Not final until 8:30 but this is likely the 1NC

>>>>

Topicality: 1NC- Removing A Barrier
A. Increase is direct growth not removing a barrier
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 96
Increase: 1)to make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment 2)to become greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality 3)to multiply by propagation 4)growth or augmentation in size, strength, quality 5)the act or process of increasing
B. The affirmative team does not increase the amount of social services but removes a restriction on legal services
C. Limits- Removing barriers opens the floodgates and overstretches our research burden
Impact - Topic-specific education: under their interpretation of debate, we never learn about the social services and how they affect the poor but only about legal barriers.
D. Plan is at best FX topical-
E. Evaluate T in a framework of competing interpretations; if we win that our interpretation is best for debate, you vote them down. Reasonability is arbitrary and mandates judge intervention.


Counter-Plan

Text: The United States federal government should offer positive incentives for
    • businesses to not practice environmentally destructive practices in impoverished areas.
    • banks and lenders that receive high repay rates of people living in poverty
Positive incentives better influence business action
Journal of Business Ethics, 04

(John C. Ruhka and Heidi Boerstler, 11/30/04 __http://www.springerlink.com/ content/px04170562666117/__)
This article presents an overview of traditional legal and regulatory incentives directed at achieving lawful corporate behavior, together with examples of more recent governmental incentives aimed at encouraging self regulation activities by corporations. These incentives have been differentiated into positive incentives that benefit corporations for actions that encourage or assist lawful behavior, and punitive incentives that only punish corporations for violations of legal or regulatory standards. This analysis indicates that traditional legal and regulatory incentives for lawful corporate behavior are overwhelmingly punitive in their intended effects, while more recent governmental incentives to encourage voluntary corporate self regulation are much more positive in their intended effects. A prototype private compliance system containing typical features specified in governmental incentives for corporate self regulation was then analyzed applying the same positive/punitive analysis that was performed with the governmental incentives. This analysis suggests that corporate compliance programs that are structured to comply with Department of Defense regulations for defense contractors or the new Federal Organizational Sentencing Guidelines will reflect the same overwhelmingly punitive balance of incentives for lawful and ethical employee conduct as do the traditional legal and regulatory incentive systems for lawful corporate behavior.
Net Benefit:
1.
Investors will perceive the plan as anti-business, crushing business confidence
Mintzer Schwartz 1992 Confronting Climate Change: Risks implications and Responses, pg. 283
There are many impediments to environmental reforms but the principal obstacles, particularly in the United States are psychological and philosophical rather than economic. While European corporations tend to treat environmental regulations as a part of the operating environment, US business leaders seem to share a residual feeling that environmental regulations are part of an anti-business, anti-progress political agenda. Richard Darman, Director of the Federal Office of Management and Budget, articulated this paranoia when he argued that the goal of US policy was not to “make the world safe for green vegetable.” This prejudice—coupled with the short-term orientation of the investment community and a naturally adversarial business environment—has resulted in suspicion towards environmental issues.


2. Investor confidence decline collapses the economy
The Economist 6/11/2009 (__http://www.economist.com/ opinion/displaystory.cfm? story_id=13829461__)
This alarming trajectory puts policymakers in an increasingly tricky bind. In the short term government borrowing is an essential antidote to the slump. Without bank bail-outs the financial crash would have been even more of a catastrophe. Without stimulus the global recession would be deeper and longer—and it is a prolonged downturn that does the greatest damage to public finances. But in the long run today’s fiscal laxity is unsustainable. Governments’ thirst for funds will eventually crowd out private investment and reduce economic growth. More alarming, the scale of the coming indebtedness might ultimately induce governments to default or to cut the real cost of their debt through high inflation. Investors have been fretting on both counts. Worries about default have been focused on weaker countries in the euro area, particularly Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, where the single currency removes the option of unilateral inflation (see our special report). Ireland’s debt was downgraded for a second time on June 8th. Fears of inflation have concentrated on America, where yields on ten-year Treasuries reached nearly 4% on June 10th; in December the figure was not much above 2%. Much of this rise stems from confidence about economic recovery rather than fiscal alarm. Yet eye-popping deficits and the uncharted nature of today’s monetary policy, with the Federal Reserve (like the Bank of England) printing money to buy government bonds, are prompting concerns that America’s debt might eventually be inflated away. Justified or not, such worries will themselves wreak damage. The economic recovery could be stillborn if interest rates rise too far too fast. And today’s policy remedies could become increasingly ineffective. Printing more money to buy government debt, for instance, might send long-term bond yields higher rather than lower. What should policymakers do? A sudden fit of fiscal austerity would be a mistake. Even when economies stop shrinking, they will stay weak. Japan’s experience in 1997, when a rise in consumption taxes pushed the economy back into recession, is a reminder that a rush to fiscal tightening is counterproductive, especially after a banking bust. Instead of slashing their deficits now, the rich world’s governments need to promise, credibly, that they will do so once their economies are stronger. Lord, make me prudent—but not yet But how? Politicians’ promises are not worth much by themselves. Any commitment to prudence must include clear principles on how deficits will be shrunk; new rules to stiffen politicians’ spines; and quick action on politically difficult measures that would yield future savings without denting demand much today, such as raising the retirement age. Broadly, governments should pledge to clean up their public finances by cutting future spending rather than raising taxes. Most European countries have scant room for higher taxes. In several, the government already hoovers up well over 40% of GDP. Tax reform will be necessary—particularly in places, such as Britain and Ireland, which relied far too much on revenues from frothy financial markets and housing bubbles. Even in the United States, where tax revenues add up to less than 30% of GDP, simply raising tax rates is not the best answer. There too, spending control should take priority, though there is certainly room for efficiency-enhancing tax reforms, such as eliminating the preferential tax treatment of housing and the deductibility of employer-provided health insurance.

