2014 ndi 6ws fitzmier, Lundberg, Abelkop deep ocean neg privatization cp

Energy tax credits are bipartisan

WASHINGTON — A strong Senate vote against raising taxes on the oil and gas industry was a bipartisan message that lawmakers don't want to punish all companies for the BP oil spill, Sen. Jim Inhofe said Wednesday. Inhofe, R-Tulsa, made the comment a day after he led the fight against a proposal to eliminate some of the tax credits and deductions available to exploration companies. The proposal was made by Sen. Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent, as an amendment to a hodgepodge of a bill that would extend some current tax breaks as well as unemployment benefits. Sanders' amendment would have repealed the tax credits that allow exploration companies to write off some of their expenses and depreciation. The proposal, which mirrors one made by President Barack Obama the last two years, would also have excluded energy exploration companies from the deduction available to U.S. manufacturers. Sanders' proposal was defeated by a vote of 61 to 35 on Tuesday, as Democrats from all over the country joined Republicans in opposition. "With the vote on the Sanders amendment, the Senate has clearly spoken with a strong bipartisan message that the entire oil and gas industry as a whole — especially small independent producers like many of those in Oklahoma — should not be penalized for BP's catastrophe in the Gulf,” Inhofe said Wednesday. "The Senate understands the value of our nation's domestic energy producers, the needs they meet, the jobs they create, the fact that they fund many state and local initiatives and the payments they make to landowners.”

AT: Spending/Tradeoff Links---2NC

Private funding avoids the link to spending -- perceived financially feasible

Cooper 12 [Donna Cooper is a Senior Fellow with the Economic Policy team at the Center for American Progress, “Meeting the Infrastructure Imperative”, 2/16, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/infrastructure.html]

Private investors have partnered with state or local governments to build roads, expand highway systems, and build or repair bridges. Typically in this case the private investor pays the public entity upfront an estimated market value for the transportation asset, and then is required under an agreement to cover the cost of improving the asset. In addition, these agreements permit the investor to charge tolls or receive dedicated tax payments while also establishing clear maintenance requirements. Investors enter into these agreements where the tolls or dedicated taxes are projected to cover all costs and profits and are most attractive to investors when the level of earnings has the potential to exceed projections. Federal credit subsidies lower the overall project costs, which in turn reduces the pressure on tolls and/or dedicated taxes, which then has the positive results of making a project more politically and financially feasible.

Tax credits are more cost efficient and are independent of agency funding

NSF 12 [National Science Foundation, Published in 2012, “Chapter 4. R&D: National Trends and International Comparisons,” http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c4/c4s6.htm]

