR2010.ashx)

Establishing a U.S. national infrastructure bank could also lend support to PPP* structures by drawing more private equity and debt capital into infrastructure development, as well as helping to establish voluntary, uniform frameworks across states for PPP structures. Investors like the security of side-by-side government funding and loan guarantees, but have been discouraged by uncertainty over ad hoc state approaches for soliciting PPP proposals. A federal infrastructure bank could help establish procurement protocols and standards, facilitating the bidding process. If patterned on the European Investment Bank model, a U.S. version could “bring stability and long-term capital [15- to 25-year loans at low rates] to projects that require both,” and equity investors and commercial lenders “can get more comfortable before they dive in.” The infrastructure bank proposal vetting process would also help introduce merit-based, competitive decision-making and provide a mechanism for funding major, cross-sector and multijurisdictional projects. But a U.S. infrastructure bank would be no silver bullet—in the end, infrastructure loans must be secured by some revenue stream—tolls, fees, increased rates, or taxes.

The plan would bolster predictable, long-term income streams:Jonathan D. Miller, 2010 (URBAN LAND INSTITUTE). Online. Accessed August 18, 2010 at Infrastructure 2010: Investment Imperative (http://www.uli.org/sitecore/~/media/Documents/ResearchAndPublications/Reports/Infrastructure/IR2010.ashx)

But surviving fund managers predict solidly improving prospects for 2010 and 2011. “We’re rebounding strongly—equity is restoring in lower-leverage investments.” Travel and shipping volumes begin to revive. For new investments, capitalization rates will stay higher, reflecting perceived greater risk, and leverage will be harder to secure. “People now realize they paid too much” and chastened banks limit leverage to 50 to 60 percent, down from 80 percent or more at frenzied, anything-goes financing peaks. “But financing has come back.” For institutional investors looking for predictable, long-term income streams, infrastructure investments in established concessions can beat risk/return prospects in the battered commercial real estate sector .

Samford Debate Institute 2012 15/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

A national infrastructure bank would leverage private dollars to invest in critical infrastructure projects in the country:

Jonathan D. Miller, 2010 (URBAN LAND INSTITUTE). Online. Accessed August 18, 2010 at Infrastructure 2010: Investment Imperative (http://www.uli.org/sitecore/~/media/Documents/ResearchAndPublications/Reports/Infrastructure/IR2010.ashx)

Why do you support the concept of a national infrastructure bank? Our infrastructure is crumbling. The American Society of Civil Engineers suggests that a $2.2 trillion investment is needed in the next five years just to bring our infrastructure systems up to adequate condition. A t the same time, we are emerging slowly from the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. Current federal programs cannot meet our investment needs in the areas of transportation, environmental, energy, and telecommunications infrastructure, but interest is growing from global capital markets to invest in these areas. A national infrastructure development bank would leverage these private dollars to invest in critical infrastructure projects across the country.

National infrastructure bank solves for infrastructure:Jonathan D. Miller, 2010 (URBAN LAND INSTITUTE). Online. Accessed August 18, 2010 at Infrastructure 2010: Investment Imperative (http://www.uli.org/sitecore/~/media/Documents/ResearchAndPublications/Reports/Infrastructure/IR2010.ashx)

How would the national infrastructure development bank, proposed in HR 2521, help address the need to boost investment in infrastructure in the United States? We are seeing growth, albeit slower in the last year in light of the financial and economic crises, in a new infrastructure asset class with private equity funds and pension funds looking to invest in infrastructure. R ight now, that funding is going overseas. China puts 9 percent of its GDP into infrastructure, India 5 percent and rising, while here in the United States we spend less than 2 percent of GDP on infrastructure. The federal government cannot meet the infrastructure investment deficit on its own, but with a national infrastructure bank we can begin to channel more private investment into our market and begin to rebuild America, create jobs, and spur economic growth that will keep us competitive in the 21st century.

A national infrastructure bank would bolster federal, state, and local funding sources:

Jonathan D. Miller, 2010 (URBAN LAND INSTITUTE). Online. Accessed August 18, 2010 at Infrastructure 2010: Investment Imperative (http://www.uli.org/sitecore/~/media/Documents/ResearchAndPublications/Reports/Infrastructure/IR2010.ashx)

How would a national infrastructure bank operate? The bank envisioned in my legislation is modeled after the European Investment Bank (EIB), with an independent and objective board of directors that would make final infrastructure financing determinations; an executive committee to handle the day-to-day operations of the bank; and risk management and audit committees to carefully manage risk and monitor the bank’s activities. States, localities, and other entities would submit projects to the executive committee, which would then make funding recommendations to the board following a meritbased consideration of the projects. The board would have the power to issue bonds, provide loans and loan guarantees as well as other financing capabilities, looking to fund projects with the greatest economic, environmental, and social benefits. How much money would the bank lend annually and would the amount be enough to make a dent in the nation’s infrastructure needs? As conceptualized in my legislation, the bank would have a total subscribed capital of $250 billion, $25 billion of which is provided through appropriations over five years and the rest subject to the call of the Treasury Secretary. T he bank, like the EIB, would have a conservative leverage ratio of 2.5:1, allowing it to issue up to $625 billion in 30-plus-year federal bonds. A mbassador Felix Rohatyn, a lead bank proponent, argues that such a self-supporting entity could easily provide up to $250 billion in new capital over the next five years and perhaps significantly more over the longer term. That said, since infrastructure shortfalls require hundreds of billions in funds annually, the bank contribution would be just one piece of the investment puzzle, supplementing—not supplanting—other federal, state, and local funding sources.

National infrastructure bank would bolster job creation and economic growth:Jonathan D. Miller, 2010 (URBAN LAND INSTITUTE). Online. Accessed August 18, 2010 at Infrastructure 2010: Investment Imperative (http://www.uli.org/sitecore/~/media/Documents/ResearchAndPublications/Reports/Infrastructure/IR2010.ashx)

Samford Debate Institute 2012 16/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

What are the objections to an infrastructure bank? The bank would represent a major public investment and opponents raise concerns about whether we need more spending or should instead focus on deficit reduction. I believe a national infrastructure bank can be a key component of long-term job creation and economic growth. T he bank would also represent a new way to finance infrastructure projects, depoliticizing the process, breaking down jurisdictional silos in the federal government, and taking a holistic view of infrastructure projects.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 17/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Solvency- Private investment The plan attracts private investment- that’s key to solve Reuters ’11 [“U.S. infrastructure bank could lure private capital,” July 20, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/usa-infrastructure-bank-idUSN1E76J1FH20110720]

Establishing a U.S. infrastructure bank is key to attracting private capital for public works, a diverse group of witnesses told a Senate panel on Wednesday as lawmakers worried about finding enough funds to cover current transportation costs. "The bank would provide a project with a base of capital that could then attract ... outside private investment," said Robert Dove, managing director of the Carlyle Group, a private global investment firm. For many years, state and local governments have discussed using private-public partnerships known as "P3s" to finance transportation. In a common P3 structure, a private company leases and maintains a road for decades. It collects tolls and receives tax credits for the road's depreciation. "While many states and local governments are focusing on these matters, top-down leadership is also needed that includes a vision for the country and common P3 principles," said J. Perry Offutt, managing director at Morgan Stanley & Co, LLC. Many investors are pension or infrastructure funds that put money into projects around the world. The bank's support, he said, would reassure investors there is political will to complete a project.

An infrastructure bank would attract private investment and solve our transportation woesIsidore ‘11 [Chris, CNN Money, “Infrastructure Bank: Fixing how we fix roads,” Sept. 7, http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/07/news/economy/jobs_infrastructure/index.htm]

It sounds like the latest Apple product, but it has the power to create far more jobs with little government money. The I-Bank, or infrastructure bank, has support of both Democrats, Republicans and big business. Legislation has been co-sponsored in the Senate by Democrat John Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas. It is likely to once again get support from President Obama when he lays out his jobs agenda. The idea is to create a government agency to help arrange financing for infrastructure projects using investments from private investors. Working through the I-Bank, the government would encourage private investment by providing cheap loans and loan guarantees. But it would only fund a fraction of the overall cost, just enough to attract private investors who would provide most of the financing. States and municipalities would get much needed upgrades of bridges and roads. The local economies would get a stimulus boost from more people working. And the lion's share of the money would come from major institutional investors -- pension funds, hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds from other countries. What businesses want from Obama Many don't invest now because even when municipal bonds are sold to help fund a project, those tax-free offerings are not attractive to many deep-pocket investors not subject to income tax, such as pension funds. Even when a project is expected to generate tolls or other revenue, there is little way now to offer investors a piece of that action to attract them in. Michael Likosky, senior fellow at New York University, said an I-Bank is the only way to generate the funding for needed infrastructure projects in this time of tight government spending. "We have to grow the pie of capital," Likosky said. "We're going grow it with private capital and use the public money in a much more targeted way." The idea of trying an I-Bank here is not a new one. Some proposals go back to the 1950s.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 18/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

***Economy Advantage***

Samford Debate Institute 2012 19/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Economy- iBank key Now is a key time- infrastructure spending would have short and long term economic benefitsHolahan and Kroncke 6-13-12 [Charles O. Kroncke, left, is associate dean in the University of South Florida College of Business. William L. Holahan is a professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, “On U.S. infrastructure, spend now, gain later,” http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/on-us-infrastructure-spend-now-gain-later/1234943]

Its reluctance to support investment in infrastructure is unfortunate because this is an opportune time to earn a better report card; presently, we can borrow at very low interest rates to upgrade our streets, roads, bridges, railroads, school buildings, Internet bandwidth and K-12 education. We have earned the trust of foreign investors, who value the safety of our financial markets and seek to loan us money through their purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds. In the short run, infrastructure investment would stimulate business growth and employ otherwise unemployed resources of labor and equipment. In the longer run, when these assets are in good working order, they would support faster growth of the economy, a prerequisite for bringing down the national debt and putting workers back on the path to higher after-tax incomes.

