States Counterplan 1NC
Federal Models State Action
Download 0.56 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Federal government models state infrastructure
- Federal government models state action
Federal Models State ActionFederal models state transportation action- history provesWachs 2003 (Martin, Ph.D. and M.S. in urban and regional planning, Northwestern University; B.S. in civil engineering, City University of New York, Local Option Transportation Taxes: Devolution as Revolution, http://www.uctc.net/access/22/Access%2022%20-%2002%20-%20Local%20Option%20Transportation%20Taxes.pdf AS) The first revolution in transportation finance came when states adopted user fees in the form of motor fuel taxes. Although they charged for road use in rough proportion to¶ motorists’ travel, and heavier vehicles paid more because they used more fuel per¶ mile of travel, fuel taxes didn’t quite match tolls for efficiency because¶ they didn’t levy charges at the time and place of use. However, they cost much less to administer than tolls, so fuel taxes became the principal means of financing America’s main roads. Because they were user fees, most states reserved fuel taxes exclusively for transportation expenditures. When the federal government decided in 1956 to expand intercity highways on a national scale, it increased federal fuel taxes and created the Federal Highway Trust Fund, emulating the “user pays” principle that had been so successful in the states. Federal government models state infrastructureMuro 2011 (Mark, a senior fellow and director of policy for the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, manages the program's public policy analysis and leads key policy research projects. “ Banking on Green Growth in Connecticut ” June 28, The New Republic, http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-avenue/90969/banking-green-growth-in-connecticut AS) Which is why it is so auspicious that one small state has taken the lead in moving from concept to design to implementation. In classic federalist fashion, state experimentation is leading the way at a time of federal gridlock. How will Connecticut’s newly constituted Clean Energy Finance and Investment Authority (CEFIA) work? Basically, the new entity will function like an investment bank or fund that can leverage its capital to provide low-cost financing to clean projects that a commercial bank wouldn’t likely touch. To this end, the bank will be funded by a surcharge on residential and commercial electricity bills, which was previously paid into the state’s Clean Energy Fund, amounting to $30 million a year. CEFIA will also administer the $18 million Green Loan Guaranty Fund. The total $50 million investment by the bank will enable Connecticut to leverage limited state resources with much larger amounts of private capital—and in this way will catalyze a self-sustaining flow of low-cost capital for innovative clean energy deployment projects, whether it be large-scale rooftop solar plants or commercial building retrofits or even high-voltage lines. In this vein, the new Connecticut institution keeps pace with and somewhat “copy cats” the U.K.’s recently announced plan to capitalize a Green Investment Bank with $4.8 billion. In short, a small northeastern state is embarking on an essential experiment aimed at getting clean energy finance moving. Ideally, this smart experiment will succeed and other states and Washington will follow suit. After all, finding a robust and workable solution to the problem of financing the deployment of innovative, large-scale clean energy projects will be absolutely central to ensuring that the U.S. unleashes a sizable clean energy economy, instead of drifting. Federal government models state actionGolden ’99 (Dylan, JD Candidate – UCLA Law, UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, Lexis) Individual states vary widely in their fossil fuel consumption and in the amount of carbon dioxide they release into the atmosphere. California emits as much carbon dioxide as all of Scandinavia combined. 46 Texas is the seventh largest carbon dioxide producer. 47 Some states emit a globally negligible amount of carbon dioxide. Some conservative interests may therefore oppose the CCTI on the grounds that it involves a further expansion of federal power into an area which is properly under the jurisdiction of states. Those who believe firmly in strong state governments are similar to the "Greens" (discussed below) in that the "rent", in this case the penalty, at stake in the CCTI is non-economic. [*188] This group does have some justification for their position. Attempted state action involving manipulating markets, generally through the tax system, in the name of the environment tells us a great deal about how various stakeholders - such as business entities, environmental interest groups, and political groups - might respond to federal or international action. 48 State legislatures also provide a forum to raise issues and change perceptions. 49 State environmental policy frequently influences Congress. 50 State action increases the feasibility of federal action because: familiarity aids the political process, legislators understand the politics in terms of income, consumption and their regional interests, administrative agencies know how to [*189] administrate and may estimate impacts, interest groups know where they stand, and practical experience can guide legislative drafting. 51 Such grassroots action may also stimulate support among the populous by encouraging people to take personal responsibility for the environment. 52 Action at the state level may also spur more informed federal action, which in turn could spur international action. State-federal agreements are possible on the carbon tax issue and the commerce clause does not prohibit joint or unilateral action. 53 Energy taxes have already been implemented jointly in the case of gasoline taxes. 54 Federal government models state action Katz et al 2010 (Bruce Katz, Jennifer Bradley, and Amy Liu, November, “Delivering the Next Economy: The States Step Up,” The Brookings Institution, Brookings- Rockefeller Project on State and Metropolitan Innovation //MGD) State innovation is part of the genius of our federalist system.1 Health care reform was law in Massachusetts years before the recent passage of federal legislation. During the 1980s, governors from both parties experimented with welfare and healthcare reforms, paving the way for federal advances in the next decade. Throughout the 1950s, public university systems, established by states like California and North Carolina, set the stage for the federal technology investments of the 1960s and 1970s. And before he was president, New York Gov. Franklin D. Roosevelt experimented with interventions that foreshadowed the New Deal. 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:
|