Download the original attachment
Capitalism K 1NC Short Shell (1)
  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 1NC Short Shell (2)
  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 1NC Short Shell (3)
  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.
Pushing 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.
Global nuclear war
Mead, 2009 (Walter Russell, the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, “Only Makes You Stronger”, The New Republic, February 4, 2009)
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.

1NC – Nutrition
1. Can’t solve obesity – even a huge increase in food stamps fails to increase spending on fruits and vegetables.
Frazao et al., USDA Econ Research Service, 2007
(Elizabeth Frazao, Assistant Deputy Director for WIC Research in the Food Assistance and Nutrition, Margaret Andrews, Economist in the Food Assistance Branch of ERS, David Smallwood, Deputy Director for Food Assistance Research in the Food Economics Division, Mark Prell, Branch Chief of the Food Assistance Branch in ERS, all from US Dept of Agri Econ Research Service, September 2007, “Food Spending Patterns of Low-Income Households: Will Increasing Purchasing Power Result in Healthier Food Choices?” Economic Information Bulletin Number 29-4, __ publications/eib29/eib29-4/ eib29-4.pdf__)

Fruits and vegetables represent a category of particular interest for those wanting to improve the nutritional quality of diets. Monthly expenditures for fruits and vegetables increase from $50 for households in the lowest income group to just $51 for households in the $40,000-$49,999 income group and to $57 for households in the $50,000- $69,999 income group. It then increases to $76 for households with incomes of $70,000 and above (table 1). Focusing on households in the two lowest income groups (each of which meet the income eligibility requirements for food stamps), we find that monthly spending on fruits and vegetables increases $4 between households in the $10,000- $14,999 group and households in the $15,000-$19,999 group (table 1). The associated increase in average income across the two groups is $5,256, which translates into a monthly difference of $395. If an income increase of approximately $400 per month is associated with an additional $4 in spending on fruits and vegetables at the grocery store, providing these households with an extra $100 in monthly income (or potentially, in food stamps benefits) may spur fruit and vegetable purchases by $1 per month for the entire household, or roughly one extra apple or banana every week for the entire household. Given that the average food stamp household received $217 per month in December 2006, a $100 increase in monthly food stamps constitutes an increase in program expenditures of nearly onehalf, or $14 billion. Our examination, therefore, shows us two major aspects of fruit and vegetable spending patterns that are important to recognize. First, an unconstrained increase in income barely increases fruit and vegetable purchases across income groups until the highest income group, with annual household incomes of $70,000 and more. Second, this steadiness in household spending on fruits and vegetables across most incomes is not something “peculiar” about fruits and vegetables but instead matches the same steadiness in spending for meat, grains, and dairy. In contemporary America, food spending rises with income—just as Engel observed 150 years ago in Prussia—but the form that the additional spending takes nowadays is food away from home and “other foods” at the grocery store.

2. Fruits and vegetables key to solving obesity.
Singh, New Europe staff writer, 7/31/09
Tejinder Singh, New Europe staff writer, 7/31/09, “Fresh fruits, vegetables ready to tackle obesity” __ articles/70829.php__

The proposal to provide healthy options like salads, more fibre with fresh fruits and fresh vegetables alongside hamburgers and pizzas was a welcome gesture. As the proposal was coming from industry, it was thought that the proposal will not be gutted to appease the financial managers of the industry. Moreover, a random survey of all practical tips and working solutions for a healthy diet always find “eat lots of fresh fruit and vegetables,” an integral part of any programme. Statistical data also shows that children have hard times to eat enough balanced nutritious food especially at schools where options are usually limited.

3. Can’t Solve obesity – their Ridgeway evidence isn’t reverse causal, meaning there an increase in food stamps doesn’t lead to healthier foods. People can just buy more bad food with the money.