An iBank would bolster the US economyU.S. Department of Treasury 2-23-12 [“A NEW ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT,” http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economic-policy/Documents/20120323InfrastructureReport.pdf]

Our analysis indicates that further infrastructure investments would be highly beneficial for the U.S. economy in both the short and long term. First, estimates of economically justifiable investment indicate that American transportation infrastructure is not keeping pace with the needs of our economy. Second, because of high unemployment in sectors such as construction that were especially hard hit by the bursting of the housing bubble, there are underutilized resources that can be used to build infrastructure. Moreover, states and municipalities typically fund a significant portion of infrastructure spending, but are currently strapped for cash; the Federal government has a constructive role to play by stepping up to address the anticipated shortfall and providing more efficient financing mechanisms, such as Build America Bonds. The third key finding is that investing in infrastructure benefits the middle class most of all. Finally, there is considerable support for greater infrastructure investment among American consumers and businesses. The President’s plan addresses a significant and longstanding need for greater infrastructure investment in the United States. Targeted investments in America’s transportation infrastructure would generate both short-term and long-term economic benefits. However, transforming and rehabilitating our nation’s transportation infrastructure system will require not only greater investment but also a more efficient use of resources, because simply increasing funding does not guarantee economic benefits. This idea is embodied in the President’s proposal to reform our nation’s transportation policy, as well as to establish a National Infrastructure Bank, which would leverage private and other non-Federal government resources to make wise investments in projects of regional and national significance.

Stable infrastructure spending is crucial to the economyWinston ’10 [lifford Winston, (Sr. Fellow, Brookings Institution), LAST EXIT: PRIVATIZATION AND DEREGULATION OF THE U.S. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, 2010]

Transportation's importance to the U.S. economy is more clearly indicated by its large share of economic activity, as measured by its share of GDP. In 2006 American consumers spent roughly $1.1 trillion commuting to work, traveling for pleasure, and buying and operating vehicles. Firms

Samford Debate Institute 2012 20/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

spent roughly $1 trillion shipping products to distribution centers and retail outlets, sending their employees to meet with customers and suppliers, and buying and operating vehicles (spending by firms on their employees' travel is included with consumers' transportation services). Local, state, and federal government spending on transportation infrastructure and services contributed $256 billion and upped total spending on transportation to more than $2.3 trillion, or roughly 17.5 percent of 2006 GDP.

Infrastructure is a critical economic engineGrigg ’10 [Neil Grigg, (Prof., Environmental Engineering, Colorado State U.), INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE: THE BUSINESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, 2010]

While it is difficult to measure infrastructure's economic impact, estimates in Chapter 11 show that the value of U.S. infrastructure assets is around $8.3 trillion for public structures and $28.0 trillion for private structures (2007 data). Most of the public asset value is in roads, streets, and other infrastructure networks, while the private asset value is heavily weighted toward residential housing.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 21/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Economy- Jobs The plan is key to save the job market and the economyWasik ’11 [John, Reuters, “Job creation: Fixing America with an infrastructure bank,” August 5, http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/2011/08/05/job-creation-fixing-america-with-an-infrastructure-bank/]

One thing an iBank wouldn’t be is another big-check stimulus plan, which Congress passed in 2009. That nearly $800 billion package was a huge fiscal band-aid to help states, school districts and wage earners through the recession. Yes, there were some public works projects that created short-term jobs, but the bulk of the money went to tax relief and the states. The U.S. needs a new approach to economic triage. The June jobs report was nothing short of dismal as employment growth hit a wall with only 18,000 new jobs coming on the market. Crumbling infrastructure will cost the U.S. economy nearly 1 million jobs and shave $3.1 trillion from gross domestic product by 2020, the Society of Civil Engineers estimates. What about the budget? Isn’t there a disconnect between the current passion for cutting the federal deficit and spending money to fix America? There’s little question that putting people to work will help the economy. Working people pay income, sales and property taxes, which flow back into communities. The steadily employed buy homes, vehicles and appliances. Increased tax revenue in turn reduces the deficit.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 22/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Economy- Key to competitiveness Strong infrastructure is important to US leadership and economic competitiveness:

Stephen E. Flynn, 2008 (Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the council on Foreign Relations). Foreign Affairs, March-April 2008. America the resilient: defying terrorism and mitigating natural disasters. Accessed via EBSCO, August 15, 2010.

When it comes to managing the hazards of the twenty-first century, it is reckless to relegate the American public to the sidelines. During the Cold War, the threat of nuclear weapons placed the fate of millions in the hands of a few. But responding to today's challenges, the threats of terrorism and natural disasters, requires the broad engagement of civil society. The terrorists' chosen battlegrounds are likely to be occupied by civilians, not soldiers. And more than the loss of innocent lives is at stake: a climate of fear and a sense of powerlessness in the face of adversity are undermining faith in American ideals and fueling political demagoguery. Sustaining the United States' global leadership and economic competitiveness ultimately depends on bolstering the resilience of its society. Periodically, things will go badly wrong. The United States must be prepared to minimize the consequences of those eventualities and bounce back quickly. Resilience has historically been one of the United States' great national strengths. It was the quality that helped tame a raw continent and then allowed the country to cope with the extraordinary challenges that occasionally placed the American experiment in peril. From the early settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts to the westward expansion, Americans willingly ventured into the wild to build better lives. During the epic struggles of the American Revolution, the American Civil War, and the two world wars; occasional economic downturns and the Great Depression; and the periodic scourges of earthquakes, epidemics, floods, and hurricanes, Americans have drawn strength from adversity. Each generation bequeathed to the next a sense of confidence and optimism about the future. But this reservoir of self-sufficiency is being depleted. The United States is becoming a brittle nation. An increasingly urbanized and suburbanized population has embraced just-in-time lifestyles tethered to ATM machines and 24-hour stores that provide instant access to cash, food, and gas. When the power goes out and these modern conveniences fail, Americans are incapacitated. Meanwhile, two decades of taxpayer rebellion have stripped away the means necessary for government workers to provide help during emergencies. Most city and state public health and emergency-management departments are not funded adequately enough for them to carry out even their routine work. A flu pandemic or other major disaster would completely overwhelm them. A report on disaster preparedness released in June 2006 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security found that only 25 percent of state emergency operations plans and 10 percent of municipal plans were sufficient to cope with a natural disaster or a terrorist attack; the majority of the plans were deemed "not fully adequate, feasible, or acceptable to manage catastrophic events." And even as community and individual preparedness is in decline, nine out of ten Americans now five in locations that place them at a moderate to high risk of experiencing damaging high wind, earthquakes, flooding, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, or wildfires. Climate change will increase the frequency of such calamities. The United States' aging infrastructure compounds the risk of destruction and disruption . One of the rationales for building the interstate highway system was to support the evacuation of major dries if the Cold War turned hot; in 2006, the year the system turned 50, Americans spent a total of 3.5 billion hours stuck in traffic. Public works departments construct "temporary" patches for dams, leaving Americans who live downstream one major storm away from having water pouring into their riving rooms. Bridges are outfitted with the civil engineering equivalent of diapers. Like the occupants of a grand old mansion who elect not to do any upkeep, Americans have been neglecting the infrastructure that supports a modern society. In 2005, after a review of hundreds of studies and reports and a survey of more than 2,000 engineers, the American Society of Civil Engineers issued a scathing report card on 15 categories of infrastructure: the national power grid, dams, canal locks, and seven other infrastructure sectors received Ds; the best grade, a C+, went to bridges, and even in that case, 160,570 bridges, out of a total of 590,750, were rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

Infrastructure development is key to US competitiveness with the rest of the world:Urban Land Institute, 2010. “Add Water Systems to U.S. Infrastructure Challenges, Says 'Infrastructure 2010: An Investment Imperative'” http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/add-water-systems-to-us-infrastructure-challenges-says-infrastructure-2010-an-investment-imperative-90750079.html

"Over the past several years that we have been co-producing this report, perhaps the most troubling conclusion overall is that the world is moving ahead in rebuilding and expanding its infrastructure without the United States. Bottom line, the US is seriously threatening not only its quality of life now and for the future but also its very basic ability to compete economically with the rest of the world," said Howard Roth, Global Real Estate Leader, Ernst and Young. "Perhaps the priority in the U.S. should be a major jobs-producing investment, aimed at rebuilding national water, transportation, and other life support systems? What ever the solution, this latest real estate report clearly shows that the rest of the world is gaining ground, and that China and the EU among others

Samford Debate Institute 2012 23/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

are already well on the road to recreating themselves as leaders for the new world order. The U.S. has to stop treading water and start treating water," Roth added.

Decaying infrastructure severely hinders US economic competitivenessRockefeller ’09 [John Rockefeller, (U.S. Sen., THE FUTURE OF NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY, Senate Hrg., Apr. 28, 2009]

Our national surface transportation system provides the physical foundation for our economy, allowing people and goods to move throughout the country. Unfortunately, investment has not kept up with demand in the system over the past few decades. As a result, our physical infrastructure is in disrepair, congestion plagues our highways, ports, and railroads, and limited financial resources are available to fix the broken system. In addition, the transportation sector continues to be the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the United States.