Federal support for the nation's R&D spans a range of broad objectives, including defense, health, space, energy, natural resources/environment, general science, and various other categories. To assist the president and Congress in planning and setting the federal budget and its components, the Office of Management and Budget classifies agency budget requests into specific categories called budget functions. These functions include a number of categories that distinguish the various R&D objectives. Descriptions of the budget authority provided annually to federal agencies in terms of these R&D budget functions afford a useful picture of the present priorities and trends in federal support for U.S. R&D. In FY 2009, budget authority for federal agency spending on R&D totaled an estimated $156.0 billion, including a one-time $15.1 billion increase provided under the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 (appendix tables 4-28 and 4-29). As in previous years, defense was the largest of the R&D budget functions, accounting for 55% ($85.2 billion) of the total. Defense R&D is supported primarily by the Department of Defense (DOD), but also includes some R&D by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Justice (where some R&D by the Federal Bureau of Investigation comes under a defense category). Defense has accounted for the majority of R&D budget authority throughout the last two decades (figure 4-10, appendix table 4-28); the share has fluctuated year to year in the 50%–70% range. In FY 1980, it roughly equaled nondefense R&D, but by FY 1985 it was more than double. From 1986 to 2001, nondefense R&D surged, and the share of defense R&D shrank to 53%. After September 11, 2001, defense R&D became more prominent, accounting for 59% of the federal R&D budget in FY 2008. The drop to 55% in FY 2009 reflects chiefly the effect of the one-time ARRA spending authority that expanded health, energy, and general science research. Nondefense R&D Budget authority for nondefense R&D totaled $70.8 billion in FY 2009, or about 45% of the total that year (appendix table 4-28). Nondefense R&D includes health, space research/technology, energy, general science, natural resources/environment, transportation, agriculture, education, international affairs, veterans' benefits, and a number of other small categories related to economic and governance matters. The most striking change in federal R&D priorities over the past two decades has been the considerable increase in health-related R&D—which now accounts for well over half of all nondefense R&D (figure 4-10). Health R&D has risen from about 12% of total federal R&D budget authority in FY 1980 to 21% in FY 2008 and 26% in FY 2009 because of the ARRA increment. The increase in share accelerated after 1998, when policymakers set the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget on course to double by FY 2003. The budget allocation for space-related R&D peaked in the 1960s, during the height of the nation's efforts to surpass the Soviet Union in space exploration. It stood at 10%–11% of total R&D authority throughout the 1990s. The loss of the space shuttle Columbia and its entire crew in February 2003 prompted curtailment of manned space missions. In FY 2005, the space R&D share was down to about 6%; by FY 2009, it had declined to around 4%. Federal nondefense R&D classified as general science had about a 4% share of total federal R&D in the mid 1990s, growing to 8% in FY 2009. However, this change reflected chiefly a reclassification, starting in FY 1998, of several DOE programs from energy to general science. Federal Budget for Basic Research In FY 2009, federal budget authority for all basic research totaled $36.4 billion (appendix table 4-29). This represented some 23% of the $156.0 billion of total federal budget authority for R&D that year. The vast majority of basic research reflects the budgets of agencies with nondefense objectives, such as general science (notably NSF), health (NIH), and space research and technology (NASA). Over the past several years, budget authority levels for basic research have been mostly flat, after adjusting for inflation, excepting the 2009 ARRA boost. In FY 2002, basic research budget authority was $25.8 billion (constant 2005 dollars); in FY 2008, $26.4 billion; and $33.0 billion in FY 2009. Back to top Federal Spending on R&D by Agency Budget authority, discussed above, lays out the themes of the broad federal spending plan. Federal obligations reflect federal dollars as they are spent, that is, the implementation of the plan by federal agencies (see appendix tables 4-30 and 4-31). In FY 2009, federal obligations for R&D and R&D plant together totaled an estimated $137.0 billion: $133.3 billion for R&D and an additional $3.6 billion for R&D plant (table 4-16). Federal obligations for R&D have, in general, increased annually on a current-dollar basis since the mid-1990s (figure 4-11). Earlier figures are $68.2 billion for R&D in FY 1995 and an additional $2.3 billion for R&D plant, $75.9 billion and $4.5 billion in FY 2000, $118.9 billion and $3.8 billion in FY 2005 (appendix table 4-30). When adjusted for inflation, however, the growth has been slower after FY 2005. NSF's latest statistics indicate that the boost to R&D from the ARRA appropriations translated to an additional $10.1 billion of federal R&D obligations in FY 2009—$8.7 billion for R&D, another $1.4 billion for R&D plant, with the main recipients the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), NSF, and DOE (table 4-16). (The figures for federal funding of U.S. R&D cited in table 4-1 earlier in this chapter are somewhat lower. These earlier figures are based on performers' reports of their R&D expenditures from federal funds. This difference between performer and source of funding reports of the level of R&D expenditures has been present in the U.S. data for more than 15 years and reflects various technical issues. See sidebar, "Tracking R&D: The Gap between Performer- and Source-Reported Expenditures.") Fifteen federal departments and a dozen other agencies engage in and/or fund R&D in the U.S.