1NC – Nutrition
4. Turn – Food stamps increase obesity in women.
Landers, Nutri Sci @ Oklahoma, 2007
Patti S. Landers, Nutritional Sci @ U of Oklahoma, Nov 2007, “The Food Stamp Program: History, Nutrition Education, and Impact” Journal of the American Dietetic Association - Volume 107, Issue 11

Food Stamp Program participation may be associated with food insecurity and overweight. Gibson (__32__) used data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to study the relationship of obesity and participation in the Food Stamp Program. In 2003 she reported that current and long-term Food Stamp Program participation were significantly related to the obesity of low-income women (P≤0.05), but not of low-income men. Later, Gibson (__33__) defined long-term Food Stamp Program participation as receiving benefits for some or all of the past 5 years. Increased predicted probabilities of obesity for women were 9.1% and 20.5% for current and long-term participation in the Food Stamp Program. For girls aged 5 to 11 years, long-term Food Stamp Program participation was significantly and positively related to overweight (P≤0.048) and was associated with a 42.8% increase in predicted probability of overweight. For boys, long-term participation was significantly and negatively associated with overweight. There was no association with overweight in children aged 12 to 18 years (__34__). In 2006, Gibson (__35__) noted simultaneous obesity in mothers and at least one daughter aged 5 to 11 years and suggested that overweight as related to Food Stamp Program participation of 5 or more years is a family phenomenon that affects multiple members. She recommended that the Food Stamp Program was a possible way to target healthful eating and weight reduction policies. Using longitudinal data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Jones and Frongillo (__34__) found no significant associations between change in food insecurity status and weight change.\

5. Turn - Short term fixes just lead to obesity and heart disease.
Ruhm, Econ @ UNC, Nat’l Bureau of Econ Research, 2003
Christopher J. Ruhm, Economics @ UNC Greensboro, National Bureau of Economic Research, Jan 2003, “Good Times Make You Sick” Journal of Health Economics, Vol 22 No 4 pp. 637-658

Most aspects of health worsen when the economy temporarily improves. In the preferred models, a 1 percentage point fall in unemployment is estimated to raise the prevalence of medical problems, acute morbidities, restricted-activity days, bed-days, ischemic heart disease, and intervertebral disk disorders by 1.5, 3.9, 1.2, 1.6, 4.3, and 8.7%. The deterioration in health is particularly strong for persons of prime working age, employed individuals under the age of 65, and men. It occurs despite the protective effect of higher incomes and a possible increase in the use of medical care. There is no evidence that the negative health consequences dissipate over time if unemployment rates remain low. Instead, the effects frequently accumulate, leading to larger medium-term than short-run impacts. Economic expansions are associated with increases in medical problems that are unrelated to mortality (like back ailments) as well as those that are major causes of death (such as ischemic heart disease). However, there is some evidence that non-psychotic mental disorders become less common. This emphasizes the distinction between physical and mental health and lends credence to psychological theories relating stress to economic insecurity. Nevertheless, any positive effects of good times appear to be more than offset by other changes that result in deterioration in most aspects of health. We need to better understand why physical health worsens when unemployment rates fall. This may partially reflect direct risks of heightened economic activity (e.g. increases in workplace accidents and highway vehicle fatalities). Lifestyle factors and health investments could also play a role. For instance, smoking, heavy drinking, severe obesity and physical inactivity all increase in good times ([__Ruhm, 2002__ and __Ruhm and Black, 2002__]). The use of medical care also rises. This is at least partly due to worsening health but could also reflect investments in preventive care that have a longer-term payoff. These represent important issues for future research.

1NC – Nutrition
6. Can’t Solve obesity – increases in obesity in other areas means millions still die.
Hitti, writer for WebMD, 5/2/05
Miranda Hitti, senior medical writer for WebMD Health News, 5/2/05, “Rich-Poor Gap Narrowing in Obesity” __ news/20050502/rich-poor-gap- narrowing-in-obesity__

Obesity is on the rise across America, and earning a lot of money doesn't necessarily protect against it. Previously, obesity was associated more with poverty than wealth, say University of Iowa researchers including Nidhi Maheshwari, MBBS, a graduate research assistant in epidemiology. But during the past 30 years, obesity has grown at all income levels -- especially among the richest Americans, say the researchers, who reported their findings in Washington at the American Heart Association's 45th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention. "There has been a perception that poor people are more likely to be fat," says Maheshwari, in a news release. "However, obesity is growing at a much faster rate in those with the highest incomes." Thick Wallet, Thick Waistline? Obesity is still most common among those with the lowest incomes -- but not by much. People earning the most money ($60,000 per year or more) had the biggest growth in obesity from the early 1970s to the turn of the century, say Maheshwari and colleagues. "The fact is that obesity is increasing in all races, all income categories, and at a faster rate with people in higher incomes," says the University of Iowa's Jennifer Robinson, MD, MPH, in a news release. "Obesity prevalence is now similar across all income categories, with obesity prevalence in the highest income group rapidly approaching that of the lowest income group," says Robinson, an associate professor of epidemiology who also worked on the study.