An infrastructure bank would promote US economic competitivenessScwarz ’09 [Bernard Schwartz, (CEO, BLS Investments, LLC), INFRASTRUCTURE: REBUILDING, REPAIRING AND RESTRUCTURING]

By making public infrastructure spending the centerpiece of a new economic recovery program, we would be able to accomplish several urgent public policy goals simultaneously. We would close the public infrastructure investment gap at a time of low borrowing costs; we would provide the economy a significant boost in investment and job creation that it is needed to put the economy on a new growth path that is less dependent on housing and debt-financed consumption; and we would make the economy more productive and efficient over the longer term by eliminating costly bottlenecks and by crowding in new private investment, Public spending on infrastructure is the most effective way to counter an economic slowdown caused by the unwinding of a major asset bubble. And funding public infrastructure by issuing long¬term Treasury Bills is still the lowest cost way to finance much needed public infrastructure improvements. For these reasons, we should use the necessity of a second stimulus package to close the public infrastructure deficit by dramatically increasing public infrastructure spending over the next two years, And we can do so without an equivalent increase in the budget deficit, since the deficit would widen in any case as tax revenues decline because of falling incomes for businesses and individuals and since public infrastructure spending would create new jobs and economic activity and thus increase tax revenues.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 24/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Impacts- Nuclear war Economic decline causes every major impactGreen ‘09 [Michael J., Senior Advisor and Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Associate Professor at Georgetown University. Asia Times Online, 3.26.9, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/KC26Dk01.html AD 6/30/09]

Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, analysts at the World Bank and the US Central Intelligence

Agency are just beginning to contemplate the ramifications for international stability if there is not a recovery in the next year. For the most part, the focus has been on fragile states such as some in Eastern Europe. However, the Great Depression taught us that a downward global economic spiral can even have jarring impacts on great powers. It is no mere coincidence that the last great global economic downturn was followed by the most destructive war in human history. In the 1930s, economic desperation helped fuel autocratic regimes and protectionism in a downward economic-security death spiral that engulfed the world in conflict. This spiral was aided by the preoccupation of the United States and other leading nations with economic troubles at home and insufficient attention to working with other powers to maintain stability abroad. Today's challenges are different, yet 1933's London Economic Conference, which failed to stop the drift toward deeper depression and world war, should be a cautionary tale for leaders heading to next month's London Group of 20 (G-20) meeting. There is no question the US must urgently act to address banking issues and to restart its economy. But the lessons of the past suggest that we will also have to keep an eye on those fragile threads in the international system that could begin to unravel if the financial crisis is not reversed early in the Barack Obama administration and realize that economics and security are intertwined in most of the critical challenges we face . A disillusioned rising power? Four areas in Asia merit particular attention, although so far the current financial crisis has not changed Asia's fundamental strategic picture. China is not replacing the US as regional hegemon, since the leadership in Beijing is too nervous about the political implications of the financial crisis at home to actually play a leading role in solving it internationally. Predictions that the US will be brought to its knees because China is the leading holder of US debt often miss key points. China's currency controls and full employment/export-oriented growth strategy give Beijing few choices other than buying US Treasury bills or harming its own economy. Rather than creating new rules or institutions in international finance, or reorienting the Chinese economy to generate greater long-term consumer demand at home, Chinese leaders are desperately clinging to the status quo (though Beijing deserves credit for short-term efforts to stimulate economic growth). The greater danger with China is not an eclipsing of US leadership, but instead the kind of shift in strategic orientation that happened to Japan after the Great Depression. Japan was arguably not a revisionist power before 1932 and sought instead to converge with the global economy through open trade and adoption of the gold standard. The worldwide depression and protectionism of the 1930s devastated the newly exposed Japanese economy and contributed directly to militaristic and autarkic policies in Asia as the Japanese people reacted against what counted for globalization at the time. China today is similarly converging with the global economy, and many experts believe China needs at least 8% annual growth to sustain social stability. Realistic growth predictions for 2009 are closer to 5%. Veteran China hands were watching closely when millions of migrant workers returned to work after the Lunar New Year holiday last month to find factories closed and jobs gone. There were pockets of protests, but nationwide unrest seems unlikely this year, and Chinese leaders are working around the clock to ensure that it does not happen next year either. However, the economic slowdown has only just begun and nobody is certain how it will impact the social contract in China between the ruling communist party and the 1.3 billion Chinese who have come to see President Hu Jintao's call for "harmonious society" as inextricably linked to his promise of "peaceful development". If the Japanese example is any precedent, a sustained economic slowdown has the potential to open a dangerous path from economic nationalism to strategic revisionism in China too. Dangerous states It is noteworthy that North Korea, Myanmar and Iran have all intensified their defiance in the wake of the financial crisis, which has distracted the world's leading nations, limited their moral authority and sown potential discord. With Beijing worried about the potential impact of North Korean belligerence or instability on Chinese internal stability, and leaders in Japan and South Korea under siege in parliament because of the collapse of their stock markets, leaders in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang have grown increasingly boisterous about their country's claims to great power status as a nuclear weapons state. The junta in Myanmar has chosen this moment to arrest hundreds of political dissidents and thumb its nose at fellow members of the 10-country Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Iran continues its nuclear program while exploiting differences between the US, UK and France (or the P-3 group) and China and Russia - differences that could become more pronounced if economic friction with Beijing or Russia crowds out cooperation or if Western European governments grow nervous about sanctions as a tool of policy. It is possible that the economic downturn will make these dangerous states more pliable

Samford Debate Institute 2012 25/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

because of falling fuel prices (Iran) and greater need for foreign aid (North Korea and Myanmar), but that may depend on the extent that authoritarian leaders care about the well-being of their people or face internal political pressures linked to the economy. So far, there is little evidence to suggest either and much evidence to suggest these dangerous states see an opportunity to advance their asymmetrical advantages against the international system.

If the recession turns into a depression, multiple scenarios of nuclear war take place: James Cusick, 3/18/2009 Sunday Herald (Scotland) http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.2495478.0.dont_bank_on_financial_trouble_being_resolved_without_conflict.php

I'm not saying that America is about to declare war on China, or that Germany is going to invade France. But there are profound economic stresses in central Europe that could rapidly turn into conflict in the bankrupt Baltic states, Hungary, Ukraine. And if the Great Recession, as the IMF's Dominique Strauss-Kahn called it last week, turns into a Great Depression, with a prolonged collapse in international trade and financial flows, then we could see countries like Pakistan disintegrate into nuclear anarchy and war with neighbouring India , which will itself be experiencing widespread social unrest. Collapsing China could see civil war too; Japan will likely re-arm; Russia will seek to expand its sphere of economic interests. Need I to go on?

US economic decline causes great WMD warsNyquist ‘05 [J.R. renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations, WorldNetDaily contributing editor, “The Political Consequences of a Financial Crash,” February 4, www.financialsense.com/stormw...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.”

Samford Debate Institute 2012 26/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Economic decline causes nuclear and biological warKerpen ‘08 [ Oct. 28 policy director for Americans for Prosperity, Phil, From Panic to Depression?, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWQ3ZGYzZTQyZGY4ZWFiZWUxNmYwZTJiNWVkMTIxMmU=]

It’s important that we avoid all these policy errors — not just for the sake of our prosperity, but for our survival. The Great Depression, after all, didn’t end until the advent of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the planet. In a world of nuclear and biological weapons and non-state terrorist organizations that breed on poverty and despair, another global economic breakdown of such extended duration would risk armed conflicts on an even greater scale.

Collapse of the economy risks end of the planetT. E. Bearden, 2000 LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), CEO, CTEC Inc., Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS), Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS)June 24, 2000 (HYPERLINK "http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm" http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm)

As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released . As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China — whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States — attacks Taiwan. I n addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself {[8]}. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 27/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Impacts- Hegemony A prolonged recession will undermine US leadershipBruce Crumley, 2009 (staff writer, February 25, 2009. Online. Internet. Accessed, April 1, 2009. (http://watchmannewsletter.typepad.com/news/2009/02/is-the-economic-crisis-a-security-threat-too.html)

Part of the strategic challenge posed by the downturn lies in the realm of the economy itself. Emerging powers such as China or India could take the opportunity presented by U.S. economic weakness to extend their own influence in regions traditionally dominated by the U.S. China, in particular, has already established itself as a major player in Latin America and Africa, and it is investing heavily in extractive industries across the globe right now, procuring energy supplies — most recently in new oil deals inked with Russia, Venezuela and Brazil — and other natural resources for its industrial economy.

Global nuclear warZalmay Khalilzad, 1995 RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the U nited S tates exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages . First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 28/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Impacts- China war The loss of US competitiveness leads to military confrontations and demonization of China:

James Petras, 2005 (former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton). October 22. “Statism or Free Markets?”

http://www.counterpunch.org/petras10222005.htmlThe Myth of the "China Threat" Instead of accepting the economic challenge from China and recognizing the need for re-thinking the misallocations of resources and the over-reliance on the paper economy, retrograde business elites and overpaid trade union bosses have joined forces with neo-conservative ideologues in promoting the idea of China as a national security threat which needs to be confronted militarily. The fusion of militarism abroad and protectionism at home has gained many adherents in Congress and in the executive branch setting the stage for a self-fulfilling prophecy. Faced with increasingly bellicose rhetoric from Washington, China looks eastward toward strengthening its military and economic ties with Russia and Central Asia while diversifying its trade with Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. US militant "protectionist militarism" with its confrontational approach to China threatens to block the free market of knowledge and technology. China's dynamic growth is not primarily based on "cheap labor" it relies on the production of millions of highly trained scientific and professional workers each year. Each year tens of thousands of Chinese students, professors and scientists train abroad many in the US. Very few US students pursue advanced degrees in science and engineering, with the result that foreign students including Chinese are increasingly critical to the US science workforce. In this free flow of ideas and scientists, both China and the US theoretically benefit from a "free market" perspective. But as we have argued the US is opposed to the free market especially in the free flow of scientific 'know-how'. The US is doing everything possible to restrict the exchange of scientists, technology and knowledge by a wide-ranging definition of "national security". Given their military definition of the China challenge, Washington argues that Chinese students and scholars should be restricted in what they study, what they learn as well as their access to technology. Universities, under Pentagon and Department of Commerce ruling, would have to secure special licenses and mark restricted areas within laboratories to prevent foreign students from using supercomputers, semiconductors, lasers and sensors in their research. The Department of Commerce plans to tighten controls in the export of commercial technologies (Financial Times Sept. 1, 2005 p 11). From a free market perspective US export controls to China are self-defeating, lessening exports thus increasing the trade deficit, and have little impact on China's access to technology via Japan, Korea and Europe. In contrast, in July 2005 the European Union signed contracts with China to develop commercial usages of the Galileo satellite navigation system. From a militarist-protectionist perspective the restrictions on ideas and the free circulation of scientists and students can be seen as part of a campaign of political and perhaps military confrontation and encirclement. 'China bashing' is merely a response to the loss of competitiveness. Nationalist demagogy in a declining global power is a compensatory mechanism for the failure of US capitalism to keep up with the competition at least from its locus in the US economy.

