Download the original attachment
1NC Increase Not Create

A. Interpretation—Increase implies a previous existence
CJS, 44 (Corpus Juris Secundum, P. 545)

Increase:In general: a word in common use and variously used and therefore of doubtful and equivocal import. It is derived from “cresco”, to grow and implies the existence of something made. the subject of the increase, etc.

B. Violation- The affirmative creates a new program or form of social services

C. Impacts

Predictability—An increase in preexisting social services is critical to provide a predictable number of cases for the neg to research—A lot of authors think crazy things are social services, limiting the topic to preexisting government services is critical to provide a predictable list of affs the neg has to research

Limits—There are hundreds of ways to provide social services—Allowing the neg to create new types of social services explodes the neg research burden and makes it impossible for the neg to be prepared

Ground—Liming the affs to an increase in preexisting services is crucial to a stable neg lit base—allowing new types of services gives the affirmative an unfair advantage because authors have a natural incentive to talk about the advantages of their advocacy—debating about preexisting services allows us to research both sides of the debate surrounding a government policy

Economy Frontline
1. There is recovery now despite job losses – increased liquidity and stimulus
The Economist, 7/9/2009 ( world/unitedstates/ displaystory.cfm?story_id= 14002741)
At one level, the hand-wringing is overdone. The economy is doing a bit better than June’s employment report suggests. Jim O’Sullivan of UBS argues that the early date on which the job-market survey was done, combined with fewer than usual summer jobs for students, exaggerated the weakness. He notes that stockmarkets, home sales and consumer confidence are all showing the gradual improvement typical of turning-points. The deep freeze in the financial markets is thawing: issuance of stocks and corporate bonds hit $338 billion in the second quarter, according to Thomson Reuters, the highest for a year. The odds are that the economy will begin to grow again in the current quarter for two reasons: the dramatic inventory liquidation, which led manufacturers to slash output and payrolls starting in late 2008, seems to be ending; and the impact of the fiscal stimulus is growing. Other countries, who bore much of the brunt of the inventory liquidation because they provide such a large share of what Americans consume, are already benefiting. Global manufacturing expanded in June for the first time since May 2008, according to a global purchasing-managers index compiled by JPMorgan (see chart).
2. Deficit Spending
Government job creation requires massive deficit spending
Lingle, 08
Research Scholar at the Centre for Civil Society in New Delhi and Visiting Professor of Economics at Universidad Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala (“The Expensive Fallacy of Government Job Creation”, Christopher Lingle, Jakarta Post, December 16th, news/2008/12/16/the-expensive- fallacy-government-job- quotcreationquot.html)
Despite having a stake driven through its heart after being identified as the primary cause of the Stagflation of the 1970s, a failed economic policy has arisen from the dead. Yet the consensus evident at the recent G-20 Meeting is that governments can create jobs and end recessions simply by spending more money. The myth that higher public spending is good economic policy is so resilient that its supporters are unperturbed by all the evidence that contradicts it. Consider that Japan 's policy makers began throwing massive amounts of money at the local economy in the late 1980s to re-ignite it. This constant flow of deficits brought only a growing mountain of public-sector debt with the economy regaining its long-term growth trajectory. Nor did it deter Japan from officially ushering in yet another recession. More recently, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 gave so-called tax rebates worth US$100 billion to U.S. households in May, June, and July. But the rise in spending was very small since most went into savings, including paying down debt. Despite this recent failure, President-Elect Barack Obama promises he will direct government spending to create jobs. But numerous studies show that one-time tax rebates cannot bring higher economic activity. This is because temporary increases in disposable income do not create incentives to increase consumption over time. The only certain thing is that stimulus packages based on increased public-sector deficits will add to the national debt. Belief in the efficacy of deficit spending is based on a naive notion that consumption is the important driver of economic growth. It is as though consumer goods and services are merely gifts of nature. Such nonsense has been appropriated by profligate politicians and bureaucrats to promote inappropriate overreach of public-sector spending. But reality demands that the path for sustainable economic growth is for there to be more saving so that there can be more capital goods. As it is, capital goods are the basis of higher output and increased wages by boosting productivity. And the provision of capital goods requires that consumption be deferred. It seems that saving is not only a natural instinct, but it is also promoted by many