[21] Seven departments/agencies that reported spending on R&D in excess of $1 billion annually accounted for 97% of the total (table 4-16). Another eight of the departments/agencies reported spending above $100 million annually. Department of Defense In FY 2009, DOD obligated a total of $68.2 billion for R&D and R&D plant (table 4-16)—which represented half (50%) of all federal spending on R&D and R&D plant that year. Nearly the entire DOD total was R&D spending ($68.1 billion) with the remainder spent on R&D plant. Twenty-seven percent ($18.7 billion) of the total was spending by the department's intramural labs, related agency R&D program activities, and FFRDCs (table 4-16). Extramural performers—private businesses, universities/colleges, state/local governments, other nonprofit organizations, and foreign performers—accounted for 73% ($49.5 billion) of the obligations, with the bulk going to business firms ($46.3 billion). Considering just the R&D component, relatively small amounts were spent on basic research ($1.7 billion, 3%) and applied research ($5.1 billion, 7%) in FY 2009 (table 4-17). The vast majority of obligations, $61.3 billion (90%), went to development. Furthermore, the bulk of this DOD development ($54.9 billion) was allocated for "major systems development," which includes the main activities in developing, testing, and evaluating combat systems (figure 4-12). The remaining DOD development ($6.4 billion) was allocated for "advanced technology development," which is more similar to other agencies' development obligations. Department of Health and Human Services HHS is the main federal source of spending for health-related R&D. In FY 2009, the department obligated an estimated $35.7 billion for R&D and R&D plant, or 26% of the total of federal obligations that year. Nearly all of this was for R&D ($35.6 billion). Furthermore, much of the total, $34.6 billion, represented the R&D activities of the NIH. Obligations from the ARRA-appropriated funds totaled $4.9 billion for HHS in FY 2009, the largest by far of all the federal agencies (table 4-16). Again, nearly all of this was NIH R&D. For the department as a whole, R&D and R&D plant obligations for agency intramural activities and FFRDCs accounted for 21% ($7.5 billion) of the total. Extramural performers accounted for 79% ($28.2 billion). Universities and colleges ($20.5 billion) and other nonprofit organizations ($5.3 billion) conducted the most sizable of these extramural activities (appendix table 4-31). Nearly all of HHS R&D funding is allocated to research—almost 53% for basic research and 47% for applied research (table 4-17). Department of Energy DOE obligated an estimated $11.6 billion for R&D and R&D plant in FY 2009, about 8% of the federal obligations total that year. Of this amount, $9.9 billion was for R&D and $1.7 billion for R&D plant. Obligations this year stemming from the ARRA appropriation totaled $2.2 billion, the third largest among the agencies (behind HHS and NSF). The department's intramural laboratories and FFRDCs accounted for 77% of the total obligations. Many of DOE's research activities require specialized equipment and facilities available only at its intramural laboratories and FFRDCs. Accordingly, DOE invests more resources in its intramural laboratories and FFRDCs than other federal agencies. The 23% of obligations to extramural performers were chiefly to businesses and universities/colleges. For the $9.9 billion obligated to R&D, basic research accounted for 41%, applied research 32%, and development 27%. DOE R&D activities are rather evenly distributed among defense (much of it funded by the department's National Nuclear Security Administration), energy, and general science (much of which is funded by the department's Office of Science). National Science Foundation NSF obligated $6.9 billion for R&D and R&D plant in FY 2009, or 5% of the federal total. Extramural performers, chiefly universities and colleges ($6.6 billion), represented 96% of this total. ARRA-related obligations were $2.2 billion (R&D and R&D plant), the second largest among the agencies. Basic research accounted for about 92% of the R&D component. NSF is the federal government's primary source of funding for academic basic science and engineering research and the second-largest federal source (after HHS) of R&D funds for universities and colleges. National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA obligated an estimated $5.9 billion to R&D in FY 2009, 4% of the federal total. Sixty-seven percent of these obligations were for extramural R&D, given chiefly to industry performers. Agency intramural R&D and that by FFRDCs represented 33% of the NASA obligations total. By character of work, 71% of the NASA R&D obligations funded development activities; 17%, basic research; and 12%, applied research. Department of Agriculture USDA obligated an estimated $2.3 billion for R&D in FY 2009, with the main focus on life sciences. The agency is also one of the largest research funders in the social sciences, particularly agricultural economics. Of USDA's total obligations for FY 2009, about 67% ($1.6 billion) funded R&D by agency intramural performers, chiefly the Agricultural Research Service. Basic research accounts for about 41%; applied research, 51%; and development, 8%. Department of Commerce DOC obligated an estimated $1.5 billion for R&D in FY 2009, most of which represented the R&D and R&D plant spending of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Seventy-seven percent of this total was for agency intramural R&D; 23% went to extramural performers, primarily businesses and universities/colleges. For the R&D component, 12% was basic research; 72%, applied research; and 16%, development. Department of Homeland Security DHS obligated an estimated $1.0 billion for R&D and R&D plant in FY 2009, nearly all of which was for activities by the department's Science and Technology Directorate. Sixty-one percent of this obligations total was for agency intramural and FFRDC activities. Just over 39% was conducted by extramural performers—mainly businesses, but also universities/colleges and other nonprofit organizations. Of the obligations for R&D, 15% was basic research; 37%, applied research; and 48%, development. Other Agencies The eight other departments/agencies obligating more than $100 million annually for R&D in FY 2009 were the Departments of Education, Interior, Justice, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs; and the Environmental Protection Agency, Agency for International Development, and Smithsonian Institution (tables 4-16 and 4-17). These agencies varied with respect to the character of the research and the roles of intramural, FFRDC, and extramural performers. Back to top Federal Spending on Research by Field Federal agencies' research covers the whole range of science and engineering fields. These fields vary in their funding levels and have different growth paths (see appendix tables 4-34 and 4-35). Funding for basic and applied research combined accounted for $63.7 billion (about 48%) of the $133.3 billion total of federal obligations for R&D in FY 2009 (table 4-17). Of this amount, $33.3 billion (52% of $63.7 billion) supported research in the life sciences (figure 4-13; appendix table 4-34). The fields with the next-largest amounts were engineering ($10.3 billion, 16%) and the physical sciences ($5.8 billion, 9%), followed by environmental sciences ($3.8 billion, 6%), and mathematics and computer sciences ($3.6 billion, 6%). The balance of federal obligations for research in FY 2009 supported psychology, the social sciences, and all other sciences ($7.0 billion overall, or 11% of the total for research). HHS accounted for the largest share (56%) of federal obligations for research in FY 2009 (appendix table 4-34). Most of this amount funded research in medical and related life sciences, primarily through NIH. The five next-largest federal agencies for research funding that year were DOE (11%), DOD (11%), NSF (10%), USDA (3%), and NASA (3%). DOE's $7.2 billion in research obligations provided funding for research in the physical sciences ($2.6 billion) and engineering ($2.5 billion), along with mathematics and computer sciences ($1.0 billion). DOD's $6.8 billion of research funding emphasized engineering ($3.5 billion), but also included mathematics and computer sciences ($0.9 billion), physical sciences ($0.8 billion) and life sciences ($0.9 billion). NSF—not a mission agency in the traditional sense—is charged with "promoting the health of science." Consequently, it had a relatively diverse $6.1 billion research portfolio that allocated about $1.0 billion to $1.3 billion in each of the following fields: environmental, life, mathematics/computer, and physical sciences; and engineering. Lesser amounts were allocated to psychology and the social and other sciences. USDA's $2.1 billion was directed primarily at the life (agricultural) sciences ($1.7 billion). NASA's $1.7 billion for research emphasized engineering ($0.6 billion), followed by the physical sciences ($0.5 billion) and environmental sciences ($0.4 billion). Growth in federal research obligations has slowed since 2004. Federal obligations for research in all S&E fields expanded on average at 3.6% annually (in current dollars) over the last 5 years (FY 2004–09), a much higher 6.6% over the last 10 years, and 5.8% over the last 20 years (appendix table 4-35). Adjusted for inflation, the 2004–09 average growth turns into an average annual increase of only 0.9%, which contrasts with a 10-year real growth of 4.1% and 3.3% over the last 20 years. Since the late 1990s, growth in federal research obligations in the life sciences and psychology has exceeded the S&E average, leading to growing shares for these fields. Growth for the mathematics and computer sciences was just below the S&E average. The shares of research funding going to physical sciences, behavioral and other social sciences, and engineering, declined. Environmental sciences grew slower than both total research and inflation. The federal government makes available tax credits for companies that expand their R&D activities, as a way of counteracting potential business underinvestment in R&D. Governments stimulate the conduct of R&D through tax incentives—allowances, exemptions, deductions, or tax credits—each of which can be designed with differing criteria for eligibility, allowable expenses, and baselines (OECD 2003). In the United States, federal tax incentives for qualified business R&D expenditures include a deduction under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 174 (C.F.R. Title 26) and a research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit under Section 41.[22] The latter was established in 1981 by the Economic Recovery Tax Act (Public Law 97-34). It was last renewed by the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, through 31 December 2011.[23] The Obama administration has proposed making this credit permanent (U.S Department of Treasury 2011). Along with the United States, over 20 OECD countries offer fiscal incentives for business R&D (OECD 2011b). Fiscal incentives for R&D are typically predicated on R&D's role in economic growth along with the recognition that R&D can generate social benefits well beyond those captured by companies investing in such activities (see Hemphill 2009 and references therein). In the United States there were about $8.3 billion in business R&E tax credit claims both in 2007 and in 2008 (see appendix table 4-36).[24] Five industries accounted for 75% of these claims in 2008: computer and electronic products; chemicals, including pharmaceuticals, and medicines; transportation equipment, including motor vehicles and aerospace; information, including software; and professional, scientific, and technical services, including computer and R&D services. Since 1998, R&E credit claims have grown at about the same average annual rate as has company-funded domestic R&D, keeping the ratio of R&E credit claims to company-funded domestic R&D in a narrow range (3.3% in 2008).[25] In 2008, more than 12,700 corporate returns claimed at least one component of the R&E tax credit (appendix table 4-37). Corporations with more than $250 million in business receipts accounted for 14% of returns claiming the credit in 2008 and 82% of the dollar value of all claims. In 2001, they had accounted for 9% of returns and 73% of dollar claims.[26] The federal R&E tax credit encompasses a regular credit and as many as two forms of alternative credit formulas since 1996.[27] Under the regular credit, companies can take a 20% credit for qualified research above a base amount for activities undertaken in the United States (IRC section 41(a)(1)). Thus, the regular credit is characterized as a fixed-base incremental credit. An incremental design is intended to encourage firms to spend more on R&D than they otherwise would by lowering after-tax costs (Guenther forthcoming). Expenses paid or incurred for qualified research include company-funded expenses for wages paid, supplies used in the conduct of qualified research, and certain contract expenses. Further, research "must be undertaken for discovering information that is technological in nature, and its application must be intended for use in developing a new or improved business component."[28] The credit covers U.S.-performed R&D by both domestic and foreign-owned firms and excludes R&D conducted abroad by U.S. companies. Activities generally disallowed for the purposes of the credit include those conducted after the beginning of commercial production and adapting an existing product or process. Research in the social sciences, arts, or humanities and research funded by another entity is also excluded.

