Chicago Debate League 2013/14 Core Files


NC Extensions: A/t – #4 “Corruption is High” 228



Download 3.16 Mb.
Page82/169
Date10.08.2017
Size3.16 Mb.
#31150
1   ...   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   ...   169

2NC Extensions: A/t – #4 “Corruption is High” 228



1) Latin American countries are working to fight corruption through new laws and business investment that makes economic growth likely in the short-term. Our evidence is from comprehensive surveys of the region that look at more factors than their evidence, which is speculative and not based on actual policies. Extend our INSIDE COUNSEL evidence.
2) The most accurate Index of political corruption shows that almost every country in Latin America is improving.

TIME MAGAZINE, 12

[Tim Padgett, staff writer ; “Tale of Two Corruptos: Brazil and Mexico on Different Transparency Paths,”

12/06, http://world.time.com/2012/12/06/tale-of-two-corruptos-brazil-and-mexico-on-different-transparency-paths/]
That’s significant because one of the Index’s biggest stories in recent years is that Latin America has begun to shed its centuries-old image as the most venal region on earth. More than half of the Latin American nations ended up in the top half of the Index again this year — and Chile and Uruguay, which tied at No. 20, are just one slot behind the U.S. (Canada, home of Dudley Do-Right, is No. 9, the best in the western hemisphere; Denmark, Finland and New Zealand tied for No. 1.) The fact that Brazil has brought itself more in line with that trend than Mexico has — when at the turn of the century Brazil was still known for its Trem da Alegria, or Joy Train, the sardonic name Brazilians gave their hyper-embezzling public bureaucracy — simply gives global media another excuse to fawn.
3) We have evidence specific to their country:
[Insert Country-specific Uniqueness]

2NC Extensions: A/t – #5 “Aid Solves Corruption” [1/2] 229



1) The reverse is true. U.S. economic assistance encourages corruption by making it easier for governments to avoid making tough policy choices while still receiving enough revenue to stay in power. Extend our EAR and LEVIN evidence.

But also, our argument just makes more sense: if foreign officials can get money from the U.S. for doing nothing, why would they risk their political power by cracking down on bribery and corrupt businesses?
2) Our Link outweighs their Turn because of “Moral Hazards.” Aid convinces other countries that the U.S. will always bail out their mistakes, which encourages further miscalculation and misbehavior.
LEVIN, 00

[Yuval, fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center; “American Aid to the Middle East: A Tragedy of Good Intentions,”http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat11/strategic11.pdf]


U.S. aid, then, creates the strategic equivalent of what investors call “moral hazard” – that is, an inducement to irresponsibility caused by the belief that someone else will bear eventual losses. In foreign policy as in economic policy, then, aid masks the effects of the Israeli elites’ defects. The cycle of error is circular and self-intensifying. Israel’s elites do not wish harm on their people or their nation, but the combination of economic and political interests with a crude idealism in international politics has made them heedless of the consequences of their actions. The violence which began in September 2000 is the starkest example and most direct result of this cycle of errors.

2NC Extensions: A/t – #5 “Aid Solves Corruption” [2/2] 230



3) Empirical data supports our argument. Countries receiving the most aid turn out to be the most corrupt.
REGNERY, 12

[Alfred, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Land and Natural Resources Division for US Justice Department; “The Scandal That Is Foreign Aid,” 10/03, www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/03/The-Scandal-That-Is-Foreign-Aid]


Excepting Israel, eight countries receiving the most US foreign aid are the eight most corrupt countries in the world – Sudan, Kenya, Pakistan, Uganda, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Columbia, according to www.AIDMonitor.com, a watchdog group. Even worse, nobody has any idea whether US aid actually does further US national security interests. A 2006 report from the Government Accountability Office, for example, criticized both the State Department and the Defense Department for failing to measure how the funding actually contributes to U.S. goals.
4) You should be skeptical of all their solvency claims. Aid money is never audited, so there is no guarantee it is being used properly.
REGNERY, 12

[Alfred, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Land and Natural Resources Division for US Justice Department; “The Scandal That Is Foreign Aid,” 10/03, www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/03/The-Scandal-That-Is-Foreign-Aid]


The US Agency for International Development (USAID), the State Department entity that administers foreign aid, has admitted that it really has no idea how much US taxpayers’ money is used for its intended purpose and how much lines the pockets of corrupt politicians or winds up in Swiss banks. According to USAID’s Inspector General, the agency failed, in 2009, to conduct mandatory annual audits of about $500 million in funds transferred to 52 foreign countries because “it was unable to produce an inventory of all organizations it gives money to.” People familiar with the way USAID works believe the Inspector General’s comment is vastly understated.


2NC Extensions: A/t – #6 “Evidence Isn’t Causal” 231



1) We will win a causal link: Aid creates powerful domestic interest groups that require more and more assistance while pushing local governments further and further from U.S. control.
LEVIN, 00

[Yuval, fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center; “American Aid to the Middle East: A Tragedy of Good Intentions,”http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat11/strategic11.pdf]


U.S. aid to Egypt demonstrates the inadequacy of one of the central assumptions of American aid policy: that aid allows a meaningful measure of control over the behavior of potentially unfriendly regimes. In fact, as we shall see, aid and the politics surrounding it seem to make the U.S. less capable of dealing with such states, not more so. This is both because the amounts of money involved inevitably create interest groups that make their living off the continuation of the aid, and because if the aid were to be stopped the entire structure of American expectations would collapse – along with the reputations of the policymakers. And so, the U.S. is stuck financing regimes that squarely oppose its strategic interests, all the while maintaining that supporting them is an essential American strategic concern.



Download 3.16 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   ...   169




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page