fables, Biblical and otherwise, that show the merits of thrift. In recent years, central bankers removed the incentives to save by driving interest rates to unsustainable and artificially-low levels while inducing more consumption. This leads to a "paradox of spending" whereby consumers, deterred from saving by low deposit rates, are lured into low-interest borrowing to boost their current living standards. This distortion in credit markets induces individuals to make decision that lead to greater misery in the future for themselves and for others. Indeed, increased spending may cause incomes to fall by a greater amount since the attempt to buy more today backfires in that there are fewer jobs and less to consume later. Buying more now can leave everyone worse off in the future in the same way that a community suffers from eating its seed-corn. Therefore, policies that aim to raise consumption now lead to less capital being available for future production so there will be less future consumption. An enduring fable has it that governments can "create" jobs either through public-spending to employ people in the public-sector or to increase overall demand. During his campaign, Barack Obama promised to use $150 billion to promote windmills, solar panels and 'energy efficiency' that would supposedly create 5 million "green" jobs. In the first instance, government spending to "create" jobs costs more than jobs created in the private sector since public-sector recruitment involves massive bureaucracies. And since adding workers to the public payroll creates a new burden on taxpayers that have less to spend or invest, this means that there can be no net gain to the economy. In all events, government-funding to "create" Green jobs may be the worst of both worlds. Much of the support for Green projects is that they create more jobs because they involve more labor-intensive production. For example, supporters of initiatives for alternative fuels insist that they would boost employment than would the building of conventional power stations. But conventional power stations operate with enormous economies of scale that bring lower unit costs so that more jobs can be created throughout the economy. Job creation based on real economic merit does not require government involvement. But providing subsidies to support inefficient technology raises the labor-to-capital ratio so that the demand for labor will be lower and real wages would fall. It would be bad enough that deficit spending on job creation was simply ineffective. What is worse is that government spending schemes that expand public-sector debt imposes several burdens on future generations. Most obvious is their additional tax burden they must pay for debts incurred in the present. By spending beyond their means to conjure up jobs, governments undermine or eliminate employment that would have been created in the private sector in the future. If increasing the share of GDP claimed by government leads to lower long-term economic growth, "creating" jobs today will mean fewer jobs in the future.
More deficit spending ensures economic collapse
Ing 7-16
President and Executive Chief Officer of Maison Placements Canada (09, “Gold: The Audacity of Hyperinflation”, John Ing, article-13928.htm)
Hyperinflation Redux Today, pundits defend Obamanomics by noting the lack of inflation. Wrong. Along the way, inflation is soon to return. We do not have price inflation, we have monetary inflation. Inflation in goods and services will come later. We believe inflation is now inevitable, stoked by the Fed-led expansion of the money supply. Eventually this inflation will spiral to hyperinflation. Obama's profligate monetary and fiscal policies threatens America's financial stability, sowing the seeds for the next crisis. Government borrowings are at a record pace and it is unlikely to be met by demand. Either the Treasury will have to raise rates to attract funding or the Fed will have to expand their purchases. Eventually sooner rather than later, a Fed auction will fail and then the illusive inflation cycle will begin. The rescue of the financial system and deleveraging exercise has been accomplished by the printing of money. US monetary base, consisting of bills and coins in circulation plus bank deposits grew at a whopping 114 percent over the past year. In the past 48 years, money supply growth averaged 6 percent. Nowhere in history has there been an orderly or even an exit without some dislocation. To date, foreign central banks have claims of nearly $10 trillion foreign exchange reserves of which most are in US dollar assets. Most investors today are now familiar about the lessons of the Great Depression, but few are so sanguine about the lessons of the Twenties and Weimar Republic's hyperinflation. We believe this excess liquidity will eventually swamp the economy with an inflationary surge. Furthermore the US government's torrent of borrowings has crowded out private investment borrowings on a never seen scale. Massive government borrowings and state guarantees have dominated the capital markets, ironically creating another re-financing problem since a scarcity of capital has increased the cost of borrowings. US Treasuries reached four percent in June doubling in less than six months. We believe the uptick in rates reflect concern about the future of inflation, future fiscal deficits and the future risk appetite of foreign investors