That risks a nuclear war:Ivan Eland, 2005 (Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty) May 31, 2005. Accessed August 21, 2010 @ http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1515

At a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, senators of both parties berated the Bush administration’s failure to ratchet up the pressure on China to reduce the value of its currency, the yuan, by branding that nation as a “currency manipulator.” The lawmakers also complained that the value of Japan’s yen is too high. But such U.S. government interference in overseas commerce is ultimately counterproductive and could lead to a greater risk of conflict with other nations. On foreign currencies, as with many issues, members of Congress respond to the needs of powerful, but narrow, special interests at the expense of the general public, whose power and interests are more diffuse. Influential U.S. industries that sell overseas face competition from Chinese and Japanese exports made cheaper by the yuan and yen, currencies that many economists say are held below market value by their respective governments. Since 1995, the Chinese government has fixed the yuan’s value at 8.28 per dollar. The Japanese central bank, with more subtlety, purchased large quantities of dollars in 2003 to drive up the value of the dollar vis-à-vis the yen. Although Japan quit that practice in March 2004, Japanese officials have threatened to resume it if the yen continues to rise against the dollar. In addition to being disadvantaged in world markets against cheaper Chinese and Japanese products, the artificially low yuan and yen make U.S. exports more expensive in the large home markets of China and Japan. Although U.S. export industries are hurt by the lower yuan and yen, American consumers here at home enjoy cheaper imports from China and Japan. Less is heard about the advantages to consumers of lower foreign currencies because consumers have far fewer lobbyists in Washington than do large export firms. Nonetheless, the world would be a better—and richer—place if the Chinese and Japanese governments avoided trying to influence the value of their currencies and instead allowed them to float in international currency markets. By distorting their own economies, those governments, like members of the U.S. Congress, are supporting prominent export industries at the expense of the common consumer. And while they’re at it, China and Japan could further help their consumers by more fully opening their markets to U.S. goods and services by easing tariff and non-tariff barriers. That said, the U.S. government should set a better example by

Samford Debate Institute 2012 29/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

avoiding the kind of pressure on the Chinese and Japanese governments (and any other government using similar practices) that members of Congress are demanding. If those governments want to shoot themselves in the foot, there is no reason why the United States needs to shoot itself in the head. Setting a precedent for U.S. government interference in overseas commerce could generate further pressure by domestic groups—for example, domestic industries that compete with imports from China and Japan—to retaliate for Chinese and Japanese currency manipulation by resorting to import barriers against products from those countries. Some senators are already threatening to raise tariffs against Chinese goods unless China raises the value of the yuan. And according to the Financial Times, the Bush administration is privately passing along that threat to the Chinese, warning that the value of the yuan must be raised at least 10 percent to avoid that protectionist anger in Congress. (The 10 percent figure is an example of government bureaucrats inventing an arbitrary number and applying it to complex international currency markets.) Thus, government interference in the international marketplace can ultimately lead to a trade war among nations. In the 1930s, the Smoot-Hawley legislation that increased tariffs in the United States was followed by retaliation from other nations. Such protectionism deepened the worldwide depression, and that global economic crisis was a contributing factor to the causes of World War II. The United States has enough tension with a nuclear-armed China over the Taiwan issue and dual military buildups without interjecting a trade war into the mix. In fact, a healthy level of international commerce between the two countries could create a peace lobby in each nation and a greater incentive to avoid military confrontation .

Samford Debate Institute 2012 30/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

AT: Past recession disproves Despite the past recession, it could be much worse if we can’t stave off another downturnReich 7-13-10 [Robert, professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and former secretary of labor during the Clinton administration, “The root of economic fragility and political anger,” http://www.salon.com/news/great_recession/?story=/news/feature/2010/07/13/reich_economic_anger]

The crash of 2008 didn’t turn into another Great Depression because the government learned the importance of flooding the market with cash, thereby temporarily rescuing some stranded consumers and most big bankers. But the financial rescue didn’t change the economy’s underlying structure — median wages dropping while those at the top are raking in the lion’s share of income. That’s why America’s middle class still doesn’t have the purchasing power it needs to reboot the economy, and why the so-called recovery will be so tepid—maybe even leading to a double dip. It’s also why America will be vulnerable to even larger speculative booms and deeper busts in the years to come.

Continued worsening of the recession increases likelihood of war- naïve and foolish to think we can sit back and enjoy the recession:Mead ‘09 [Walter Russell, Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, New Republic, February 4, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2]

So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war : The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 31/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

AT: US not key to global economy US is key to the global economyYomiuri ‘09 [Daily, 1-3-9, Editorial (Tokyo), "Global economic revival hinges on U.S. recovery," Lexis]

The International Monetary Fund predicts that the global economy will further slow this year, with global economic growth rate in real terms to be only about 2 percent. It is the first time since the end of World War II that Japan, the United States and European countries will all register negative economic growth at the same time . China meanwhile is expected to see single-digit economic growth for the second consecutive year. Rise together, fall together The so-called decoupling theory, which posits that the economic doldrums of developed countries can be covered by the high growth of the newly emerging economies, has crumbled like cookies. The world cannot find a way out of simultaneous recessions in the absence of an economic engine. When will recovery of the global economy come? Even optimistic economists say the latter half of 2010 or later. The key factor is the recovery of the U.S. economy. In the United States, housing market conditions continue to deteriorate and the number of unemployed is sharply increasing. Consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, also remains sluggish.

Past bubble burst proves: US is key to global economyDavid Kampf, 2009 (former communications director for PEPFAR. May 7, 2009. Online. Internet. Accessed May 7, 2009 at http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=3717)

The worldwide economic turmoil underlines the importance of the United States -- for better or worse -- to the global market. As the U.S. goes, so goes the world . When the American bubble burst, the speed with which the contagion spread beyond its borders is an illustration.

Efforts to stabilize US financial markets will bolster the global economy by reassuring markets:David McCormick, 2008 (former under secretary for International Affairs in the U. S. Treasury Department, May 12, 2008, Newsweek. Online. Lexis/Nexis. Accessed, May 4, 2009).

Our friends around the world should gain confidence from the fact that U.S. policymakers and their international counterparts are taking aggressive, targeted actions to stabilize the financial markets, to reduce their impact on the economy and the individuals negatively affected by the turmoil and to protect against the same mistakes' being repeated. There are already some early indicators that these actions are beginning to have the desired effect, as markets appear to be gaining confidence and the availability of credit has improved modestly. Flexibility and resilience in the face of such unexpected financial-market turmoil and economic hardship are among America's greatest strengths. Our objective is to help individuals and markets recover as quickly as possible, while avoiding actions that cause new problems that would hurt our economy in the long run. This storm, too, shall pass, and the United States will emerge, as it always has, as a driver of growth and innovation for the global economy.

Other nations can’t pick up the slack for the US economy- global investors will freakDavid Berman, 2007 (staff writer, Financial Post, October 30, 2007. Online. Lexis/Nexis. May 4, 2009)

Samford Debate Institute 2012 32/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

If the U.S. economy slips into recession-- a very real possibility given the terrible state of the housing market there and its likely impact on consumer spending -- investors are betting that strong growth in places like China, India and Europe will pick up the slack. But this remains to be seen , since the global economy in past business cycles has relied upon the United States as its primary driver. Chinese authorities are raising interest rates in an effort to slow down an overheating economy that relies heavily on U.S. consumption. Despite strong growth in China's own consumer spending, exports remain a key element of the country's economic growth. Should that growth dip sharply from its current pace of 11%, investors could become alarmed that the global economy is not as impervious to a U.S. slowdown as they had originally believed.

Without a reformed and recovered U.S. economy, the global economy will plunge into instabilityStiglitz ‘06 [Joseph E., 2001 recipient of Nobel Prize in economic science, the New York Times, 10/3, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/opinion/03stiglitz.html]

THE International Monetary Fund meeting in Singapore last month came at a time of increasing worry about the sustainability of global financial imbalances: For how long can the global economy endure America’s enormous trade deficits — the United States borrows close to $3 billion a day — or China’s growing trade surplus of almost $500 million a day? These imbalances simply can’t go on forever. The good news is that there is a growing consensus to this effect. The bad news is that no country believes its policies are to blame. The United States points its finger at China’s undervalued currency, while the rest of the world singles out the huge American fiscal and trade deficits. To its credit, the International Monetary Fund has started to focus on this issue after 15 years of preoccupation with development and transition. Regrettably, however, the fund’s approach has been to monitor every country’s economic policies, a strategy that risks addressing symptoms without confronting the larger systemic problem. Treating the symptoms could actually make matters worse, at least in the short run. Take, for instance, the question of China’s undervalued exchange rate and the country’s resulting surplus, which the United States Treasury suggests is at the core of the problem. Even if China strengthened its yuan relative to the dollar and eliminated its $114 billion a year trade surplus with the United States, and even if that immediately translated into a reduction in the American multilateral trade deficit, the United States would still be borrowing more than $2 billion a day: an improvement, but hardly a solution. Of course, it is even more likely that there would be no significant change in America’s multilateral trade deficit at all. The United States would simply buy fewer textiles from China and more from Bangladesh, Cambodia and other developing countries. Meanwhile, because a stronger yuan would make imported American food cheaper in China, the poorest Chinese — the farmers — would see their incomes fall as domestic prices for agriculture dipped. China might choose to counter the depressing effect of America’s huge agricultural subsidies by diverting money badly needed for industrial development into subsidies for