Doesn’t link to tradeoff – doesn’t add to the deficit

Weisman 14 [Jonathan Weisman, NYT journalist, “In a Shift From Deficit Concerns, the Senate Will Take Up Tax Breaks,” Published May 13^th, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/senate-will-take-up-tax-breaks-for-business.html?_r=0]

The Senate on Tuesday shrugged off the deficit concerns that were once an animating force on Capitol Hill, voting 96-3 to take up a package of business tax breaks without offering any way to pay for them. The procedural vote presaged final passage as early as this week and followed the House’s overwhelming approval last week of legislation that would make permanent the research-and-development tax credit for businesses and raise the deficit by $156 billion over the next 10 years. On that vote, 62 House Democrats joined virtually every Republican in ignoring President Obama’s veto threat because of the deficit implications. “It’s pretty remarkable,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a deficit watchdog group. “It’s a shift from, ‘This is a huge problem’ — and if anyone looks at the long-term problems, it clearly still is — to ‘We’ve made so much progress on the budget deficit’ to doing things that actually hurt the debt. It’s as though members of Congress tried out fiscal discipline, didn’t like how it felt and are falling back to bad habits.” Senator Ron Wyden, right, the Oregon Democrat who heads the Senate Finance Committee, with reporters after the vote. Credit Gabriella Demczuk/The New York Times As the deficit continues to fall, it loosens the policy reins in Washington for the first time since Mr. Obama rammed through his stimulus law in the opening weeks of his presidency. Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that tax receipts were up 8 percent over the first seven months of the fiscal year, which began in October. Spending was down around 3 percent, and at $301 billion, the federal budget deficit is $187 billion lower than at this time last year. “We will not pull the plug before our nation’s recovery is complete,” said Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, the majority leader. “Let’s work together to give America’s families a fair shot.” The Senate’s Expiring Provisions Improvement Reform and Efficiency Act, or Expire, renews more than 50 tax credits through 2015, including the research and development tax credit, tax credits for investments in depressed areas, tax breaks for energy-efficient home improvements and tax breaks for higher education expenses. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, the new chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, had pledged to pare back the routinely extended tax breaks as a dry run for a broader overhaul of the tax code. In the end, nothing was pared back, not the “temporary” tax break for rum producers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, not the ability for moviemakers to write off the first $15 million of film production costs for films made in the United States, not the much maligned but longstanding tax breaks for racehorses and Nascar racetracks. Heritage Action, the political arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, called it “one of the most egregious examples of Washington using its power to prop up well-connected interests.” Yet only the staunchest deficit hawks, Republican Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Mike Lee of Utah, voted against beginning debate on the bill. And Congress’s actions over the last few days are only the beginning. In the coming weeks, the House is likely to make permanent five more corporate tax cuts, costing $301 billion through 2024. That would virtually wipe out all the deficit reduction last year, when Bush-era tax cuts were allowed to expire on upper-income households. The White House noted that the House’s expanded and permanent tax credit for research and development would cost more than 15 times as much as renewing and extending unemployment benefits, which Republicans insist must be paid for. “The administration wants to work with Congress to make progress on measures that strengthen the economy and help middle-class families, including pro-growth business tax reform. However, making traditional tax extenders permanent without offsets represents the wrong approach,” the White House said in extending a veto threat. A large majority in Congress appears to disagree, potentially setting up the first veto of consequence of the Obama presidency.