3. No internal link – US economic slowdown will not cause a global collapse
Business Wire, 2006
("Merrill Lynch: U.S. Downturn Won't Derail World Economy," September 18, Lexis)

A sharp slowdown in the U.S. economy in 2007 is unlikely to drag the rest of the global economy down with it, according to a research report by Merrill Lynch's (NYSE: MER) global economic team. The good news is that there are strong sources of growth outside the U.S. that should prove resilient to a consumer-led U.S. slowdown. Merrill Lynch economists expect U.S. GDP growth to slow to 1.9% in 2007 from 3.4% in 2006, but non-U.S. growth to decline by only half a percent (5.2% versus 5.7%). Behind this decoupling is higher non-U.S. domestic demand, a rise in intra-regional trade and supportive macroeconomic policies in many of the world's economies. Although some countries appear very vulnerable to a U.S. slowdown, one in five is actually on course for faster GDP growth in 2007. Asia, Japan and India appear well-placed to decouple from the U.S., though Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore are more likely to be impacted. European countries could feel the pinch, but rising domestic demand in the core countries should help the region weather the storm much better than in previous U.S. downturns. In the Americas, Canada will probably be hit, but Brazil is set to decouple.

4. Even if you grant them their internal link, the global economy is resilient.
Financial Times ’06
(Sep 27, c8b24a50-4dc4-11db-8704- 0000779e2340.html?nclick_ check=1)

To doubt the resilience of the world economy must now look perverse. Since 2000, it has overcome so many obstacles: post-bubble traumas in Japan; the bursting of a global stock market bubble in 2000; the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001; a US recession; years of stagnation in the eurozone; wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; real oil prices at levels close to those of the late 1970s; and the failure to complete the Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations. Yet, in spite of all this, world economic growth was 4.1 per cent in 2003, 5.3 per cent in 2004 and 4.9 per cent in 2005, measured at purchasing power parity exchange rates. In the International Monetary Fund's latest World Economic Outlook (WEO), it is forecast to reach 5.1 per cent this year.* Growth is also broadly shared: in 2006, suggests the IMF staff, it will be 3.4 per cent in the US, 2.4 per cent in the eurozone and 2.7 per cent in Japan. In emerging markets it is far higher: 8.7 per cent in developing Asia, 6.8 per cent in the Commonwealth of Independent States, 5.8 per cent in the Middle East, 5.4 per cent in Africa, 5.3 per cent in central and eastern Europe and 4.8 per cent in the western hemisphere. How has it been possible for the world economy to leap over so many hurdles? We can offer three answers: first, the power of the underlying drivers of economic expansion - US productivity growth, globalisation and the rise of Asia; second, the ability of central banks and fiscal authorities to exploit the credibility they won in the 1980s and 1990s responding to the shocks of the 2000s; and, not least, the role of the US as borrower of last resort.

5. No relation between economic collapse and war
Ferguson 2006
(Niall, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Foreign Affairs, September/October, Vol. 85, Issue 5)

Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.

1. Rising asymmetric balancing, diplomatic counter-movements, and overstretch coupled with massive expenditure has rendered the decline of hegemony imminent
Khanna ’08
(Parag, America Strategy Program sr. fellow, 1/27, p. 1, 01/27/magazine/27world-t.html? _r=1&oref=slogin)

It is 2016, and the Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Barack Obama administration is nearing the end of its second term. America has pulled out of Iraq but has about 20,000 troops in the independent state of Kurdistan, as well as warships anchored at Bahrain and an Air Force presence in Qatar. Afghanistan is stable; Iran is nuclear. China has absorbed Taiwan and is steadily increasing its naval presence around the Pacific Rim and, from the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea. The European Union has expanded to well over 30 members and has secure oil and gas flows from North Africa, Russia and the Caspian Sea, as well as substantial nuclear energy. America’s standing in the world remains in steady decline. Why? Weren’t we supposed to reconnect with the United Nations and reaffirm to the world that America can, and should, lead it to collective security and prosperity? Indeed, improvements to America’s image may or may not occur, but either way, they mean little. Condoleezza Rice has said America has no “permanent enemies,” but it has no permanent friends either. Many saw the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as the symbols of a global American imperialism; in fact, they were signs of imperial overstretch. Every expenditure has weakened America’s armed forces, and each assertion of power has awakened resistance in the form of terrorist networks, insurgent groups and “asymmetric” weapons like suicide bombers. America’s unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order. That new global order has arrived, and there is precious little Clinton or McCain or Obama could do to resist its growth.