its farmers. China’s growth might accordingly be slowed, which would slow growth globally. As it is, however, China knows well the terms of its hidden “deal” with the United States: China helps finance the American deficits by buying treasury bonds with the money it gets from its exports. If it doesn’t, the dollar will weaken further, which will lower the value of China’s dollar reserves (by the end of the year, these will exceed $1 trillion). Any country that might benefit from China’s loss of export market share would put its money into a strong currency, like the euro, rather than the unstable and weakening dollar — or it might choose to invest the money at home, rather than holding more reserves. In short, the United States would find it increasingly difficult to finance its deficits, and the world as a whole might face greater, not less, instability. Nothing significant can be done about these global imbalances unless the United States attacks its own problems. No one seriously proposes that businesses save money instead of investing in expanding production simply to correct the problem of the trade deficit; and while there may be sermons aplenty about why Americans should save more — certainly more than the negative amount households saved last year — no one in either political party has devised a fail-proof way of ensuring that they do so. The Bush tax cuts didn’t do it. Expanded incentives for saving didn’t do it. Indeed, most calculations show that these actually reduce national savings, since the cost to the government in lost revenue is greater than the increased household savings. The common wisdom is that there is but one alternative: reducing the government’s deficit. Imagine that the Bush administration suddenly got religion (at least, the religion of fiscal responsibility) and cut expenditures. Assume that raising taxes is unlikely for an administration that has been arguing for further tax cuts. The expenditure cuts by themselves would lead to a weakening of the American and global economy. The Federal Reserve might try to offset this by lowering interest rates, and this might protect the American economy — by encouraging debt-ridden American households to try to take even more money out of their home-equity loans to pay for spending. But that would make America’s future even more precarious. There is one way out of this seeming impasse: expenditure cuts combined with an increase in taxes on upper-income Americans and a reduction in taxes on lower-income Americans. The expenditure cuts would, of course, by themselves reduce spending, but because poor individuals consume a larger fraction of their income than the rich, the “switch” in taxes would, by itself, increase spending. If appropriately designed, such a combination could simultaneously sustain the American economy and reduce the deficit. Not surprisingly, these recommendations did not emerge from the International Monetary Fund meetings in Singapore. The United States retains a veto there, making it unlikely that the fund will recommend policies that aren’t to the liking of the American administration. Underlying the current imbalances are fundamental structural problems with the global reserve system. John Maynard Keynes called attention to these problems three-quarters of a century ago. His ideas on how to reform the global monetary system, including creating a

new reserve system based on a new international currency, can, with a little work, be adapted to today’s economy. Until we attack the structural problems, the world is likely to continue to be plagued by imbalances that threaten the financial stability and economic well-being of us all.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 33/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

The successes of the U.S. and global economies are inextricably linkedFleckenstein ‘08 [Bill, president of Fleckenstein Capital, MSN, 7/7, http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/GlobalEconomyWontBailOutTheUS.aspx]

Global economic and financial problems have been the subject of many newspaper articles lately, and rightly so. Take "Falling prices grip major stock markets around the world," which appeared in a recent edition of The New York Times. That synchrony to the downside shouldn't seem shocking, given how intertwined world

markets (and economies) were on the way up. But the folks here who believe in Goldilocks have tried to convince themselves that while the U.S. may suffer some sort of drive-by recession, the rest of the world will somehow be immune, helping offset the effects of our downturn. I think that's quite unlikely, as we are the consumer for the world, and the whole world is in the late stages of an economic up-cycle. Thus, it should come as no shock that the United States economy is hardly alone in experiencing a slowdown.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 34/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

***Readiness Advantage***

Samford Debate Institute 2012 35/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Impacts- War Military power is crucial to reduce the likelihood of great power conflicts:

Thayer 2007 Bradley, Professor @ Missouri State, American Empire: A Debate, pg. 42Peace, like good health, is not often noticed, but certainly is missed when absent.. In fact, pax Romana in Latin means the Roman peace, or the stability brought about by the Roman Empire. Rome's power was so overwhelming that no one could challenge it successfully for hundreds of years. The result was stability within the Roman Empire. Where Rome conquered, peace, law, order, education, a common language, and much else followed. That was true of the British Empire (pax Britannica) too. So it is with the United States today. Peace and stability are major benefits of the American Empire. The fact that America is so powerful actually reduces the likelihood of major war. Scholars of international politics have found that the presence of a dominant state in international politics actually reduces the likelihood of war because weaker states, including even great powers, know that it is unlikely that they could challenge the dominant state and win. They may resort to other mechanisms or tactics to challenge the dominant country, but are unlikely to do so directly. This means that there will be no wars between great powers. At least, not until a challenger (certainly China) thinks it can overthrow the dominant state (the United States). But there will be intense security competition-both China and the United States will watch each other closely, with their intelligence communities increasingly focused on each other, their diplomats striving to ensure that countries around the world do not align with the other, and their militaries seeing the other as their principal threat. This is not unusual in international politics but , in fact, is its "normal" condition. Americans may not pay much attention to it until a crisis occurs. But right now states are competing with one another. This is because international politics does not sleep; it never takes a rest. "

Explicit military strength is critical to maintaining peace in the world:Michael Beckley, 2010 (Department of Political Science, Columbia University) 'Economic Development and Military Effectiveness', Journal of Strategic Studies, 33:1, 43 – 79, February 2010http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a919386071&fulltext=713240928#references

Managing the geopolitical consequences of economic development has always been a fundamental task of statecraft, but the unprecedented pace and scope of growth today makes this both more difficult and more important than ever before. Many factors will determine whether such change occurs without violence, but one crucial ingredient is clarity about the distribution of military power. As historian Geoffrey Blainey concluded: 'Wars usually begin when two nations disagree on their relative strength.' Thus an explicit military pecking order promotes peace. The most important point to be made, therefore, is that the determinants of military power need to receive the same kind of sustained and rigorous study that has been given to its effects. Military power plays a pivotal role in shaping numerous aspects of international relations, yet few analysts have taken the time to develop a sound conception of this crucial variable or to understand how it is created. Since so many policy decisions and academic theories rely on assessments of military capability, it is absolutely imperative that we get those assessments right.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 36/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Impacts- Leadership Leadership solves nuclear warKhalilzad 95 (Zalmay, Washington Quarterly, Spring, LN)

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Leadership solves every imaginable conflictBrookes 2006Peter, Senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, Why they need us: Imagine a world without America, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed070406a.cfm

The picture isn't pretty. Absent U.S. leadership, diplomatic influence, military might, economic power and unprecedented generosity, life aboard planet earth would likely be pretty grim, indeed. Set aside the differences America made last century - just imagine a world where this country had vanished on Jan. 1, 2001. On security, the United States is the global balance of power. While it's not our preference, we are the world's "cop on the beat," providing critical stability in some of the planet's toughest neighborhoods. Without the U.S. "Globo-cop," rivals India and Pakistan might well find cause to unleash the dogs of war in South Asia - undoubtedly leading to history's first nuclear (weapons) exchange. Talk about Fourth of July fireworks . . . In Afghanistan, al Qaeda would still be an honored guest, scheming over a global caliphate stretching from Spain to Indonesia. It wouldn't be sending fighters to Iraq; instead, Osama's gang would be fighting them tooth and nail from Saudi Arabia to "Eurabia." In Asia, China would be the "Middle Kingdom," gobbling up democratic Taiwan and compelling pacifist Japan (reluctantly) to join the nuclear weapons club. The Koreas might fight another horrific war, resulting in millions of deaths. A resurgent Russia, meanwhile, would be breathing down the neck of its "near abroad" neighbors. Forget the democratic revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, Comrade! In Europe, they'd be taking orders from Paris or Berlin - if those rivals weren't at each other's throats again. In Africa, Liberia would still be under Charles Taylor's sway, and Sudan would have no peace agreement. And what other nation could or would provide freedom of the seas for commerce, including the shipment of oil and gas - all free of charge? Weapons of mass destruction would be everywhere. North Korea would be brandishing a solid nuclear arsenal. Libya would not have given up its weapons, and Pakistan's prodigious proliferator, A.Q. Khan, would still be going door to door, hawking his nuclear wares. Also missing would be other gifts from "Uncle Sugar" - starting with 22 percent of the U.N. budget. That includes half the operations of the World Food Program, which feeds over 100 million in 81 countries. Gone would be 17 percent of UNICEF's costs to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 157 countries - and 31 percent of the budget of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, which assists more than 19 million refugees across the globe. In 2005, Washington dispensed $28 billion in foreign aid, more than double the amount of the next highest donor (Japan), contributing nearly 26 percent of all official development assistance from the large industrialized countries. Moreover, President Bush's five-year $15 billion commitment under the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is the largest commitment by a single nation toward an

international health initiative - ever - working in over 100 (mostly African) countries. The United States is the world's economic engine. We not only have the largest economy, we spend 40 percent of the world's budget on R&D, driving mind-boggling innovation in areas like information technology, defense and medicine. We're the world's ATM, too, providing 17 percent of the International Monetary Fund's resources for nations in fiscal crisis, and funding 13 percent of World Bank programs that dole out billions in development assistance to needy countries. And what does Uncle Sam get in return? Mostly grief, especially from all the ungrateful freeloaders who benefit tremendously from the global "public goods" we so selflessly provide with our time, effort, blood and treasure. How easily - and conveniently - they forget . . . unless they need help, of course.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 37/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

AT: Military key, not civilian The civilian economy is indistinct from the military economy: benefits in overall GDP also bolster the military:

Michael Beckley, 2010 (Department of Political Science, Columbia University) 'Economic Development and Military Effectiveness', Journal of Strategic Studies, 33:1, 43 – 79, February 2010http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a919386071&fulltext=713240928#references