AT: Perm Do CP---2NC

The plan commits to federal investment -- the counterplan only does 50% or less of that investment. The permutation severs half of the plan and that’s a voting issue -- makes the aff a moving target destroying neg ground -- reject the team

They sever “federal government” – Government investment excludes corporations

Chan 9 [Chris Chan, part of the Productivity Commission, the Australian Government’s independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues affecting the welfare of Australians, et al., Danny Forwood Heather Roper Chris Sayers, 3-09,“Public Infrastructure Financing: An International Perspective,” Commonwealth of Australia , http://ssrn.com/abstract=1565073]

• General government investment (which excludes public corporations) as a proportion of GDP has fallen in most countries over the past four decades. In Australia it stood at 2.4 per cent of GDP in 2005-06. This could reflect the pattern of corporatisation of GTEs as well as privatisation over the period.

The federal government doesn’t actually own the product of the tax incentive---it’s distinct from government property

Kalil 6 [Thomas Kalil, Deputy Director for Policy for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Prizes for Technological Innovation,” Brookings Institute, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2006/12/healthcare%20kalil/200612kalil.pdf]

Science, technology, and innovation are central to America’s continued economic growth. As policy analysts and economists have long recognized, private sector firms and the government play essential and complementary roles in innovation, including the development of new technology. Broadly speaking, the government creates an institutional setting and sponsors a knowledge base that makes innovation possible, whereas private sector firms take the lead on deciding what innovative new products and services should actually be produced. Government efforts to promote research and development (R&D) rest on three pillars: funding, intellectual property rights, and education. First, the federal government uses grants, contracts, and appropriations to fund research efforts by private institutions, academic institutions, national laboratories, and other federally funded facilities; and uses tax incentives to encourage private firms to carry out R&D. Second, the federal government legislates and enforces intellectual property rights, such as those embodied in patents and trade secrets, so that private sector innovators have less reason to fear that other firms will copy their discoveries in the short term. Third, federal and state governments support higher education, which helps create the workforce that is needed for research-intensive science and engineering firms.

The CP isn’t federal investment – they either sever the plan or aren’t topical

‘Its’ is possessive

Encarta, 9 (Encarta World English Dictionary, http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861622735)

its [ its ] adjective Definition: indicating possession: used to indicate that something belongs or relates to something The park changed its policy.

The counterplan is plan-minus – the private sector maintains ownership which severs “its”

Harrold 11 – Esq., brief to the Supreme Court of Indiana

(Dennis, “HAIRE v. PARKER, 2011 IN S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 350,” Lexis)//BB

However, simply stating that Haspin Acres is released cannot afford enough protection because - under Indiana's law of agency or various theories of derivative liability - Haspin Acres would nevertheless face significant liability exposure for the negligent acts of its agents and affiliates. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a principal is liable for the negligent acts of his agent. See Comer-Marquardt v. A-l Glassworks, LLC, 806 N.E.2d 883, 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). This explains the use of the language: "its officers, trustees, employees and agents, meet [15] officials, promoters, sponsors, motorcycle riders, mechanics and pit crew." (App. 26) Haspin Acres included this list of possible agents and affiliates to further reduce liability exposure. This list of categories is controlled by the possessive "its", referring to Haspin Acres. Thus, each category is subject to the same possessive. Therefore, the entities released are Haspin Acres and "its officers", "its .. . trustees", "its .. . employees and agents", "its .. . riders", etc. (App. 26) The effect of the possessive "its" controls the entire list, including "riders". The express provision states "its . . . riders," not all riders.

Competition Cards

Tax incentives encourage private development

Eyler 13 [Deborah Eyler, Judge in the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, “Edgewood Mgmt. Corp. v. Jackson,” 212 Md. App. 177, Lexis]

In 2007, Triton began the process of transitioning Glenview from a Section 236 property to a Low Income Housing Tax Credit ("LIHTC") property. LIHTC is a federal tax-incentive program designed to encourage private development of low income properties. See Carter v. Maryland Mgmt. Co., 377 Md. 596, 603, 835 A.2d 158 (2003). Under this program, a property owner will receive a tax credit if a certain minimum number of residential units in the property are rent-restricted and occupied by people whose incomes do not exceed "sixty percent of the area median income," as determined by HUD. The property owner then can sell the tax credit to investors to raise capital for improvements to the property.