2. Warming Turn:
a. Those with higher incomes have higher fossil fuel consumption
Ravilious, contributing editor, 2009
(Kate Ravilious is a contributing editor to environmentalresearchweb. Apr 1, 2009 http:// cws/article/futures/38530)
Now a new study reveals the increase in appetite for fossil fuels has not been spread evenly across the population. High-income households have ramped up their consumption levels far faster than low income ones. Meanwhile a rapidly expanding leisure and services industry has also guzzled a large share.
Eleni Papathanasopoulou and Tim Jackson of the Research group on Lifestyles, Values and Environment (RESOLVE) at the University of Surrey, UK, found that the gap between the rich and poor has been increasing over time. The highest earners increased their fossil-fuel consumption by 50% between 1968 and 2000, while the lowest earners increased their consumption by only 20% over the same time period. But household income doesn’t tell the entire story. When Papathanasopoulou and Jackson analysed the data in more detail it became clear that spending habits have changed dramatically too. The scientists separated out the data into direct purchases of fuel (gas piped into the home, petrol pumped into the car and electricity flowing down the wires into our houses) and indirect purchases of fuel (the resources required to produce and maintain all other goods and services that we buy). Indirect fossil-fuel resources have seen a surge in demand, particularly by those on higher incomes. “This highlights the increased volume in the purchase of goods and services demanded by households,” Papathanasopoulou told environmentalresearchweb. Exotic holidays, gym memberships and eating out are all more common these days, meanwhile “make-do-and-mend” has gone out of fashion and most of us buy new goods instead.

b. Runaway Global Warming causes extinction
Tickell, Environmental Researcher, 08
(Oliver Tickell, Campaigner and researcher on climate issues and has contributed pieces to a number of major international media outletshttp, 8/11/08, commentisfree/2008/aug/11/ climatechange)
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from the American Association for the Advacement of Science] told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King [Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford], who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

Capitalism K
  1. Link – Social services legitimize capitalism – this turns case by recreating the labor force and replacing one social problem with many others.
Hall, prof @ University College London, 89
Peter Hall Prof. Planning and Regeneration at The Bartlett, University College London. 1989. Cities of Tomorrow. Pgs. 335-341

At the same time, a specifically Marxian view of planning emerged in the English-speaking world. To describe it adequately would require a course in Marxist theory. But, in inadequate summary, it states that the structure of the capitalist city itself, including its land-use and activity patterns, is the result of capital in pursuit of profit. Because capitalism is doomed to recurrent crises, which deepen in the current stage of late capitalism, capital calls upon the state, as its agent, to assist it by remedying disorganization in commodity production, and by aiding the reproduction of the labour force. It thus tries to achieve certain necessary objectives: to facilitate continued capital accumulation, by ensuring rational allocation of resources; by assisting the reproduction of the labour force through the provision of social services, thus maintaining a delicate balance between labour and capital and preventing social disintegration; and by guaranteeing and legitimating capitalist social and property relations. As Dear and Scott put it: 'In summary, planning is an historically-specific and socially-necessary response to the self-disorganizing tendencies of privatized capitalist social and property relations as these appear in urban space.'° In particular, it seeks to guarantee collective provision of necessary infrastructure and certain basic urban services, and to reduce negative externalities whereby certain activities of capital cause losses to other parts of the system.59 But, since capitalism also wishes to circumscribe state planning as far as possible, there is an inbuilt contradiction: planning, because of this inherent inadequacy, always solves one problem only by creating another.60 Thus, say the Marxists, nineteenth-century clearances in Paris created a working-class housing problem; American zoning limited the powers of industrialists to locate at the most profitable locations." And planning can never do more than modify some parameters of the land development process; it cannot change its intrinsic logic, and so cannot remove the contradiction between private accumulation and collective action." Further, the *capitalist class is by no means homogenous; different fractions of capital may have divergent, even contradictory interests, and complex alliances may be formed in consequence; thus, latter-day Marxist explanations come close to being pluralist, albeit with a strong structural element.' But in the process, 'the more that the State intervenes in the urban system, the greater is the likelihood that different social groups and fractions will contest the legitimacy of its decisions. Urban life as a whole becomes progressively invaded by political controversies and dilemmas'.