The essence of economic development is efficiency of production. The higher a state's level of economic development, by definition, the more efficiently its workers produce goods and services. There may be a natural tendency to view civilian and military realms as separate entities, but militaries are actually embedded within economic systems . Thus, countries that excel in producing civilian goods and services also tend to excel in producing military force.26 In particular, economic development improves a state's ability to produce high-quality military equipment and skillful military personnel.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 38/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

***Terrorism Advantage***

Samford Debate Institute 2012 39/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

IB solves terrorism Strong infrastructure deters terrorism- reduces the appeal of attacks:

James Lamond, 2010 (Policy Analyst, National Security Network). “Hurting Our Security.” Online. Accessed August 18, 2010 at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-lamond/hurting-our-security_b_665333.html

At another level, this fear mongering and overreaction serves to diminish America's resilience, an important component of America's counterterrorism strategy. The National Security Strategy says that resilience is, "the ability to adapt to changing conditions and prepare for, withstand, and rapidly recover from disruption." There are many facets of this approach, from a resilient infrastructure to a resilience economy . However an important part is also a resilient society that does not abandon its core values as soon as they're challenged. Yet a decade after 9/11 Gingrich is ready to give up on America's strength and resiliency. In addition, Stephen Flynn, president of the Center for National Policy, who has been the leader for years on promoting resilience, says that there is also a deterrent value to resilience saying that, "if an adversary believes that Americans are well-prepared to prevent, withstand, and rapidly recover from acts of terrorism , the appeal of engaging in such acts would be diminished. " Basically, by his hysteria, Gingrich is feeding into al Qaeda's goal of promoting a hysterical reaction.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 40/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Impacts- Nuclear war High magnitude of terrorism impacts outweigh- try or die to prevent extinctionAllison ’07 [Graham Allison, Director – Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Professor of Government, and Faculty Chair of the Dubai Initiative – Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, “Symposium: Apocalypse When?”, The National Interest, November / December 2007, Lexis]

MUELLER IS entitled to his opinion that the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is “exaggerated” and “overwrought.” But analysts of various political persuasions, in and out of government, are virtually unanimous in their judgment to the contrary. As the national-security community learned during the Cold War, risk = likelihood x consequences. Thus, even when the likelihood of nuclear Armageddon was small, the consequences were so catastrophic that prudent policymakers felt a categorical imperative to do everything that feasibly could be done to prevent that war. Today, a single nuclear bomb exploding in just one city would change our world. Given such consequences, differences between a 1 percent and a 20 percent likelihood of such an attack are relatively insignificant when considering how we should respond to the threat. Richard Garwin, a designer of the hydrogen bomb who Enrico Fermi once called “the only true genius I had ever met”, told Congress in March that he estimated a “20 percent per year probability [of a nuclear explosion—not just a contaminated, dirty bomb—a nuclear explosion] with American cities and European cities included.” My Harvard colleague Matthew Bunn has created a model in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science that estimates the probability of a nuclear terrorist attack over a ten-year period to be 29 percent—identical to the average estimate from a poll of security experts commissioned by Senator Richard Lugar in 2005. My book, Nuclear Terrorism, states my own best judgment that, on the current trend line, the chances of a nuclear terrorist attack in the next decade are greater than 50 percent. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has expressed his own view that my work may even underestimate the risk. Warren Buffet, the world’s most successful investor and legendary odds-maker in pricing insurance policies for unlikely but catastrophic events, concluded that nuclear terrorism is “inevitable.” He stated, “I don’t see any way that it won’t happen.” To assess the threat one must answer five core questions: who, what, where, when and how? Who could be planning a nuclear terrorist attack? Al-Qaeda remains the leading candidate. According to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Al-Qaeda has been substantially reconstituted—but with its leadership having moved from a medieval Afghanistan to Pakistan—a nation that actually has nuclear weapons. As former CIA Director George J. Tenet’s memoir reports, Al-Qaeda’s leadership has remained “singularly focused on acquiring WMDs” and that “the main threat is the nuclear one.” Tenet concluded, “I am convinced that this is where [Osama bin

Laden] and his operatives want to go.” What nuclear weapons could terrorists use? A ready-made weapon from the arsenal of one of the nuclear-weapons states or an elementary nuclear bomb constructed from highly enriched uranium made by a state remain most likely. As John Foster, a leading U.S. bomb-maker and former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, wrote a quarter of a century ago, “If the essential nuclear materials are at hand, it is possible to make an atomic bomb using information that is available in the open literature.” Where could terrorists acquire a nuclear bomb? If a nuclear attack occurs, Russia will be the most likely source of the weapon or material. A close second, however, is North Korea, which now has ten bombs worth of plutonium, or Pakistan with sixty nuclear bombs. Finally, research reactors in forty developing and transitional countries still hold the essential ingredient for nuclear weapons. When could terrorists launch the first nuclear attack? If terrorists bought or stole a nuclear weapon in good working condition, they could explode it today. If terrorists acquired one hundred pounds of highly enriched uranium, they could make a working elementary nuclear bomb in less than a year. How could terrorists

deliver a nuclear weapon to its target? In the same way that illegal items come to our cities every day. As one of my former colleagues has quipped, if you have any doubt about the ability of terrorists to deliver a weapon to an American target, remember: They could hide it in a bale of marijuana.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 41/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Impacts- Retaliation US will retaliate to a terror attack– risks nuclear conflict

Speice 2006 Patrick F., Jr. "Negligence and nuclear nonproliferation: eliminating the current liability barrier to bilateral U.S.-Russian nonproliferation assistance programs." William and Mary Law Review 47.4 (Feb 2006): 1427(59). Expanded Academic ASAP.

The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. (50) In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. (51) This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States or its allies by hostile states, (52) as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. (53)

Extinction resultsCorsi 2005 Jerome Corsi, Expert in Antiwar Movements and Political Violence, PhD in History from Harvard, Atomic Iran, 2005, p. 176-8

The United States retaliates: 'End of the world' scenarios The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble. Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemy–Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world – more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations – would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypse would be upon us . Then, too, we would face an immediate threat from our long-term enemy, the former Soviet Union. Many in the Kremlin would see this as an opportunity to grasp the victory that had been snatched from them by Ronald Reagan when the Berlin Wall came down. A missile strike by the Russians on a score of American cities could possibly be pre-emptive. Would the U.S. strategic defense system be so in shock that immediate retaliation would not be possible? Hardliners in Moscow might argue that there was never a better opportunity to destroy America. In China, our newer Communist enemies might not care if we could retaliate. With a population already over 1.3 billion people and with their population not concentrated in a few major cities, the Chinese might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the United States. What if the United States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be able to absorb the blow and recover. The North Koreans might calculate even more recklessly. Why not launch upon America the few missiles they have that could reach our soil? More confusion and chaos might only advance their position. If Russia, China, and the United States could be drawn into attacking one another, North Korea might emerge stronger just because it was overlooked while the great nations focus on attacking one another. So, too, our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in power suddenly inflicted upon America.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 42/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Terrorism sparks U.S. retaliation globallyMorgan 2001 Nicole Schwartz-Morgan, Assistant Professor of Politics and Economics at Royal Military College of Canada, 10-10-2001, “Wild Globalization and Terrorism,” http://www.wfs.org/mmmorgan.htm

The terrorist act can reactivate atavistic defense mechanisms which drive us to gather around clan chieftans. Nationalistic sentiment re-awakens, setting up an implacable frontier which divides "us" from "them," each group solidifying its cohesion in a rising hate/fear of the other group. (Remember Yugoslavia?) To be sure, the allies are trying for the moment to avoid the language of polarization, insisting that "this is not a war," that it is "not against Islam," "civilians will not be targeted." But the word "war" was pronounced, a word heavy with significance which forces the issue of partisanship. And it must be understood that the sentiment of partisanship, of belonging to the group, is one of the strongest of human emotions. Because the enemy has been named in the media (Islam), the situation has become emotionally volatile. Another spectacular attack, coming on top of an economic recession could easily radicalize the latent attitudes of the United States, and also of Europe, where racial prejudices are especially close to the surface and ask no more than a pretext to burst out . This is the Sarajevo syndrome: an isolated act of madness becomes the pretext for a war that is just as mad, made of ancestral rancor, measureless ambitions, and armies in search of a war. We should not be fooled by our expressions of good will and charity toward the innocent victims of this or other distant wars. It is our own comfortable circumstances which permit us these benevolent sentiments. If conditions change so that poverty and famine put the fear of starvation in our guts, the human beast will reappear. And if epidemic becomes a clear and present danger, fear will unleash hatred in the land of the free, flinging missiles indiscriminately toward any supposed havens of the unseen enemy. And on the other side, no matter how profoundly complex and differentiated Islamic nations and tribes may be, they will be forced to behave as one clan by those who see advantage in radicalizing the conflict, whether they be themselves merchants or terrorists.

(--) Al Qaeda attacks can encourage the US to retaliate into overreacting:STEPHEN E. FLYN, 2008 (Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the council on Foreign Relations). "America the resilient: defying terrorism and mitigating natural disasters." Foreign Affairs 87.2 (2008): 2+. Academic OneFile. Web. 15 Aug. 2010.

The rallying point should be a call for greater resilience. Building the resilience of American society would increase the nation's security by depriving al Qaeda and other terrorists of the fear dividend they hope to reap by threatening to carrying out catastrophic attacks. In military terms, the United States is too large, and al Qaeda's capacity to attack the U.S. homeland too limited, for terrorists like them to inflict nationwide destruction. All they can hope for is to spawn enough fear to spur Washington into overreacting in costly and self-destructive ways.

