AT CP FERA NIB Specific – READ AN ADD-ON (please) like the State Budgets Advantage – Perm do both – The CP can’t solve: The concept of FERA is based on the squo’s funding models for infrastructure and public works projects. Our Schwartz evidence ’09 indicates that the squo method is flawed since it is accompanied with red tape and a one-size-fits all approach; the NIB would change the system to more efficiently fund such projects. Any increment of additional solvency for the perm is a reason to vote affirmative it o/w the risk of a one-shot DA. – Links to Politics the CP goes through Congress; their link evidence just – indicates that the GOP opposes stimulus bills and a FERA CP would be just as, if not more, unpopular among the GOP. Their evidence saying it doesn’t link to politics is terrible it just says that the CP might solve based on the work of one – researcher; it has no reference to the political climate. Creating an NIB would result in better public works awareness and organization for increasing jobs that’s our O’Connel evidence and our Lonardo evidence. – Additionally, the plan would take pressure off the states for such programs. The Perm solves an NIB would create better, more efficient investment in – public works to generate employment doesn’t link to politics – Plumer, Reporter at Washington Post, (Brad, 9/19/11, Washington Post, ’11 Obama’s “How plan for infrastructure bank would work,” AM) One of the key aspects of President jobs plan is an idea that’s been knocking around Washington for some time: a national infrastructure bank that would leverage private investment to fund new roads, bridges, mass transit and other public-works endeavors. Here’s how it would work. The proposal, modeled after a bipartisan bill in the Senate, would take $10 billion in start-up money and identify transportation, water or energy projects that lack funding. Eligible projects would need to be worth at least $100 million and provide clear public benefit.” The bank would then work with “a private investors to finance the project through cheap long-term loans or loan guarantees, with the government picking up no more than half the tab ideally, much — less for any given project. —
AT CP FERA – NIB Specific READ AN ADD-ON (please) – like the State Budgets Advantage Perm – do both The CP can’t solve: The concept of FERA is based on the squo’s funding models for infrastructure and public works projects. Our Schwartz ’09 evidence indicates that the squo method is flawed since it is accompanied with red tape and a one-size-fits all approach; the NIB would change the system to more efficiently fund such projects. Any increment of additional solvency for the perm is a reason to vote affirmative – it o/w the risk of a one-shot DA. Links to Politics – the CP goes through Congress; their link evidence just indicates that the GOP opposes stimulus bills and a FERA CP would be just as, if not more, unpopular among the GOP. Their evidence saying it doesn’t link to politics is terrible – it just says that the CP might solve based on the work of one researcher; it has no reference to the political climate. Creating an NIB would result in better public works awareness and organization for increasing jobs – that’s our O’Connel evidence and our Lonardo evidence. Additionally, the plan would take pressure off the states for such programs. The Perm solves – an NIB would create better, more efficient investment in public works to generate employment – doesn’t link to politics Plumer, Reporter at Washington Post, ’11 (Brad, 9/19/11, Washington Post, “How Obama’s plan for infrastructure bank would work,” AM) One of the key aspects of President jobs plan is an idea that’s been knocking around Washington for some time: a national infrastructure bank that would leverage private investment to fund new roads, bridges, mass transit and other public-works endeavors. Here’s how it would work. The proposal, modeled after a bipartisan bill in the Senate, would take $10 billion in start-up money and identify transportation, water or energy projects that lack funding. Eligible projects would need to be worth at least $100 million and provide “a clear public benefit.” The bank would then work with private investors to finance the project through cheap long-term loans or loan guarantees, with the government picking up no more than half the tab — ideally, much less — for any given project.
AFF_AT_Advantage_Counterplans___GDS_2012.docx