National Income-Obesity Statistics Here are the income-obesity statistics for 1971-1974: Less than $25,000: 22.5% obese $25,000-$40,000: 16.1% obese $40,000-$60,000: 14.5% obese More than $60,000: 9.7% obese Here are the results for 2001-2002: Less than $25,000: 32.5% obese $25,000-$40,000: 31.3% obese $40,000-$60,000: 30.3% obese More than $60,000: 26.8% obese Here's how much obesity increased in each category: Less than $25,000: increase of 144% $25,000-$40,000: increase of 194% $40,000-$60,000: increase of 209% More than $60,000: increase of 276% Numbers are based on national surveys of adults who were at least 20 years old. Obesity was defined as __body mass index__ (BMI) of 30 or higher. Income was adjusted to year 2000 U.S. dollars. The statistics don't include people who are overweight but not obese (BMI of 25-29.9).

1NC – Economy

1. Economy recovering now – multiple warrants.
Reuters 7/20 [Herbert Lash, staff writer. “Global Stocks, crude gain on signs of economic recovery.”
__ article/hotStocksNews/ idUSTRE56J58L20090720__. 2009]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Crude oil and global stocks rose on Monday, lifting a number of major indexes to new 2009 highs, on fresh signs that the U.S. economy is pulling out of recession and as a rescue package for lender CIT sparked optimism about credit markets. The dollar weakened broadly, slipping to a six-week low against the euro, as investors jumped back into riskier assets amid further news of solid second-quarter U.S. earnings. Commodities benefited from the improving sentiment. Crude oil settled just shy of $64 a barrel, copper hit a nine-month high and gold rose more than 1 percent to settle above $950 an ounce for the first time in more than a month. An index gauging the U.S. economy's prospects increased for a third straight month in June, suggesting the recession was drawing to a close, the New York-based Conference Board said. The index of leading economic indicators, which is supposed to forecast economic trends six to nine months ahead, rose 0.7 percent in June following a revised 1.3 percent gain in May. "The confirmation of recovery is coming from top down and bottom up," said Georgina Taylor, equity strategist at Legal & General Investment Management. "Companies are suggesting that things are starting to improve. Economic data is stabilizing." Global stocks, as measured by MSCI's all-country world index .MIWD00000PUS, rose to a 2009 high as did MSCI's emerging markets index .MSCIEF while Asian stocks outside of Japan .MIAPJ0000PUS rose to their highest since world stocks plunged following Lehman Brothers' collapse last September. In the United States, the benchmark Standard & Poor's 500 .SPX notched its highest close since early November, while for the tech-rich Nasdaq .IXIC had its highest close for the year. Equity markets built on last week's rally, with Britain's top share index and a regional index of European shares rising for a sixth straight day. Banks led the surge, while commodity shares jumped on the stronger crude oil and metals prices. The FTSE 100 index .FTSE closed up 1.3 percent at 4,443.62 and the FTSEurofirst 300 .FTEU3 index of top European shares rose 1.2 percent to 881.19. Helping lift U.S. and European shares was news that lender CIT Group Inc (CIT.N) clinched a $3 billion rescue with bondholders, a person close to the matter said. For more see [ID:nN206604]. CIT rose almost 79 percent to $1.25 a share. CIT's private-sector bailout was seen as a sign of health in the credit markets. "I think it's a healthy sign for the market and a sign of liquidity and a willingness of private participants to step up to the plate," said Tom Alexander, head of Alexander Trading in Savannah, Georgia. Machinery maker Caterpillar Inc (CAT.N) rose 7.8 percent and was the top boost to the Dow after Bank of America-Merrill Lynch upgraded the stock to "buy," saying the second quarter may mark a bottom for the construction market.