(--) Historically, the US public over-reacts to terrorist threats—feeding the likelihood of retaliation:

Matthew Harwood, 2010 (staff writer). January 15, 2010. “Crumbling Infrastructure a National Security Concern, Experts Say.”http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/crumbling-infrastructure-a-national-security-concern-experts-say-006649

Fallows similarly argued that the only way to gain the American public’s attention is to evoke national security and emergency.“We have tremendous rebound capacity, but in terms of directing public attention, we seem to have only the military as a legitimate vehicle,” he said, adding “We seem to need an electric cattle prod of an emergency to do things and that’s a cause for worry.” But that’s a tricky proposition, both Flynn and Fallows observed, noting the hysteria following the botched terrorist attack on Christmas Day. Politicians and government can’t overreact, Flynn explains, because that’s what the terrorists hope to achieve. “If we say that the unofficial doctrine of this country is we will overreact every time something goes wrong, you’re actually motivating our adversaries to say ‘Let’s keep trying,’” he said.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 43/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

(--) Fear will cause the US to overreact to another terrorist attack:STEPHEN E. FLYN, 2008 (Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the council on Foreign Relations). "America the resilient: defying terrorism and mitigating natural disasters." Foreign Affairs 87.2 (2008): 2+. Academic OneFile. Web. 15 Aug. 2010.

Fear arises both from being aware of a threat and from feeling powerless to deal with it. And although it is impossible to eliminate every threat that causes such fear, Americans do have the power to manage their fear and their reactions to it. For more then six years, however, Washington has been sounding the alarm about apocalyptic terrorist groups while providing the American people with no meaningful guidance on how to deal with the threats they pose or the consequences of a successful attack. This toxic mix of fear and helplessness jeopardizes U.S. security by increasing the risk that the U.S. government will overreact to another terrorist attack.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 44/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

AT: Mueller Mueller is wrong: a consensus of international relations scholars across the political spectrum think terrorism is worth responding to:

Graham Allison, 2007 (director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs). November 12, 2007, “The Three ‘Nos’ Knows.” Accessed August 21, 2010 at http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-three-nos-knows-1843"RADIOACTIVE HYPE" by John Mueller sharpens the barbs from his recent book, Overblown, in ways that demonstrate that he is, above all, a committed contrarian. One can agree with many points in his article and book. But his central propositions about the danger and appropriate responses to terrorism, nuclear terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons are profoundly mistaken. Specifically, "Radioactive Hype" argues that: -"Threat-mongers"-for which the 9/11 Commission, my book Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe and presidential candidates of both parties are the poster children-have greatly exaggerated the threat of terrorists exploding a nuclear weapon in one of our cities. -An "obsessive quest to control nuclear proliferation-particularly since the end of the Cold War-has been substantially counterproductive." -This "nuclear obsession" drove the United States into "the current disastrous Iraq War" and now threatens war with Iran. Given the space allotted, my response to each proposition must be abridged but will reference my earlier work on this topic and other analyses from the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, where these issues are addressed in greater depth.1 How Serious is the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism? MUELLER IS entitled to his opinion that the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is "exaggerated" and "overwrought." But analysts of various political persuasions , in and out of government, are virtually unanimous in their judgment to the contrary . As the national-security community learned during the Cold War, risk = likelihood x consequences. Thus, even when the likelihood of nuclear Armageddon was small, the consequences were so catastrophic that prudent policymakers felt a categorical imperative to do everything that feasibly could be done to prevent that war. Today, a single nuclear bomb exploding in just one city would change our world. Given such consequences, differences between a 1 percent and a 20 percent likelihood of such an attack are relatively insignificant when considering how we should respond to the threat.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 45/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

***Add-Ons***

Samford Debate Institute 2012 46/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Protectionism Add-On Infrastructure creates vast opportunities for jobs in the US:

Jonathan D. Miller, 2010 (URBAN LAND INSTITUTE). Online. Accessed August 18, 2010 at Infrastructure 2010: Investment Imperative (http://www.uli.org/sitecore/~/media/Documents/ResearchAndPublications/Reports/Infrastructure/IR2010.ashx)

Imperative has a simple thesis: We must start treating infrastructure like an investment. Too often we treat it as anything but, funneling spending through siloed formulas and sidestepping critical questions about the country’s longer-term infrastructure strategy and vision. The nation’s vast infrastructure needs offer an opportunity to create much-needed jobs while making the lasting, integrated infrastructure investments that will lay the foundation for future prosperity.

High unemployment risks protectionismIMF Survey Online, 2010 Online. April 16, 2010. “ Trade Protectionism Could Slow Global Recovery,

says IMF.”Accessed August 18, 2010 at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2010/new041610a.htm

Restrictions on trade imposed by countries trying to protect their economies facing tough times could make it harder for them to recover from the global economic crisis, according to new findings by the IMF staff. While most countries have resisted a widespread effort to protect trade, an IMF staff paper said that trade has dropped on average up to 8 percent in products and services where new restrictions were imposed. If protectionist trade measures were allowed to balloon, it could harm global trade and stifle the global economic recovery, according to the research. The paper, “Trade and the Crisis: Protect or Recover,” released on April 16, argues that so far, the impact on global trade has been modest, at about 0.25 percent. The troubling news is what this means for countries as they struggle to emerge from the biggest recession in since the Second World War. Protectionism pressures may rise, given continued high unemployment , different growth rates across countries, and governments scaling back their spending, according to the paper.

Protectionism causes nuclear warCopley News Service, 12/1/99 (Lexis)For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations . In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 47/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

EMP Add-On Rebuilding our infrastructure is key to rebuilding the energy grid:

Michael Payne, 2010 (staff writer), March 6, 2010. “The wealthiest nation in the world? Wrong!”http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-wealthiest-nation-in-t-by-michael-payne-100305-837.html

Okay, but even though America is in a critical financial condition, there is a way to address and solve our dilemma . To do so we will need to rebuild our entire national infrastructure ; that must include our highways, bridges, waterways, the electrical grid , and rail systems. And, in addition, we need to develop a new 21st century manufacturing base to include a myriad of new alternate sources of energy. Our old manufacturing base has been disseminated, those millions of lost jobs are now in China and other nations and they are not going to return. We have no choice but to rebuild this major element of our economy because a consumer driven economy cannot be sustained when millions of unemployed workers don't have the disposable income with which to buy goods and services. So, in addition to rebuilding our infrastructure we must create a new and vibrant manufacturing sector.

An EMP attack risks extinction: rebuilding grid infrastructure is key to stopping the attack:

Ronald Kessler, 2009 (chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com). “EMP Attack Could Wipe Out U.S.” September 9, 2009. Accessed August 22, 2010 at http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/emp-attack/2009/09/09/id/334894

The federal government is doing “nothing” to protect against an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack that could wipe out American civilization, Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, a leading expert on the subject, tells Newsmax. For only $200 million to $400

million, the government could protect a key element of the power grid to keep electrical power from being wiped out for years, according to Dr. Pry, a former staff member of the congressional Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack. Yet neither Republicans nor Democrats have been willing to spend that small sum, says Pry, who is president EMPACT America, which is meeting in Niagara Falls, N.Y. this week to spotlight the scandal. A single nuclear bomb exploded over the Midwest would generate an electromagnetic pulse that would destroy the chips that are at the heart of every electronic device. While military and intelligence networks may be shielded against EMP, most of the rest of the country’s technological infrastructure is not. An EMP attack would wipe out personal computers and the internet. Cars would not start, gasoline pumps would not work, and airplanes could not take off. Heat and air conditioning would shut down, supermarkets would have to close, telephones would go dead, water would go out, and radio and television sets would not turn on. Banks and ATMs would shut down, credit cards would become useless, and emergency services and hospital operating rooms would close. In the ensuing chaos, most Americans would die from starvation. “We have a 60-day food supply in big regional warehouses,” Pry says. “Typically when hurricanes take out the electric power grid locally, that food spoils, because it needs temperature control systems and refrigerators to keep it preserved. And if you lose the electric grid across the whole country, you’re going to lose all that food that is the best hope for feeding the American people.” The 2008 report of the congressional commission found that the country is shockingly unprepared for an EMP attack. Terrorists or countries like Iran or North Korea could launch an EMP attack and “possibly end us as a civilization, and take us out as an actor on the world stage,” Pry says. At the least, Pry says, 100 to 200 large transformers used in electrical transmission should be protected against EMP attack. “The key for our electric power grid are these big transformers,” Pry says. “All together, there are about 300 of them. They are absolutely indispensable to the operation of the power grid. If you fry those things, there are only a couple of countries in the world that sell them for export, and it takes a year, at least, to make one of them,” Pry says. Equally important are small computers that regulate the power grid. “This country can’t survive for six months without electricity, let alone a year,” Pry says. “Everything else would go down after losing electric power.” To harden those transformers against an attack would cost a mere $200 million to $400 million, Pry says. For perhaps $20 billion, the entire power grid could be protected, Pry says. By comparison, the stimulus bill costs nearly $800 billion. Yet without electricity, no one would have a job. Pry notes that the Iranians have written extensively about the possibility of wiping out America with an EMP attack. North Korea would also likely be in a position to do that, he says. To be most effective, an EMP device would be detonated by a missile 200 miles above earth. A strong missile defense would knock missiles out of the sky before they reach the U.S. But going back to President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative — dubbed Star Wars — Democrats have consistently ridiculed the idea of an anti-missile defense. President Obama’s administration already has cut the Pentagon’s missile defense budget by $1.4 billion, or 15 percent. However, Pry says a missile with a nuclear device launched from a ship would be just as effective at taking out the U.S., and no missile defense would work quickly enough to defend against it. Moreover, he notes, a great geomagnetic storm could unleash destruction almost as devastating as an EMP attack. Therefore, Pry says, the only sure defense is the hardening of targets. Pry says the Department of Homeland Security has plans for 15 kinds of disasters, but none of the scenarios deals with an EMP attack. Nor, he says, are there any plans to harden the power grid. “The Department of Defense has contingency plans, and they put a lot of effort into planning to come to the rescue in places like Africa and Indonesia in the event that there are natural catastrophes,” Pry says. “But they don’t plan for such contingencies for the American people.” Like the government, the press has been asleep on the threat, Pry says. Liberals perceive efforts to prevent an EMP attack as a way to push for funds for anti-missile defense, which the left abhors. “If they’d trouble themselves to read the EMP commission report, they would find the EMP

Samford Debate Institute 2012 48/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

commission is not saying strengthen missile defense is the answer,” Pry says. “While missile defense can be useful against EMP, it’s not the first solution, or the best solution.” Instead, Pry says, “The best solution is smart planning to protect and recover the critical infrastructures , especially the electric power grid .”