3. Economic collapse causes World War Three
Mead, 9 – Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations
(Walter Russell, “Only Makes You Stronger,” The New Republic, 2/4/09,
__http://www.tnr.com/politics/ story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887- 4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2__)
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.





Health Care 1NC
Polls won’t discourage Obama – pushing ensures passage regardless of resistance
Whitesides and Smith 8/5

John Whitesides and Donna Smith, writers for Reuters, “Obama vows to pass healthcare reform” __http://www.reuters.com/ article/healthNews/ idUSTRE56M0HE20090805__

Despite polls showing growing public doubts about his healthcare overhaul, U.S. President Barack Obama vowed on Wednesday to get a reform bill through Congress this year even without Republicans on board. "I promise you, we will pass reform by the end of this year because the American people need it," Obama said in Wakarusa, Indiana, where he traveled to tout his economic initiatives. "We're going to have to make it happen." Obama's drive for healthcare reform, his top legislative priority, has been attacked on all sides for its $1 trillion cost and scope. Democrats have feuded over how to pay for it, and Obama's popularity has slipped as the debate dragged on. A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday found 52 percent of voters disapprove of Obama's handling of healthcare while 39 percent approve. That was a shift from 46 percent approval against 42 percent disapproval in a July 1 survey. Concerns about spending too much and adding to the deficit appeared to fuel the change, with 72 percent saying they do not believe Obama can overhaul healthcare without expanding the deficit. No Republicans have backed the healthcare proposals under consideration in Congress, and months of Senate Finance Committee negotiations with three Republican senators have not produced a deal. Obama said time was about up. "I think at some point, sometime in September, we're just going to have to make an assessment," Obama told MSNBC after his appearance in Wakarusa, saying his priority was a plan that reined in healthcare costs, improved care and regulated insurance companies. Obama wants to expand insurance coverage to most of the 46 million uninsured Americans and make it harder for insurance companies to prohibit coverage of those with pre-existing conditions. "I would prefer Republicans working with us on that because I think it's in the interest of everybody. That shouldn't be a partisan issue," he said.



Plan uses political capital – spending and controversy
Houseman 05,
(Alan W., Director, Center for Law and Social Policy, “The Future of Civil Legal Aid in the United States,” November 2005, http://www.clasp.org/ publications/future_legal_aid. pdf)
Supporters of increased federal funding will have to overcome significant political barriers to substantially (as opposed to incrementally) increase federal funding for civil legal assistance. Although LSC leadership has made substantial progress in developing a much stronger bipartisan consensus in favor of funding for LSC, U.S. political leadership remains divided about whether there should be a federally funded program, and, if so, whether it should be through the federal LSC program or via a block grant program administered by the states. In addition, there are substantial efforts to reduce U.S. domestic discretionary spending over the next five years in order to address the substantial federal budget deficit that has resulted primarily from the tax reductions and the increased spending on defense and homeland security. In May, the Congress passed its budget resolution, which would reduce domestic discretionary spending by more than $200 billion over the next five years. The budget directives are playing out now during the appropriations process. These cuts would grow deeper over time and are projected to affect all domestic discretionary spending, including LSC funds and other federal funds available for civil legal aid. The President’s budget proposal for FY 2006 illustrates how the federal budget issues impacts civil legal aid. The Administration has proposed to cut funding for LSC by 5 percent. This would reduce funding available to the national legal aid program to $318.2 million, an amount less than the $321 million LSC received in 1980. This year, FY 2005, LSC lost funding from an appropriate level of $335.3 million in FY 2004 to an appropriate level of $330.8 million in FY 2005. The Board of Directors of LSC has requested $363.8 million for FY 2006. The House adopted an appropriation of $330.8 million. The Senate agreed to a level of $358 million. The conference committee, however, only recommended the House level of $330.8 million. This amount may be reduced even further if across-the-board decreases are imposed on all or most domestic discretionary programs.

