States Counterplan 1NC
----AT: No Funding/Investment Capital
Download 0.56 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2NC Solvency- Ports
- States own and independently operate ports- CP solves
- Several funding mechanisms for state run ports
----AT: No Funding/Investment CapitalState IBs will attract private capitalRidley 2011 (Gary, Secretary, Oklahoma Department of Transportation Congressional Documents and Publications, House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit Hearing - "National Infrastructure Bank: More Bureaucracy and More Red Tape,” October 12th) Many states recognize they must increase funding for their departments of transportation. As lawmakers and their constituents engage in this dialogue, advocates should urge that some of the revenues be used to fund an SIB. Managed properly, an SIB can attract private capital to infrastructure projects, and the revolving loan structure can, with prudent choices in spending, make the SIB self-sustaining. Several states are considering an increase in their gasoline taxes. “Essentially, our needs cannot be met without new dedicated taxes and fees,” noted the head of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance.62 The Virginia gas tax hasn’t been raised since 1987. Nearby, Maryland lawmakers will consider a 15-cent gas tax increase during their 2012 session and have proposed creating a “lockbox” to ensure the money remains dedicated to transportation improvements.63 In Michigan, lawmakers have proposed repealing the state gas tax entirely, and replacing it with an increase in the sales tax with the extra revenues going to the Michigan Transportation Fund.64 Other states have rejected this option. In North Carolina, state law pegs the gas tax to the cost of wholesale fuel prices, allowing it rise and fall with gasoline prices. However, the state’s House of Representatives recently voted to block an increase scheduled for January 2012. North Carolina Department of Transportation officials estimate the resulting cut in revenues will mean canceling plans for repaving 400 miles of highways and replacing 72 bridges, costing an estimated 2,800 jobs.65 Similarly, in Iowa, the governor has rejected a gasoline tax increase recommended by a specially appointed citizens’ panel.66 Iowa’s gas tax hasn’t been raised since 1989. 2NC Solvency- PortsNo federal authority for Ports- State action solvesSherman 2000 (Roberts Director of Research and Information Services American Association of Port Authorities “SEAPORT GOVERNANCE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA,” http://www.aapa-ports.org/files/PDFs/governance_uscan.pdf) To observers from abroad, even experienced port specialists, the seaport system of the United States might seem at first glance to be anything but a system. In other countries, port systems are typically small by comparison and commonly subject to direct control by national authority. The situation in the United States differs in several crucial respects. First is simply the size of the industry itself--183 commercial deepdraft ports dispersed along the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific and Great Lake coasts. Included in that number, too, are the seaports of Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Saipan and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Here, unlike many countries, there is no national port authority. Rather authority is diffused throughout all three levels of government-federal, state and local. That stems from the federal character of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves certain powers for the national government and others strictly for the states. The Canadian system, by contrast, is subject to the general purview of the central government and more specifically to enactments of the national parliament. The enactment in June 1998 of the Canada Marine Act changed somewhat the character of the federal port system and permits the divestment of many ports previously administered by the Ministry of Transport to non-federal public and private entities. However, the nation’s major seaports are governed and managed by federal port authorities and ultimate statutory authority constitutionally remains with Parliament. Constitutional Parameters: The U.S. Constitution does grant the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over the navigable waters of the United States, including its deepdraft channels and harbors--authority delegated primarily to the Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But federal jurisdiction over harbors stops at the water's edge. Port authorities in the United States are instrumentalities of state or local government established by enactment or grants of authority by the state legislature. Neither Congress nor any federal agency has the power, or even the right, to appoint or dismiss port commissioners or staff members, or to amend, alter or repeal a port authority charter. Certain port activities are, of course, subject to federal law and jurisdiction, particularly those pertaining to foreign and interstate commerce. States own and independently operate ports- CP solvesWagner et al 2009 (David A. Professional Port Manager and Port Engineer, Port Professionals Group The Ports Association of Louisiana, Joseph Cocchiara Professional Port Manager, J. Michael Orlesh Jr, REPORT ON STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT PUBLIC PORTS IN THE UNITED STATES, The Ports Association of Louisiana, http://portsoflouisiana.org/wp-content/uploads/full-document-final-copy-4.pdf AS) Information collected at the end of the first survey phase was reviewed for trends in a number of categories. In the Ownership of Ports, it was determined that eleven states own port facilities although in some states the ports themselves were operated independent of state government. In several states where the ports were owned by the state but operated independently, there was no financial support provided by the state (New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Indiana). In others the state had a significant financial role (Maryland, Virginia). In most states, the ports are owned and operated by local governments or are independent political entities. In Louisiana most ports are independent political subdivisions. Under the State Provision of Port Capital Funding, the amount and nature of funding provided by states varies widely. Of thirty one states, twelve have no formal programs for funding port infrastructure development. The remaining nineteen states all have some type of program that ports can access for funds (grants, loans, bond funds). Some states have legislatively created programs for ports but have not funded them (Texas, Arkansas). In a number of states the programs that ports can access are not exclusively for ports but can be used by local governments or other entities and are typically economic development or transportation infrastructure programs. The Port Overview within States is usually in the states’ departments of transportation or economic development. In over one half of the states, ports are considered an integral part of economic development in the state and as such their funding and support comes from the states’ economic development departments. In other states, the state department of transportation has responsibility for port support usually due to the use of state transportation funds for port grants. The Port Advocacy within States is handled by a variety of organizations, In some states such as Pennsylvania, Florida and Massachusetts, there are specific offices within state government to support ports. Several states have legislatively created councils to promote ports and in some cases administer funds. The effectiveness of these groups varies widely. Other Notable Trends in State Funding of Ports include requirements for local matching funds and required planning processes. Almost every state requires some matching funds to access a grant. Most states require at least a 25% match and some require a 50% match. In Louisiana there is 10% match for Port Priority and usually a 50% match for Capital Outlay. Most states require projects to be in a port master plan or state master plan before funding. Several funding mechanisms for state run portsWagner et al 2009 (David A. Professional Port Manager and Port Engineer, Port Professionals Group The Ports Association of Louisiana, Joseph Cocchiara Professional Port Manager, J. Michael Orlesh Jr, REPORT ON STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AT PUBLIC PORTS IN THE UNITED STATES, The Ports Association of Louisiana, http://portsoflouisiana.org/wp-content/uploads/full-document-final-copy-4.pdf AS) At the conclusion of this second phase of surveying, there were a number of overall observations concerning these final ten states. In the area of Dedicated Funds for Ports, the states of Florida and Virginia both have successful programs for ports backed by dedicated funding sources. Florida dedicates $25 million annually from motor vehicle registration fees and $8 million annually from other transportation revenues. These dedicated funds support the sale of bonds and the provision of grants and loans to 14 deep water ports. Virginia dedicates 4.2% of its annual transportation revenues to a port fund administered by the Virginia Port Authority. This fund generates $36 million annually and has allowed for the sale of $400 million in bond funds to support port construction. The Sources of Funds for Ports varies across the country. By far the two sources which are most prominent are General Fund Revenues and Transportation Fund Revenues. Of the initial thirty one states surveyed, seven provided no funds to ports; eleven used only general funds to support ports; seven states used only transportation funds to support ports; and six used a combination of general funds and transportation funds. Some of the unique funding sources included watercraft fuel taxes (Alaska), vessel registration fees (California), lottery revenues (Oregon) and federal stimulus funds (Maine). Appendix D lists the funding sources for all thirty one states. The use of Revolving Loan Funds is used in many states. Such programs provide loans, bonding capacity or credit enhancements for borrowing ports or their tenants. States such as Mississippi, Ohio, Washington and Oregon make extensive use of these types of loan funds. In most cases, the legislature seeds the fund with a onetime appropriation and the funds become self supporting thereafter. State Taxing Policy for Ports is a mechanism used in some states. Washington grants local taxing authority to its ports without the need for a local referendum although they limit the amount of tax that can be assessed. Ports in other states such as Texas, Ohio, and Florida make extensive use local taxes to support both capital and operating costs. Just as important, some states, such as Alabama, make extensive use of state tax incentives to attract private sector partners. Port Planning Requirements for Funding exists in many states. In these states, ports may be required to have projects consistent with a port master plan or a state master plan before money can be granted or loaned to a project. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.56 Mb. Share with your friends:
|