Samford Debate Institute 2012 49/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Development Add-On Rebuilding US infrastructure creates an effective environmental model for the world:

Matthew Harwood, 2010 (staff writer). January 15, 2010. “Crumbling Infrastructure a National Security Concern, Experts Say.”http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/crumbling-infrastructure-a-national-security-concern-experts-say-006649

Flynn also argued that proponents of building new critical infrastructure have to emphasize that it’s an investment into the U.S.’s future and not a cost, while focusing in on its immediate and long-term benefits. Infrastructure spending would generate jobs, boost U.S. productivity and competitiveness, and improve the average citizen’s quality of life. “There’s really no down-side to making the investment,” he said. And in the long term, the United States would be able to export its knowledge creating a hybrid infrastructure that’s efficient and environmentally sustainable to the rest of the world.

Sustainable development models are critical to planetary survival:World Commission on Environment and Development, 2009 (Our Common Future, From One Earth to One World, http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-ov.htm)6. But the same processes that have produced these gains have given rise to trends that the planet and its people cannot long bear . These have traditionally been divided into failures of 'development' and failures in the management of our human environment. On the development side, in terms of absolute numbers there are more hungry people in the world than ever before, and their numbers are increasing. So are the numbers who cannot read or write, the numbers without safe water or safe and sound homes, and the numbers short of woodfuel with which to cook and warm themselves. The gap between rich and poor nations is widening - not shrinking - and there is little prospect, given present trends and institutional arrangements, that this process will be reversed. 7. There are also environmental trends that threaten to radically alter the planet, that threaten the lives of many species upon it. including the human species . Each year another 6 million hectares of productive dryland turns into worthless desert. Over three decades, this would amount to an area roughly as large as Saudi Arabia. More than 11 million hectares of forests are destroyed yearly, and this, over three decades, would equal an area about the size of India. Much of this forest is converted to low-grade farmland unable to support the farmers who settle it. In Europe, acid precipitation kills forests and lakes and damages the artistic and architectural heritage of nations; it may have acidified vast tracts of soil beyond reasonable hope of repair. The burning of fossil fuels puts into the atmosphere carbon dioxide, which is causing gradual global warming. This 'greenhouse effect' may by early next century have increased average global temperatures enough to shift agricultural production areas, raise sea levels to flood coastal cities, and disrupt national economies . Other industrial gases threaten to deplete the planet's protective ozone shield to such an extent that the number of human and animal cancers would rise sharply and the oceans' food chain would be disrupted, industry and agriculture put toxic substances into the human food chain and into underground water tables beyond reach of cleansing. 8. There has been a growing realization in national governments and multilateral institutions that it is impossible to separate economic development issues from environment issues; many forms of development erode the environmental resources upon which they must be based , and environmental degradation can undermine economic development. Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality. 9. These concerns were behind the establishment in 1983 of the World Commission on Environment and Development by the UN General Assembly. The Commission is an independent body, linked to but outside the control of governments and the UN system. The Commission's mandate gave it three objectives: to re-examine the critical environment and development issues and to formulate realistic proposals for dealing with them; to propose new forms of international cooperation on these issues that will influence policies and events in the direction of needed changes; and to raise the levels of understanding and commitment to action of individuals, voluntary organizations, businesses, institutes, and governments. 10. Through our deliberations and the testimony of people at the public hearings we held on five continents, all the commissioners came to focus on one central theme: many present development trends leave increasing numbers of people poor and vulnerable, while at the same time degrading the environment. How can such development serve next century's world of twice as many people relying on the same environment? This realization broadened our view of development. We came to see it not in its restricted context of economic growth in developing countries. We came to see that a new development path was required , one that sustained human progress not just in a few pieces for a few years, but for the entire planet into the distant future. Thus 'sustainable development' becomes a goal not just for the 'developing' nations, but for industrial ones as well.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 50/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

Samford Debate Institute 2012 51/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

***2AC Blocks***

Samford Debate Institute 2012 52/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

2AC Elections DA Voters overwhelmingly support the plan- opinion polls proveRockefeller Foundation ’11 [“Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey Reveals Bipartisan Support for Transportation and Infrastructure Investments and Reform,” Feb. 14, http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/press-releases/rockefeller-foundation-infrastructure]

An exclusive Rockefeller Foundation survey released today reveals overwhelming bipartisan support for federal investment in transportation and infrastructure projects. The survey showed that 71% of voters think leaders in Washington should seek common ground on legislation related to roads, bridges and transit systems, including 66% of Tea Party supporters and 71% of Republicans. Two out of three voters say that improving the country’s transportation infrastructure is highly important. Nearly half of all voters said that roads are often or totally inadequate and that only some public transportation options exist. Eighty percent of voters agree that federal funding to improve and modernize transportation will boost local economies and create millions of jobs, and view it as critical to keeping the United States as the world’s top economic superpower.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 53/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

1AR Elections- Plan popular Voters support the planRockefeller Foundation ’11 [“Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey Reveals Bipartisan Support for Transportation and Infrastructure Investments and Reform,” Feb. 14, http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/press-releases/rockefeller-foundation-infrastructure]

American voters are open to several funding streams for national transportation projects: With overwhelming support for transportation and infrastructure improvements, Americans are open to several funding streams. Seventy-eight percent encourage more private investment and 72% of voters support imposing penalties on projects that go over budget or exceed their deadline. Sixty percent of voters support establishing a National Infrastructure Bank, 59% support issuing new transportation bonds and 58% support eliminating subsidies for American oil companies that drill in other countries. Only 27 percent support increasing the gas tax, although almost half of all respondents believe it increases annually (it has not increased since 1993).

Public likes the planHolahan and Kroncke 6-13-12 [Charles O. Kroncke, left, is associate dean in the University of South Florida College of Business. William L. Holahan is a professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, “On U.S. infrastructure, spend now, gain later,” http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/on-us-infrastructure-spend-now-gain-later/1234943]

Carefully chosen infrastructure spending is an investment that pays for itself in greater economic growth; in fact, failure to make these investments can retard growth. Infrastructure investment spending is more likely to be accepted by struggling taxpayers than increased consumption spending on safety net programs such as food stamps or extended unemployment insurance, however dire the need for such programs may be.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 54/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

2AC Spending DA Inaction on infrastructure is more expensive- plan solves wasteful spendingMcConaghy and Kessler ’11 [Ryan McConaghy is Deputy Director of the Third Way Economic Program, an economic think-tank, and Jim Kessler is the Vice President for Policy at Third Way, “A National Infrastructure Bank,” January, http://www.bernardlschwartz.com/political-initiatives/Third_Way_Idea_Brief_-_A_National_Infrastructure_Bank-1.pdf]

Financing the infrastructure upgrades needed to support America’s economy and meet its new challenges won’t be cheap, but there are billions in efficiencies that can be wrung out of the system with real structural changes, and the economic costs of inaction will be higher. By leveraging private resources, the NIB will ensure that future spending on infrastructure will get the utmost bang for the taxpayer buck. It will also cut down on waste by supporting only projects that serve demonstrated regional or national needs and satisfy goal-based criteria.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 55/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

2AC States CP States can’t properly fund infrastructure- federal assistance is keySchwartz ’08 [Bernard, CEO of BLS Investments, LLC, “Redressing America's Public Infrastructure Deficit,” June 19, http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/redressing_america_s_public_infrastructure_deficit]

State and local governments account for the lion's share of our nation's public infrastructure spending. For many years, the U.S. municipal bond markets have functioned well, allowing state and local governments to finance much of their infrastructure needs through the debt markets. But as noted earlier, state and local governments are experiencing new borrowing constraints as some states and localities bump up against debt ceilings or face increased borrowing costs because of deteriorating credit ratings and conditions. Moreover, our current financing structures do not allow states and localities to take advantage of the large institutional pools of capital, such as U.S. and European pension funds, that are available for infrastructure financing. For these reasons, the federal government will need to do more in the future to bear the cost of infrastructure investment and to assist state and local governments with the financing of their infrastructure needs. It can do so by offering federal guarantees to help keep borrowing costs for state and local governments low and by creating new institutions to help state and local governments borrow more efficiently and to tap large pools of capital. In these respects, the proposed National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) and

the proposed National Infrastructure Corporation (NIDC) move us in the right direction and would help modernize the way we finance infrastructure.

Samford Debate Institute 2012 56/56Infrastructure Bank Aff

1AR- States fail State budget shortfalls prevent infrastructure investmentSchwartz ’08 [Bernard, CEO of BLS Investments, LLC, “Redressing America's Public Infrastructure Deficit,” June 19, http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/redressing_america_s_public_infrastructure_deficit]

At the state and local level, the great majority of infrastructure is funded through the municipal bond market as well as through state and local budgets. But over the past decade or two, increased federal mandates for social spending, balanced-budget requirements, debt limitations, and increased competition among states to keep taxes low have restrained state and local borrowing as well as spending. The current economic slowdown and turmoil in the housing and credit markets threaten to further constrain state and local infrastructure spending. Because states and municipalities rely heavily on property and sales taxes, the housing correction and consumer slowdown are creating a budgetary crisis for many state and local governments. As of January of this year, 24 states were either facing a shortfall for FY 2009 or were expecting budgetary problems in the next year or two. The expected shortfalls are likely to accelerate as home foreclosures increase, property values decline, and consumer spending falls. New capital projects will be one of the first victims of this budgetary crisis .