The private sector would possess and maintain the development projects – that violates the core meaning of “its”

Appelate Court of Illinois 80 [“Hulett v. Central Illinois Light Co.,” 83 Ill. App. 3d 195, Lexis]

The plaintiff responded to the motion for summary judgment to the effect that as to who owned or controlled the wires is immaterial, since CILCO was required to maintain and inspect all electric supply lines carrying its electricity and had failed to do so. In support of this contention the plaintiff relies upon Illinois Commerce Commission General Order 160 -- Revised, and effective as of June 1, 1963, which provides as follows: "9. General Maintenance Requirements. Each public utility operating a system of power or communication lines shall maintain its [italics in original] system of lines in such condition as will enable it to furnish safe, adequate and dependable service. Power and communication lines and their associated equipment shall comply with the provisions of this General Order when placed in service, and shall thereafter by systematically inspected, and when necessary, be subjected to tests to determine their fitness for the service required of them, and for conditions of safety. Any defects revealed by such inspections and tests which could cause or create an unsafe condition, shall be promptly corrected. If such corrections are not immediately undertaken, a record of the condition found shall be made in the proper plant office of the utility. Defective lines or their associated equipment shall be placed in good operating condition, or otherwise effectively disconnected or removed." (Emphasis added.) The purport of the trial judge's order is to this court clear in that a question of law is presented, namely, whether or not the Commerce Commission General Order 160 places a duty upon CILCO to maintain, repair and inspect the electrical lines in question, even though they are not and never have been owned or controlled by the power company. We note, however, that the plaintiff attempts to challenge the sufficiency of the Volk affidavit which denies ownership or control of the lines by CILCO. It is the plaintiff's argument that the affidavit referred to records as to premises located at 821 Tremont Township, Tremont, Illinois, and that the described premises have not been established as the place where the plaintiff was injured. We find no merit in this contention since it is [198] patently clear from the record that there was no concern on the part of the trial court or the parties to this action concerning the Volk affidavit or where the plaintiff was injured. It should be noted that the plaintiff did not file a counteraffidavit and consequently admitted that CILCO did not own or control the electrical line. (See Carruthers v. B. C. Christopher & Co. (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 376, 313 N.E.2d 457.) To raise on appeal the question of ownership appears to be an effort on the part of the plaintiff to obfuscate the true issue, to-wit, the meaning and effect of General Order 160. We have set forth the pertinent provisions of the order and attention should be directed to the word its located in the first paragraph and which we have emphasized. The word its as used is a pronoun and is being used in its possessive form. By the use of the word it is clear that each public utility system shall maintain the power lines which it owns.

Federal investment is distinct from its private sector incentives – different mechanisms

CBO 13 (Congressional Budget Office, “Federal Investment”, 12/18/13, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44974)

The federal government pays for a wide range of goods and services that are expected to be useful some years in the future. Those purchases, called investment, fall into three categories: physical capital, research and development (R&D), and education and training. There are several economic rationales for federal investment. It can provide public goods that the private sector and state and local governments would not provide efficiently, such as national defense and basic scientific research. It can promote long-term economic growth—as education spending does by developing a skilled workforce, as R&D spending does by prompting innovation, or as infrastructure spending does by facilitating commerce. And it can support the work of the federal government by, for instance, providing the structures and equipment necessary to perform federal activities. In 2012, the federal government spent $531 billion on investment, representing 15 percent of federal spending and 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). As discussed in this publication (shown below), those shares have remained roughly stable over the past 20 years, though investment by the federal government approached 4 percent of GDP in 2010 and 2011 after the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, Public Law 111-5) temporarily expanded funding for a number of investment programs. Earlier, in the 1960s, federal investment represented more than 30 percent of federal spending and averaged nearly 6 percent of GDP. Nearly all federal investment takes place through discretionary spending, which is controlled by annual appropriation acts. Federal investment has gradually declined as a proportion of discretionary spending, from roughly 50 percent in the 1960s to about 40 percent today, and discretionary spending as a whole has fallen as a share of total federal spending since the 1960s. Caps on appropriations put in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011 will decrease future discretionary spending through 2021 relative to what it would have been if annual appropriations had grown at the rate of inflation after 2011. Sixty percent of total federal investment in 2012—or $318 billion, which represented 2 percent of GDP—was for purposes other than national defense. Of that nondefense investment, 40 percent provided funding for physical capital, another 40 percent for education and training, and 20 percent for R&D. (Some of the nondefense investment was the result of ARRA’s funding increases for such activities as highway construction and elementary and secondary education, though the resulting spending had started to abate by 2012.) Defense activities accounted for the remaining 40 percent of federal investment and totaled $213 billion, which represented a little over 1 percent of GDP. About two-thirds of federal investment for defense purposes was devoted to physical capital and the rest to R&D. How Does the Federal Government Support Investment? The federal government supports public and private investment through several different mechanisms. In many cases, it makes the investment directly, such as when the Army Corps of Engineers constructs a dam or when a federal agency purchases computer equipment from the private sector. In other cases, the federal government makes grants to individuals or private-sector organizations, which then use the funds to make investments. Examples include the Federal Pell Grant Program for postsecondary education and the National Science Foundation’s research grants.