Capitalism K
  1. Impact – Capitalism’s drive for material makes crisis and extinction inevitable.

Meszaros, prof Philosophy & Political Theory, 95
Istvan Meszaros, 1995, Professor at University of Sussex, England, “Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition”

With regard to its innermost determination the capital system is expansion oriented and accumulation-driven. Such a determination constitutes both a formerly unimaginable dynamism and a fateful deficiency. In this sense, as a system of social metabolic control capital is quite irresistible for as long as it can successfully extract and accumulate surplus-labour-whether in directly economic or in primarily political form- in the course of the given society’s expandoed reproduction. Once, however, this dynamic process of expansion and accumulation gets stuck (for whatever reason) the consequences must be quite devastating. For even under the ‘normality’ of relatively limited cyclic disturbances and blockages the destruction that goes with the ensuing socioeconomic and political crises can be enormous, as the annals of the twentieth century reveal it, including two world wars (not to mention numerous smaller conflagrations). It is therefore not too difficult to imagine the implications of a systemic, truly structural crisis; i.e. one that affects the global capital system not simply under one if its aspects-the financial/monetary one, for instance-but in all its fundamental dimensions, questioning its viability altogether as a social reproductive system. Under the conditions of capital's structural crisis its destructive constituents come to the fore with a vengeance, activating the spectre of total uncontrollability in a form that foreshadows self-destruction both for this unique social reproductive system itself and for humanity in general. As we shall see in Chapter 3, capital was near amenable to proper and durable control or rational self-restraint. For it was compatible only with limited adjustments, and even those only for as long as it could continue to pursue in one form or another the dynamics of self-expansion and the process of accumulation. Such adjustments consisted in side-stepping, as it were, the encountered obstacles and resistances when capital was unable to frontally demolish them. This characteristic of uncontrollability was in fact one of the most important factors that secured capitals irresistible advancement and ultimate victory, which it had to accomplish despite the earlier mentioned fact that capital's mode of metabolic control constituted the exception and not the rule in history. After all, capital at first appeared as a strictly subordinate force in the course of historical development. And worse still, on account of necessarily subordinating 'use-value' - that is, production for human need - to the requirements of self-expansion and accumulation, capital in all of its forms had to overcome also the odium of being considered for a long time the most 'unnatural' way of controlling the production of wealth. According to the ideological confrontations of medieval times, capital was fatefully implicated in 'mortal sin' in more ways than one, and therefore had to be outlawed as 'heretic' by the highest religious authorities: the Papacy and its Synods. It could not become the dominant force of the social metabolic process before sweeping out of the way the absolute - and religiously sanctified -prohibition on 'usury' (contested under the category of 'profit upon alienation', which really meant: retaining control over the monetary/financial capital of the age, in the interest of the accumulation process, and at the same time securing profit by lending money) and winning the battle over the 'alienability of land' (again, the subject of absolute and religiously sanctified prohibition under the feudal system) without which the emergence of capitalist agriculture -a vital condition for the triumph of the capital system in general would have been quite inconceivable." Thanks to a very large extent to its uncontrollability, capital succeeded in overcoming all odds - no matter how powerful materially and how absolutized in terms of the prevailing value system of society - against itself, elevating its mode of metabolic control to the power of absolute dominance as a fully extended global system. However, it is one thing to overcome and subdue problematical (even obscurantist) constraints and obstacles, and quite another to institute the positive principles of sustainable social development, guided by the criteria of humanly fulfilling objectives, as opposed to the blind pursuit of capital's self-expansion. Thus the implications of the selfsame power of uncontrollability which in its time secured the victory of the capital system are far from reassuring today when the need for restraints is conceded - at least in the form of the elusive desideratum of 'self-regulation' - even by the system's most uncritical defenders.