2. Can’t Solve – food stamps cannot give enough stimulus.
Byrnes, CNS News staff writer, 1/28/09
(Ryan Byrnes, CNS News staff writer, 1/28/09, “Food Stamps Will Stimulate the Economy More than Tax Cuts, Pelosi Says” __ Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid= 42620__)

Economists said Pelosi’s remark regarding food stamps is accurate if it is assessed in the right context. “I think the statement is correct, as far as it goes,” said Alan Viard, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. “It’s important to realize that it is a statement about how food stamps vary over the business cycle instead of what the overall level should be,” Viard said. “It’s also important to realize you are never going to get a large amount of stimulus from food stamps, just because it’s not a very large program.”Traditionally, governments raise interest rates and cut spending to stop inflation -- cutting down on “demand” – but they cut interest rates and raise spending to reduce unemployment – or “boost demand.” “The only purpose to boosting demand is to stabilize the economy,” he said. “When you boost demand, what you get is an upfront economic gain. But later you will have a payback once output goes down.” Viard said this is why a stimulus needs to be timed as well as possible. “You can’t really boost food stamps all that much,” he said. “There are only so many dollars you can put into that.

1NC - Economy
3. Turn - Manpower is irrelevant and trades off with modernization, decreasing readiness.
Spencer, Senior Policy Analyst Heritage Foundation, 2003
Jack Spencer, Senior Policy Analyst for Defense and Nat’l Sec @ Heritage Foundation. 8/1/03, “Reducing Stress on an Overstretched Force” research/nationalsecurity/ em895.cfm
While U.S. forces are not adequate to sustain the current rate of deployment, simply adding manpower is not necessarily the answer. Clearly, the U.S. needs more capabilities. However, while adding manpower may seem like the quickest way to fill the capabilities gap, it is not the best way to solve the problem. People are expensive The most effective weapons in the U.S. armed forces are soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. They are also, understandably, the most expensive. Only about a third of the defense budget is spent on developing and buying weapons. Most of the rest goes to personnel and operational costs. Maintaining personnel beyond the number needed to fulfill U.S. national security requirements takes resources away from important efforts such as modernization and transformation. The result can be inappropriate deployments A perceived excess of manpower tempts political leaders to deploy forces on operations that have little or nothing to do with U.S. national security. After the Cold War, this perception arguably contributed to heavy U.S. involvement in peacekeeping efforts in places like Haiti, Somalia, and the Balkans. It is not the only measure of capability Although manpower end-strength is important, it does not by itself determine capabilities. For example, a force trained and equipped for the Cold War, regardless of size, would be inappropriate for the war on terrorism. Similarly, a military unit using old technology may not be as capable as a unit half its size using new technology. Structuring the force to reflect modern national security requirements accurately is more important than investing resources in outdated and wasteful organizations.
4. Bad economy makes it easy for the military to recruit
Broder et al, CQ Staff, 3/16/09
Jonathan Broder, John M. Donnelly and Matthew Johnson, CQ Staff Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 3/16/09, “Military Readiness in Rough Times”

While the government eyes ways to scale back the defense budget, military recruiting is getting easier, in large part due to the struggling economy. In these tough times, the armed forces are finding they can be more selective and can reduce enlistment and retention bonuses that have ballooned in recent years. The Defense Department released figures in February showing that all branches of the active-duty military met or exceeded their recruiting goals for January. Furthermore, they all met or exceeded their goals for re-enlistments. Both the active-duty Army and the Army Reserve -- both hard-hit by the extended conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan -- exceeded recruiting goals from October through January, which hasn't been done since before the Iraq War began. Over the past several years, as the Army struggled to fill its barracks, it was forced to lower standards for new recruits. In many cases, the Army took in recruits without high school diplomas, with the lowest scores on the armed forces qualification test, or with criminal histories. But with the struggling economy, the Defense Department is getting better troops for less money.

5. Can’t solve China – Their AFP evidence is only predictive of China in the short term while their Mearshimer evidence indicates it would take DECADES of Chinese growth for war to occur, means their impact is long term and improbable.