Political capital key to healthcare reform
Chiropractic Economics 7-7-2009
http://www.chiroeco.com/ 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.
Cross Apply MEAD 2009

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” http://monthlyreview.org/ 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.

Environmental Racism Frontline

1. Injustice is inevitable without strong administrative land reforms
Department for International Development: Government Department responsible for promoting development and the reduction of poverty, November 2002 “Better livelihoods for poor people: The role of Land Policy”
Poor policies, inappropriate legal frameworks and weak administration mean many governments are ill equipped to provide land for the poor in cities. Cumbersome planning and building standards that are blatantly infringed frequently combine with hazardous topography. Many poor people have no choice but to take what land they can through informal or illegal means. Conditions in poor areas of cities are unsafe and unhealthy, services are inadequate and people face the continual threat of eviction. It is vital that work to strengthen land rights in cities is linked to improved urban and regional planning.
2. Alternative causalities – racism, economic, post-materialism, governmental inefficiency
Alka
Sapat, Jaap J. Vos, and Khi V. Thai , a School of Public Administration, Florida Atlantic University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, U.S.A.b Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida Atlantic University, Davie, Florida, U.S.A. International Journal of Public Administration, Volume 25, Issue 2 & 3 March 2002 , (pages 143 – 168)
Environmental justice is a major issue today and of interest to citizens, administrators, and scholars of public administration. In this introduction, we review the emergence of the environmental justice movement and discuss the development of the field by presenting an overview of the literature and existent research on environmental justice. This research has focused to a large extent on siting issues and on the causes and explanations of environmental equity. In particular, five causes or explanations of environmental injustice have been emphasized in the literature: (a) race; (b) economic and market factors; (c) political and administrative issues; (d) attitudinal issues; and (e) post-materialism. We review the major pieces of research and evidence in these areas and compare and contrast the explanations of environmental injustice. for the most part we find that there is considerable controversy over the different explanations and causes of environmental injustice. In the third section of the paper, we highlight some of the issues that have not been explored so far and the unfulfilled gaps, in academic research on environmental justice issues. We conclude by presenting a brief synopsis of the articles in this symposium.
3. Status quo solves – shift towards hybrid cars ensures decreasing emissions levels
Cohen 01 [Bonner R., Lexington Institute, “Air Quality’s Benefactors,” For the Record, Summer 2001,
www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/ regv24n2/fortherecord.pdf
Matthew E. Kahn’s discussion of the effects of cleaner air in the Los Angeles basin adds an interesting twist to the debate over environmental justice (“The Beneficiaries of Clean Air Regulation,” Regulation, Vol. 24, No. 1). While air pollution levels in predominantly black and Hispanic areas were markedly higher than in white neighborhoods in 1980, Kahn’s analysis shows that the gap has closed considerably over the past two decades. The improvements in air quality in the Los Angeles basin, he notes, are primarily the result of expensive anti-pollution devices on newer cars, purchased mostly by the area’s more affluent residents. Inner city residents, it turns out, are the chief beneficiaries of the increasingly successful efforts to deal with the L.A. basin’s chronic air quality problems. I strongly suspect that Professor Kahn could find similar patterns in other urban areas, as the rising tide of technology-driven air-quality improvements lifts all boats, including those anchored in inner cities. The Environmental Protection Agency, which is still mulling over a set of environmental justice policies designed to “protect” minorities from pollution, would do well to take note of developments in Los Angeles and elsewhere. As is so often the case, the problem it has decided to address appears well on its way to being solved. This is happening without the restrictions on business and industrial activities in minority communities, which are at the heart of EPA’s proposals to bring about environmental justice.