Capitalism K
  1. The Alternative – Reject the affirmative in order to radically resist capitalism through a process of revolutionary persuasion. The “realistic proposals” of the 1ac cannot provide a systemic alternative to the capitalist political framework inherent in the plan. This debate is the key cite of resistance – our ability to use persuasion and show the “antagonism between capitalism and the environment” is unique to starting a revolution.
Wallis, Professor at UC Berkeley, PhD. at Columbia U., 08
(Victor Wallis, Liberal Arts Professor at UC Berkeley, PhD. at Columbia U, November 2008: The Monthly Review “Capitalist and Socialist Responses to the Ecological Crisis” 081103wallis.php)
  1. Where the private and the civic dimensions would merge would be in developing a full-scale class analysis of responsibility for the current crisis and, with it, a movement which could pose a systemic alternative. The steps so far taken in this direction have been limited. Exposés like Gore’s have called attention, for example, to the role of particular oil companies in sponsoring attacks on scientific findings related to climate change, but the idea that there could be an antagonism between capitalism and the environment as such has not yet made its way into general public debate. Until this happens, the inertial impact of the prevailing ideology will severely limit the scope of any concrete recuperative measures.37 The situation is comparable to that surrounding any prospective revolution: until a certain critical point has been reached, the only demands that appear to have a chance of acceptance are the “moderate” ones. But what makes the situation revolutionary is the very fact that the moderate or “realistic” proposals will not provide a solution. What gives these proposals a veneer of reasonableness is no more than their acceptability to political forces which, while unable to design a response commensurate with the scale of the problem, have not yet been displaced from their positions of power. But this very inability on the part of those forces is also an expression of their weakness. They sit precariously atop a process they do not understand, whose scope they cannot imagine, and over which they can have no control. (Or, if they do sense the gravity of the situation, they view it with a siege mentality, seeking above all to assure their own survival.38) At this point, it is clear that the purchase on “realism” has changed hands. The “moderates,” with their relentless insistence on coaxing an ecological cure out of a system inherently committed to trampling everything in its path, have lost all sense of reality. The question now becomes whether the hitherto misgoverned populace will be prepared to push through the radical measures (by now clearly the only realistic ones) or whether its members will have remained so encased within the capitalist paradigm that the only thing they can do is to try—following the cue of those who plunged us all into this fix—to fend individually for themselves. This is the conjuncture that all our efforts have been building for; it will provide the ultimate test of how well we have done our work. In order for the scope of the needed measures to be grasped by sufficient numbers of people, an intense level of grassroots organizing will already have to be underway. However, the measures themselves, if they are to accomplish their purpose, will have to advance further the very process that put them on the agenda to begin with. A characteristically revolutionary mix of persuasion and coercion will necessarily apply—the balance of these two methods depending partly on the effectiveness of prior consciousness-raising and partly on the window of time available for the required steps. No dimension of life will be untouched. From our present vantage point we can only begin to envisage the specific changes, which will primarily involve a reversal or undoing of the more wasteful and harmful structures bequeathed by prior development. Fortunately, however, it will not be a matter of starting from scratch. Many historical lessons have already been learned, and not all of them are of things to avoid. There are positive models as well.

Health care 1NC
Health care reform will pass – even the critics admit that Obama will be able to sell it
Bloomberg, 7-25-09, news?pid=20601087&sid= aIiiRyGaM.Os
The top Senate Republican drafting health-care legislation and a leader of House Democrats balking at the plan said they don’t expect committee and floor-vote delays to keep a bill from passing this year. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said “it’s going to be difficult” for his panel to approve legislation in the next two weeks. Beyond that, the odds of Congress enacting an overhaul later this year are “very, very good,” the Iowa senator said in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas, chairman of the health-care task force for the Blue Dog Coalition, about 50 self-described fiscally conservative House Democrats, said it would be a mistake for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to bring the measure to the chamber’s floor before lawmakers take their August recess. “I don’t think they have the votes,” Ross said in a separate “Political Capital” interview. By year’s end, “we will meet the president’s goal of passing meaningful and substantive health-care reform,” he also said.