1NC - Economy
6. India’s economic liberalization attempts failed already.
Wall Street Journal, 7/7/09
Wall Street Journal, 7/7/09, “India Budget Blowout” SB124691172984302001.html

India's Congress Party was re-elected in May on a promise of economic populism that the country can't afford. Yesterday the government delivered on that promise. This is bad news for India, and especially for its poorest citizens. The budget outlines three priorities: 9% economic growth, "inclusive development" and better public services. It would achieve these outcomes by boosting spending by 36% to 10.2 trillion rupees ($211 billion), mostly on handouts and infrastructure. No major public-sector rationalization or private-sector liberalization were announced. This is in effect a revival of India's socialist past and a rejection of the 1990s reforms that gave India the best kind of "inclusiveness": economic growth. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee was explicit about this political sea change: "Aam aadmi," or the "common man," is "now the focus of all our programs and schemes," he said yesterday. He extended a raft of loan and job guarantees to the poor -- programs that are already eating up around 1.3% of GDP and will only grow. The budget is in line with party leader Sonia Gandhi's emphasis on populism, but it's especially disappointing given the track record of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who once upon a time was an economic reformer. Mr. Singh's boosters claimed his lackluster reform record in Congress's first term was because he had to rely on left-leaning political allies to form a governing coalition. Now Congress has dumped those partners -- and there is no excuse for moving the country backward. The great irony is that by extending government's influence in the agricultural sector, which employs 60% of the workforce, Delhi is only retarding its growth. India's challenge is to move its poor from the farm to the factory. The more government shovels subsidies and free rice at farmers, the less willing they'll be to find other means of employment. High tariffs and barriers to entry have also stunted competition and innovation. Mr. Mukherjee seems to understand some of these ideas, at least in principle. Yesterday he said private investment was "the principal growth driver" of India's boom years. Yet he did nothing to ease private industry's tax burden, cut regulatory red tape or liberalize the country's restrictive foreign direct investment regime. He also praised Indira Gandhi's 1969 bank nationalization as "wise and visionary" and "an inspiration." So much for freeing up capital flows at a time when credit is contracting. Delhi's largesse will have serious fiscal consequences. Since the government isn't cutting back on its own sprawling bureaucracy, Mr. Mukherjee proposes to sell slices of government public companies to help finance this spending spree. But the bulk of the funding will come from bond sales and tax hikes, crowding out private investment. In the meantime, economists project the outlay will send the fiscal deficit soaring to more than 10% of GDP -- the largest in almost two decades. More worryingly, the Finance Minister implied that there is more spending in the pipeline, based on the erroneous assumption that Delhi's last three fiscal stimulus packages were "effective." India's 6.7% growth rate last fiscal year represented a significant slowdown from its 9% growth the year before. All signs are that the economy is slowing further in the face of an export collapse and slowing consumer spending. There were a few good ideas in the budget. Mr. Mukherjee promised to simplify the tax code, but he's layering on more taxes before he does so, proposing, among other things, a goods and services tax. India desperately needs better infrastructure to facilitate trade, so Mr. Mukherjee's plan to increase spending for highways, railroads and other urban public works is welcome. But the broader theme of spending without constraints or accompanying liberalization is setback for growth. Mr. Mukherjee said yesterday "the road ahead will not be easy." He is not making it any easier.

7. Can’t solve terrorism – their Burrows evidence says MIDDLE EAST economic growth is key to check terrorism, means that US economic growth has no effect.

1NC – Solvency
1. Status quo solves – Fed recently reduced restrictions of quality control system.
Rosenbaum, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/11/06
(Dorothy Rosenbaum, Senior Policy Analyst for Food Assistance @ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/11/06, “FOOD STAMP ERROR RATES HOLD AT RECORD LOW LEVELS IN 2005” __ 30-04fa.pdf__)

This reform of the QC sanction system should lessen the pressure that states feel to adopt policies that impede access to the Food Stamp Program. Indeed, USDA has recently released a study that finds that food stamp participation rates among those eligible for the Program rose from 56 percent in 2003 to 61 percent in 2004. The QC system nonetheless remains the most sophisticated system for measuring payment accuracy in any major federal public benefit program and continues to be a critical tool for measuring and monitoring states’ stewardship of federal food stamp funds.