Justice Gap 1NC

1. Class action lawsuits destroy democracy
Redish, Professor of Law and Public Policy, 03
(Martin H. Redish, Professor of Law and Public Policy @ Northwestern University, 2003 “Class Actions and the Democratic Difficulty: Rethinking the Intersection of Private Litigation and Public Goals”, 2003 U. Chi. Legal F. 71)
Much of the scholarly commentary has been highly critical of the modern class action. n8 Despite this widespread judicial and scholarly attention, neither courts nor scholars appear to have recognized a fundamental problem with the modern class action: in all too many cases, the modern class action has undermined the foundational precepts of American democracy. It has done so by effectively transforming the essence of the governing substantive law that the class action has been created to enforce. This transformation has come about even though the class action device is not structured for the purpose of altering the underlying law. Thus, controlling substantive law is not transformed through the democratic process of legislative amendment, where the electorate may measure its chosen representatives by how they voted on the proposed revisions of existing law. Rather, this dramatic alteration in governing substantive law arises from, essentially, a form of indirection and subterfuge, by use of a procedural device whose sole legitimate function is the considerably more modest [*74] one of implementing and facilitating the enforcement of existing substantive law. n9

2. Their impact evidence cites a majority of the population must be involved in the government to prevent extinction, but the poor only 12-13% of the country is poor


3. Kills democracy
Redish, Professor of Law and Public Policy, 03
(Martin H. Redish, Professor of Law and Public Policy @ Northwestern University, 2003 “Class Actions and the Democratic Difficulty: Rethinking the Intersection of Private Litigation and Public Goals”, 2003 U. Chi. Legal F. 71)
In its current form, the faux class action constitutes a wholly improper and unacceptable departure from the fundamental precepts of American democracy, and thus gives rise to what can be described as "the democratic difficulty." The sources of the serious (and ultimately fatal) problems of democratic theory to which the faux class action gives rise are two-fold: (1) Such actions are not what they purport to be--namely, compensatory damage suits--and (2) in any event these disguised bounty hunter actions have never been authorized by the underlying substantive law that such actions purport to enforce. In effect, then, these actions constitute a form of procedural shell game, in which a procedural device that has been designed to do nothing more than facilitate the enforcement of the substantive law's authorization of private [*82] damage suits n37 transforms that private remedial model into a qualitatively different form of remedy that was never part of that substantive law. n38 If the substantive law is to authorize a bounty hunter remedial model as a supplement to or replacement for the pre-existing private damage remedy, the change may not properly be effected through the operation of a procedural device such as Rule 23. Such a dramatic modification of the substantive law through resort to an avowedly procedural device contravenes the fundamental democratic notions of representation and accountability, because the process effectively deceives the electorate. As a result of this deception, the electorate is unable to judge its elected representatives by examining how they voted on these important modifications of enforcement models, because those representatives have never been asked to vote on the issue. The democratic process is substantially undermined as a result.


Justice Gap 1NC
4. An attorney’s entrepreneurial discourage participation in legal process and reduce plaintiffs access to justice
Meinick, J.D. Candidate @ St. Johns University, 08;
(Katie, J.D. Candidate at St. John’s University; Winter 2008, “In Defense of the Class action lawsuit: and examination of the implicit advantages and a response to common criticisms , St. John’s Journal of Legal Commentary, 22 St. John's J.L. Comm. 755, Lexis)

Another major criticism of the class action is that class action attorneys lack an actual client to constrain them. n78 In traditional forms of litigation, the attorney advocates on behalf of the client, but it is the client who makes the ultimate decisions regarding the representation. n79 In such a scenario, the client can be seen as a monitor, ensuring the attorney engages in his legal duties to the best of his abilities and is not sidetracked by any personal interest he has riding on the litigation. n80 Even in a contingency fee representation, the client can tell the attorney to reject settlement offers in favor of waiting out a higher offer or continuing on to litigation. n81 Such a relationship does not exist within the class action context. n82 In such litigation, attorneys do not have a single client to whom they must answer. n83 In fact, the client in class action litigation is an amorphous group and the attorney is ultimately responsible to the group as a whole, not to any individual member. n84 Without a specific client to keep him in check, the existence [*771] of the entrepreneurial attorney has emerged. n85 Such an attorney exists to further his own self-interests as opposed to furthering the interests of his client. n86 Traditional agency theory describes the agency relationship as "a contract under which one or more persons (the principal(s)) engage another person (the agent) to perform some service on their behalf, which involves delegating some decision making authority to the agent." n87 Under such circumstances, if per chance the interests of the two parties diverge, the monitoring by the principal serves to keep the agent on track. n88 The effectiveness of this monitoring relationship ultimately depends on "the observability of the agent's performance." n89 In the traditional attorney client relationship, monitoring can be difficult because the client (the principal) is often ignorant of litigable claims and defenses, and therefore not always able to perform the necessary supervisory functions. n90 Regardless of the difficult nature of the task, the client is at least given the opportunity to observe his agent at work and to assert his own opinions when he desires. n91 [*772] Within the class action context, the ideal of agency theory becomes even more strained. n92 In large-scale small-claim litigation, the lack of a substantial stake in the litigation serves to deter many from wanting to take on the extra responsibility of serving as a litigation monitor. n93 Even when someone has agreed to be the named plaintiff, he often wants to lend no more than his name to a case in which he stands to recover only a nominal amount. n94 This creates a situation where someone who has been tasked with representing the voice of the class fails to follow through with the responsibility, again leaving the class attorney as the one driving the lawsuit. n95 Additionally, within the class action context, members of the class are often unaware that they have a stake in the litigation until the settlement has been reached and therefore never have a chance to weigh in on the litigation strategy. n96 Perhaps most disturbing to an outsider is the fact that, even if someone (besides the named plaintiff) wanted to assume a stronger role within a class action litigation, it is the attorney's responsibility to advocate for the best interests of the class as a whole, and not any one [*773] individual. n97 Resultantly, the attorney could potentially refuse to listen to a class member at will, if he feels the class member's wishes conflict with the interests of the class as a whole.