Poverty programs are extremely unpopular. It’s a wedge issue
Ezra Klein, staff reporter at The Washington Post, The American Prospect, January 16, 2006, articles?articleId=10833
But for conservatives, halting attempts to eradicate poverty slowly gave way to more successful efforts to vilify it. Conservative leaders kept a dark (literally and figuratively) picture of the underclass visible to the nation’s white middle class. The faces of poverty became more sinister: the Willie Hortons and the Linda Taylors (Linda Taylor was Reagan’s ubiquitous welfare queen whose ill-gotten payouts totaled no more than $8,000). These visages transformed a discussion over alleviating economic despair into a subtly racist wedge issue that resonated with white males. And so it was easier, after that, to suggest that, irrespective of the facts, the Great Society was a disaster, poverty the intractable affliction of an unsocialized underclass. Egghead liberals with more good intentions than common sense had surrendered to instinct and offered cash prizes to every unwed black mother able to bear a child, creating a culture of government dependency that fostered criminality, broken families, and joblessness. Conservatives, deciding government involvement had created the problem, concluded that government withdrawal would solve it. But Clinton’s ascension and Democratic sympathy for the poor wrecked that plan, and the two sides eventually compromised on a sort of political detente they termed welfare reform. Welfare reform, while about poor people, was never about poverty, it was about politics. It made the impoverished a little less galling to the better off, ensuring that the government’s incentive structure didn’t reward the out-of-work and thus offend the gainfully employed. Meanwhile, crime was plummeting and the streets, thanks to Bill Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill, were flooded with new police officers. Come the late 1990s, the poor were neither dangerous nor ideologically maddening. A handful of urban politicians continued pleading for inner-city aid, but with electoral power shifting away from metropolitan centers, few listened. After 9-11, no one did. Poor blacks were no longer the threat; poor browns had taken their place. And so America’s impoverished became something new: forgotten.

Pushing controversial legislation burns political capital
Mark Seidenfeld, Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law, Iowa Law Review, October 1994
In addition, the propensity of congressional committees to engage in special-interest-oriented oversight might seriously undercut presidential efforts to implement regulatory reform through legislation. n198 On any proposed regulatory measure, the President could face opposition from powerful committee members whose ability to modify and kill legislation is well-documented. n199 This is not meant to deny that the President has significant power that he can use to bring aspects of his legislative agenda to fruition. The President's ability to focus media attention on an issue, his power to bestow benefits on the constituents of members of Congress who support his agenda, and his potential to deliver votes in congressional elections increase the likelihood of legislative success for particular programs. n200 Repeated use of such tactics, however, will impose economic costs on society and concomitantly consume the President's political capital. n201 At some point the price to the President for pushing legislation through Congress exceeds the benefit he derives from doing so. Thus, a President would be unwise to rely too heavily on legislative changes to implement his policy vision.

Political capital key to healthcare reform
Chiropractic Economics 7-7-2009 chiropractic/news/7360/861/ Prioritizing-healthcare- reform-components/
INDIANAPOLIS – Faced with a barrage of pressing issues, the Obama administration has placed health-care reform high on its agenda. The timing bodes well for change, according to Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., director of the Indiana University Center for Health Policy and Professionalism, associate professor of pediatrics at the IU School of Medicine and a pediatrician at Riley Hospital for Children. "If the new administration wants to accomplish significant reform, they will need political capital, which they have now," says Dr. Carroll, who is a health services researcher and a Regenstrief Institute affiliated scientist. "We have a government elected with a mandate for change and health care is an area that requires reform. Moreover, with the economy in its current state, with unemployment on the rise, and with health care costs on the ascent, more and more people will not be able to afford insurance or health care. Therefore, more will be in need of reform." According to Dr. Carroll there are now more than 45 million people in America who have not had health insurance for the entire year; almost twice that number lack coverage for a portion of the year. Over the last few years, most of the newly uninsured are from the middle class. As unemployment rises, along with food, utilities and other prices, a growing number of people will be unable to afford health insurance, especially as it gets increasingly expensive.