2. Turn – Increasing participation decreases food security.
Gundersen et al., Ag and Consumer Econ U of Illinois and USDA ERS, 12/17/08
(Craig Gundersen, Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois Dean Jolliffe, US Dept Ag Econ Research Service, and Laura Tiehen, US Dept Ag Econ Research Service, 12/17/08 “The challenge of program evaluation: When increasing program participationdecreases the relative well-being of participants” Food Policy, Volume 34, Issue 4, August 2009)

Actions taken by policymakers to increase food assistance participation rates among eligible households can, in theory, lead to a widening of the gap in well-being between participants and non-participants. Thus, the goal of increasing participation can be in tension with some measures of improved wellbeing resulting from the program. In this paper we find some evidence in the United States that measuring the well-being of participants viz. nonparticipants is a poor measure of program effectiveness when participation rates are changing. In particular, we find that States which attempt to directly and indirectly increase participation in the Food Stamp Program through higher combined TANF plus food stamp benefit levels have higher food insecurity gaps between food stamp participants and eligible non-participants. This holds in both bivariate and multivariate comparisons across all of our measures of food insecurity. The evidence with respect to State error rates is more muted. A primary finding of this paper is to illustrate the importance of understanding how changing the composition of program participants affects the selected measure of program effectiveness. In the context of poverty alleviation programs, this is similar to the problem associated with measuring improvements in social wellbeing by changes in the ‘‘income-gap ratio” (the average distance between the income of the poor and the poverty line).10 A declining income-gap ratio can be readily misportrayed as evidence of improved wellbeing because the poor are on average better off. The well known problem with this is that the measure fails to account for the composition of the poor. For example, if a nonpoor family falls just slightly below the poverty line, there will be an increase in the number of poor people, but a decline in the income-gap ratio. Conversely, if a poor family with income greater than the incomegap ratio becomes nonpoor (an improvement in social wellbeing), the income-gap ratio increases.

3. No Solvency – none of their evidence indicates people will actually apply for food stamps once the quality control system is gone.

1NC – Solvency
4. No Solvency – lack of case workers prevents solvency.
Lubrano, Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer, 7/2/09
(Alfred Lubrano, Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer, 7/2/09, “Caseworker shortage delaying food-stamp applications” lexis)

More people need food stamps than ever before, but there are fewer state workers in Pennsylvania to process the claims; this may result in applicants missing out on benefits, according to anti-hunger advocates. Research by the Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger shows that a major problem for people eligible for food stamps is communicating with their caseworkers at local offices of the state Department of Public Welfare. In one recent test, the coalition learned that nearly two-thirds of all calls to caseworkers at a North Philadelphia service center never were answered. "It's just god-awful," said Steveanna Wynn, who runs the SHARE Food Program in North Philadelphia, which allows anyone regardless of income to purchase food at discounted prices in exchange for volunteer time. "Folks need services, and Department of Public Welfare workers don't have enough help. This is a nightmare. Both sides are ready to scream."

5. No Solvency – Stigma means they can’t solve.
Bhattarai et al, Ag Econ @ Auburn, 8/22/05
(Gandhi Raj Bhattarai, research assis Ag Econ and Rural Sociology @ Auburn, Patricia A. Duffy, Ag Econ and Rural Sociology @ Auburn, Jennie Raymond, group vice president, Credit Risk Management, Sun Trust Bank, 8/22/05, “Use of Food Pantries and Food Stamps in Low-Income Households in the United States” Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol 32 No 2)

Our results also indicate that fear of stigma may keep some eligible users away from both private and public assistance programs. As hypothesized, we found that participation in other forms of cash or noncash public assistance programs (TANF, WIC, subsidized housing, etc.) increased the probability that households would use food stamps and food pantries. On the other hand, use of these other programs may indicate households with better overall knowledge levels of benefits available. Without specific questions about respondents' concern for stigma and/or level of knowledge of program availability, it is impossible to separate these effects. Further research into the effects of stigma and knowledge on food assistance program use is warranted. In addition, Hispanic respondents were significantly less likely to participate in either form of food assistance, leading to the question of whether Hispanics are more sensitive than non-Hispanics to the social stigma of food assistance use or whether they are less exposed to information about possible benefits.