Predatory Lending 1NC
1. Predatory Lending Reform is on the way- status quo solves
Harney, Vice president and member of the board of directors of the National Association of Real Estate Editors, April 4
(Ken Harney, graduate from Princeton University, Columnist for Washington Post, April 4, 2009, “Congress Takes A Serious Look At Reforming the Mortgage Market”, Lexis)

Congress is preparing to take up a comprehensive plan that would fundamentally reform the home mortgage market, starting this year. Had the same rules and standards been in place earlier in the decade, congressional supporters say, it could have eliminated much of the funny-money loans, slipshod underwriting and Wall Street abuses that distorted the market from 2002 through 2006. The boom wouldn't have been as big, and the bust might not have happened. The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009 (H.R. 1728) was introduced March 26 by co-authors Reps. Barney Frank Enhanced Coverage Linking Barney Frank -Search using: * Biographies Plus News * News, Most Recent 60 Days (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Brad Miller (D-N.C.) and Melvin Watt (D-N.C.) It is expected to move quickly through the House this month and go to the Senate by May. The odds of passage in some form are high, according to banking and housing industry lobbyists. The bill is a tougher version of one pushed by Miller in 2007 that passed the House but foundered in the Senate. This year, as a result of stronger Democratic majorities in both houses, "the political climate has changed," Miller said. "The foreclosure crisis has wreaked havoc on middle-class families and our economy as a whole. The industry's arguments for watering the bill down are not at all convincing." Here's what the legislation would do: -- Ban all fees paid to loan officers that are tied to the interest rate or type of mortgage. During the headiest years of the boom, Wall Street investment banks paid mortgage brokers higher fees if they originated exotic loans such as short-term subprime adjustables, interest-only, payment-option, and "stated income" no-documentation loans with minimal or no down payments. The lending industry also routinely paid brokers more for originating mortgages that carried rates above prevailing levels. Loan officers frequently steered applicants with marginal credit histories into loans with excessive rates and penalties -- and were paid more by banks and Wall Street for doing so. Studies have documented that minority and first-time borrowers disproportionately were marketed loans with unnecessarily high fees and penalties, based on their credit scores. The new bill would prohibit any compensation -- "direct or indirect" -- that is tied to the rate or terms of the mortgage. "There should be no way you can be compensated for steering anyone to a higher rate," Frank said in an interview. The bill does permit home buyers or refinancers to opt for a slightly higher note rate to finance closing costs. -- Create mandatory minimum national quality standards for all mortgages. The rules would encourage lenders to make fully documented 30-year, fixed-rate loans at prevailing market rates, as opposed to loans with higher-risk features such as adjustable payments and negative amortization. The bill would also impose a new federal "duty of care" standard requiring loan officers to offer applicants only terms and rates that are "appropriate" to their income and ability to repay. Refinancings would have to pass a "net tangible benefit" test demonstrating that the replacement loan is superior to the borrower's current terms. Lenders would have to offer applicants the option to choose any loan without a prepayment penalty attached. Mandatory arbitration clauses in most home mortgages would be banned. -- Allow borrowers who are put into mortgages that violate the new law to seek immediate legal redress through cancellation of the entire loan contract, refund of all payments and fees, plus lender compensation for legal costs.
2. The Georgia 09 evidence only talks about the distinction between good and bad loan but is not conclusive on the fact that predatory lending will cause economic collapse-they have no internal link