Tax incentives lead to private development

TPC 09 (Tax Policy Center, “Tax Incentives for Economic Development: What are tax incentives for economic development?”, Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, 4/17/09, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/economic-development/what-is.cfm)

The Federal Government has often used the tax system to partner with the private sector for economic development initiatives. A variety of tax expenditures aim to lure or keep companies and sectors within the United States. In addition, a more coherent set of incentives supports private investments in specific communities. Traditionally, these tax incentives have been tied to low-income communities, with few restrictions on the type of business claiming them. Often, they subsidize property development in targeted areas or the employment of those living there.

Government incentives create private development – they’re distinct

James 10 (Sebastian, “Incentives and Investments: Evidence and Policy Implications”, January 2010, World Bank Group, https://www.wbginvestmentclimate.org/advisory-services/investment-generation/investment-policy-and-promotion/upload/Incentives-and-Investments-Evidence-and-Policy-Implications.pdf)

This paper analyzes how government incentives can be used to foster private investment, particularly in developing countries. What makes such incentives effective? How much should they cost? And how are they linked to policymaking and political economy? The assessment draws on existing literature as well as several case studies and surveys conducted for this paper.

Businesses claim the tax incentive

Duncan et al 09 (Paul Duncan is a manager at Ernst & Young, Carol Rosenberg and Kim Reuben are directors of the State and Local Finance Initiative, 4/17/09, “Tax Incentives for Economic Development: What are tax incentives for economic development?”, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/economic-development/what-is.cfm )

The Federal Government has often used the tax system to partner with the private sector for economic development initiatives. A variety of tax expenditures aim to lure or keep companies and sectors within the United States. In addition, a more coherent set of incentives supports private investments in specific communities. Traditionally, these tax incentives have been tied to low-income communities, with few restrictions on the type of business claiming them. Often, they subsidize property development in targeted areas or the employment of those living there.

Federal and private investment are distinct – federal R&D is direct and private is through tax preferencing

CBO 07 (Congressional Budget Office, “Federal Support for Research and Development”, June 2007, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8221/06-18-research.pdf)

For fiscal year 2007, lawmakers have provided about $137 billion in budget authority to support federal research and development (RSCD) activities. In addition, tax preferences are in place to encourage the private sector to increase its R&D spending. (Under one such prefer- ence, the research and experimentation tax credit, firms in 2004 claimed $5.6 billion.) This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study, prepared at the request of the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Budget, examines recent trends in federal support for research and development and the current state of knowledge about the economic effects of that sup- port. In keeping with CBO's mandate to provide objective, impartial analysis, the report con- tains no recommendations.

Projects done through tax incentives are privately owned

Hoffman and Lowder 10 (R. Thomas Hoffmann is a partner at the Washington, D.C., office of national law firm Ballard Spahr LLP, Darin M. Lowder is an associate at the Washington, D.C., office of Ballard Spahr, “Public-Private Partnerships¶ For Solar Development:¶ Notes From The Field,” http://www.ballardspahr.com/alertspublications/articles/~/media/Files/Articles/2010-09_PublicPrivatePartnershipsForSolarDev.ashx, accessed 7/15/14)

The financing study, conducted during summer 2008, outlined the benefits of private ownership and related tax incentives. The study determined that the cost of providing solar power to the county varied depending on the ownership and financing structure, with the following results.¶ Under a public ownership structure - with financing through Clean Renewable Energy Bonds - the levelized net costs were $0.17/ kWh. Levelized net costs with tax- exempt bond financing - also under a public ownership structure - were $0.23/kWh.¶ Under private ownership, with a financing structure combining the ITC with depreciation benefits financed with equity and commercial debt, the levelized net costs declined to $0.13/kWh. Finally, a private ownership structure involving the ITC and depreciation benefits financed with new-market tax credit financing reduced levelized net costs to $0.10/ kWh.¶ Given the results of the study, the county decided to pursue the private development of the solar project and incorporate new-market tax-credit financing. New-market tax credits are generated by investment in businesses located in low- income areas, and the county has a number of properties that qualify as low-income areas for purposes of the tax credit. The result is typically below-market debt and possible forgiveness of a portion of the loans.

AT: Perm Do Both---2NC

No benefit to the permutation -- incentives are not perceived as spending and the revenue gained from the activity would offset government losses

AT: Private fiat

No link to the private fiat args -- CP text mandates USFG action not private sector action

Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014
2014 -> For want of a nail
2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014
2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six
2014 -> United states patent and trademark office
2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus
2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now
2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender

Download 0.84 Mb.

Share with your friends: