States cp ddi 2012
Centralized approaches fail to provide regional solutions
Download 0.94 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Misc Fed bad The federal government fails CBO 10
- Misc Fed bad Congress independent action bad-- States now have the political momentum to enact policies Schwartz 07
- *** Aff Answers to States CP
Centralized approaches fail to provide regional solutions.Lockwood 6 [Ben Lockwood, professor at University of Warwick, Dept. of Economics, 2006, Handbook of Fiscal Federalism, book edited by Ehtisham Ahmad and Giorgio Brosio, “The Political Economy of Decentralizaion,” p. 34] Now consider central government. In this case, without any restrictions on thc choice of g1. g,, central government will choose the efficient levels of g1. 82, because it internalizes spillover effects. Thus, in order to generate some disadvantage to centralization, the standard approach makes the policy unifor-mity assumption that public good provision (per capita) must be the same in both regions ((hat is, = g, g). What does this imply about choice of g? Given that central government maximizes the stun of utilities in both regions, then government chooses 8 so that the average of the marginal benefits of an increase in the public good in both regions is equal to the marginal cost of unity. Centralization has a cost: the level of public good provision cannot now he tailored to each region. Misc Fed bad The federal government fails CBO 10 [Congressional Budget Office, “Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure” november 17, 2010: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21902] In total, lawmakers appropriated $62 billion in funding for transportation and water infrastructure under that legislation. The Congressional Budget Office expects that, in nominal terms, federal spending for transportation and water infrastructure under ARRA will total $54 billion through 2013, by which time almost 90 percent of the funds made available for infrastructure through ARRA will have been spent. the composition of public spending for transportation and water infrastructure The composition of public spending on transportation and water infrastructure can be represented in three ways: by the level of government providing the funding or other form of financial support; by the nature of the spending (whether it is designated for capital projects or for operation and maintenance); and by the type of infrastructure. State and local governments account for about 75 percent of total public spending on transportation and water infrastructure—even after subtracting from their gross spending the value of grants and loan subsidies that the federal government provides for such purposes—and the federal government accounts for the other 25 percent. That split has remained roughly constant over the past two decades. In recent years, not quite half of total public funding for transportation and water infrastructure in the United States has been devoted to capital spending for activities such as construction and equipment purchases. State and local governments have accounted for about 60 percent of those expenditures, and the federal government has accounted for about 40 percent. A little more than half of total public spending for such infrastructure has been used for operation and maintenance, of which state and local governments have provided about 90 percent. Although the federal government has played a limited role in the funding of operation and maintenance for transportation and water infrastructure as a whole, it has provided much of the funding for operating and maintaining the nation’s air traffic control system. Spending on highways at all levels of government accounted for 43 percent of expenditures for transportation and water infrastructure in 2007. Expenditures on water supply and wastewater treatment systems accounted for 28 percent of spending; aviation, mass transit and rail made up 23 percent; and the remaining categories of water transportation and water resources accounted for 5 percent. the role of government in funding transportation and water infrastructure In the United States, the public sector rather than the private sector typically provides funding for transportation and water infrastructure. Whether it is more efficient for the federal government to provide that funding depends on the type of infrastructure and the likelihood that such infrastructure will be undersupplied if its provision is left to state and local governments or to the private sector. Evidence suggests that spending for carefully selected infrastructure projects can contribute to long-term economic growth by increasing the capital stock and raising productivity. (During a prolonged economic downturn, infrastructure spending can also mitigate losses in output and employment.) Realizing the potential gains from public spending for transportation and water infrastructure depends crucially on identifying economically justifiable projects—those with benefits to society that are expected to outweigh costs—but a variety of factors make identifying such projects difficult. In addition, the demand for infrastructure could be better aligned with the existing supply by putting a price on those services that reflects the full cost of using infrastructure, including both the cost of providing infrastructure services and the costs that one person’s use imposes on others. The federal government could make its current funding more effective by ensuring that the costs of infrastructure projects are allocated across levels of government on the basis of where the benefits are expected to accrue. Otherwise, for example, federal funding for infrastructure that provided benefits primarily at the local level could result in too many projects, or projects that are too expensive, being undertaken. In addition, individuals and businesses might consume too many infrastructure services relative to the cost of providing those services—because the federal share of that cost is largely borne not by local residents but by taxpayers throughout the country. Misc Fed bad Congress independent action bad-- States now have the political momentum to enact policies Schwartz 07, Schwartz, Dan, writer for Policy Today, 09-05-07, “Reasserting the State’s Role in the Federal Model” http://www.policytoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=240&Itemid=148 A state that must be divided Largely unnoticed by the media and the electorate, though, political momentum has shifted to the states. Congressional gridlock and a self-absorbed Oval Office have thrown the national government into reverse, while the states have found their political gear. Despite unending budget battles in several larger states, state legislatures have generally been major innovators in health care, the environment, and economic development. They have passed immigration laws where Congress has stalled, and funded K-12 education despite the structural deficiencies of No Child Left Behind. At a theoretical level, Wechsler's theory has been largely discredited says George D. Brown, Robert Drinan, S.J., Professor of Law at Boston College Law School. "Everyone recognizes that federal officials view themselves as federal officials." In short, senators now see themselves as national figures, and representatives are beholden to local party primaries—not state legislatures. "Not only is the premise of this [Wechsler's] view clearly at odds with the proliferation of national legislation over the past 30 years," former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell wrote in Garcia, but "a variety of structural and political changes occurring in this century have combined to make Congress particularly insensitive to state and local values." Yet, the states remain reluctant to sound the charge. Neither they nor the feds, however, may have a choice for much longer. That the states can act as Brandeis' "laboratories of democracy" is fine, but the present situation may require more. "Today, the states have the amount of power that Congress has given them. Constitutional provisions that have strengthened the states have died," says Henry P. Monaghan, Harlan Fiske Stone Professor of Constitutional Law at Columbia. He adds, "The remedy to reasserting the states' role is not going to be found in the Constitution." While the question is generally framed in Monaghan's terms, i.e., "what Congress allows the states to do," the real challenge has become "what Congress urgently needs the states to do." "The Founders had no intention for federal lawmakers to be operating Medicare plans or public schools," says former Illinois State Senator Steve Rauschenberger. Similarly, Utah Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble notes, "We have the federal government paying money to build a bridge somewhere in Mayberry. Why?" As these elected officials suggest, among the many reasons Congress can't act or acts improvidently, one thing is clear: they have taken it upon themselves to do everything. That may be politically appealing; and, the Supreme Court has been powerless to stop them legally, but structurally—read Constitutionally —that has clearly become a very bad idea. Enter the states—or not. In a political structure reflecting the Framers' belief in Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and free market competition, the states have been oddly silent. Why? Policy Today's Roundtable II (See Cover Story, p.5) offers multiple clues. Lawmakers themselves, however, provide the ultimate answers. Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte: "You've got to have the will; that's the first thing. There are so many other fires that legislators have to put out every day, but the number one most powerful thing is the will to intervene. We can all complain about it, but what are you willing to risk to affect change?" Washington State Rep. Sharon Tomiko-Santos strikes a similar chord: "Do we have the will to be more aggressive in our behavior? While we focus on our relationships with our partners in Congress, we cannot forget the principles of federalism, including the separation of powers and checks and balances." And finally, as Maine Senator Libby Mitchell puts it, "I guess we have to get our own act together." As Pogo said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us." *** Aff Answers to States CP No funding
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 0.94 Mb. Share with your friends:
|