Health care 1NC
The impact is a new Great Depression. Reform is key to signal long term fiscal solvency and prevent spiraling sell-offs of US debt
Boston Globe, 2-23-09
Budget analysts are worried that a continuing economic crisis will make it impossible to raise sufficient funds from foreign markets to finance the nation's debt. In the last four years, about three-quarters of US debt was purchased by foreign interests, most prominently by China. If other nations lose confidence that the United States will pay its debts, however, some economists fear an international financial crisis could escalate and turn into a worldwide depression. In any case, it is widely expected that debt purchasers will soon demand higher interest rates, which would translate into higher costs for US taxpayers. Obama is being urged by some analysts to start moving toward a balanced budget as soon as possible to send a signal to the world that deficit spending will abate. Yet some analysts are offering Obama conflicting advice, warning him not to repeat what they regard as the mistake of President Franklin Roosevelt, who launched the New Deal but eventually heeded calls to curtail deficit spending, only to see a new recession batter his presidency. A key player in the summit will be Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who backed out of his commitment to be Obama's commerce secretary and then voted against the stimulus bill. Despite the embarrassment caused by Gregg's about-face, the White House believes that he could be one of its most important allies in the overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and tax policy. That is because Gregg is the co-sponsor of the measure that would create a bipartisan commission to put together far-reaching recommendations for an up-or-down vote by Congress. In an interview, Gregg said that under such a procedure, the measures could be passed within a year, as long as most of the benefit cuts and tax increases were not slated to take effect until well after the recession is over. "We need an up-or-down vote on a package that will be unquestionably bipartisan and fair," Gregg said, a reference to criticism that Obama's stimulus bill was too partisan. Asked about his hopes for the summit, he said, "It can either be very nice public relations or move the ball down the road on what is an impending fiscal tsunami." Some budget specialists are skeptical. Robert Reischauer, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, said Obama should have seized the opportunity to pair the stimulus bill with the overhaul of Social Security, Medicare, and the tax code. "When you are shoveling out the goodies, you have a greater probability of getting people to sign on to some fiscal diet," said Reischauer, who has been invited to the summit. He said he is worried that nothing will happen on the most difficult issues until political leaders "have a gun at our heads. The system tends to respond only in the face of unavoidable crisis." Analysts across the political spectrum agree that the current path is unsustainable. Unless there is a major budgetary change, federal spending will go from being about 20 percent of the nation's economy to 42 percent in 2050, according to the Concord Coalition. The major reason is that entitlement programs for older Americans are running short of funds. Social Security is slated to pay out more money than it receives by 2017. Obama suggested during his campaign that he might support changing the level of income at which Social Security taxes are calculated. Another frequently mentioned option is raising the retirement age. But any measure will be even more controversial than usual because so many Americans have seen their private retirement plans pummeled by the stock market collapse. Medicare, the government-run healthcare program for older Americans, is already running a deficit, which is expected to increase quickly as baby boomers retire. That is why many analysts are urging Obama to link changes in Medicare with an overhaul of the health system.

Text: The 50 states, District of Columbia, and all relevant U.S. federal territories should substantially increase funding for census outreach programs for the 2010 Census.
Outreach programs are crucial
Terri Ann Lowenthal; 3/18/09; Lowenthal is a Legislative and Policy Consultant and Independent Contractor; “Census and Federal Statistics” The Brookings Institute __ media/Files/events/2009/0318_ census/20090318_census.pdf__
You’ve launched 2010 Census be counted campaigns, you’re hosting meetings, sharing information, education policy-makers, philanthropic organizations are stepping up to the plate in growing numbers, I’m pleased to report, to support public education and outreach efforts in hard to count communities, and Americans are applying for Census jobs in record numbers, perhaps not surprisingly. And I think that’s where the focus needs to stay, on these stakeholder efforts, on outreach, on promotion, on partnership for the next year and a half, on educating the public about the benefits of an accurate Census to one’s community and family, on reassuring those with a skeptical view of government that the Census is confidential, and frankly, I think that it might help to tell people that the safest way to answer the Census or to participate is to mail back the form, because then a stranger with a government badge doesn’t have to come knock on your door. And, of course, outreach and promotion through culturally appropriate avenues of communication. There’s a lot of work left to do, as always, and a lot of challenges to overcome, but I do remain hopeful that the momentum coming out of a historic election will help convince people who have been left out of this count for decade after decade that this Census, just like the election, is all about them, and that we have another chance to turn the tide of history and to be heard. So thank you very much, and I am pleased to turn this over to someone who actually has to do the job, and that’s Frank Vitrano from the Census Bureau.