West coast debate

States CP

States Counterplan (1/2)

Text: The 50 state governors through the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws should adopt a comprehensive, uniform policy that:

States solve infrastructure better than the federal government

When the federal government is paying for infrastructure, state officials and members of Congress fight for their shares of the funding, without worrying too much about efficiency, environmental issues or other longer-term factors. The solution is to move as much infrastructure funding as we can to the state, local and private levels. That would limit the misallocation of projects by Congress, while encouraging states to experiment with lower-cost solutions. It’s true that the states make infrastructure mistakes as well, as California appears to be doing by subsidizing high-speed rail. But at least state-level mistakes aren’t automatically repeated across the country. The states should be the laboratories for infrastructure. We should further encourage their experiments by bringing in private-sector financing. If we need more highway investment, we should take notes from Virginia, which raised a significant amount of private money to widen the Beltway. If we need to upgrade our air-traffic-control system, we should copy the Canadian approach and privatize it so that upgrades are paid for by fees on aviation users. If Amtrak were privatized, it would focus its investment where it is most needed — the densely populated Northeast. As for Reclamation and the Corps, many of their infrastructure projects would be better managed if they were handed over to the states. Reclamation’s massive Central Valley irrigation project, for example, should be transferred to the state of California, which is better positioned to make cost and environmental trade-offs regarding contentious state water issues. Other activities of these two agencies could be privatized, such as hydropower generation and the dredging of seaports. The recent infrastructure debate has focused on job creation, and whether projects are “shovel ready.” The more important question is who is holding the shovel. When it’s the federal government, we’ve found that it digs in the wrong places and leaves taxpayers with big holes in their pockets. So let’s give the shovels to state governments and private companies. They will create just as many jobs while providing more innovative and less costly infrastructure to the public. They’re ready.

States Counterplan (2/2)

The counterplan is legitimate, real world and solves

The means advanced by our polity to achieve regulatory uniformity are instructive for three reasons. First, examples of interstate cooperation via interstate compacts, agreements or uniform state laws appear to be the foil for national intervention. That states have somehow managed to overcome the collective action problems associated with efforts to cooperate and to reach some cooperative solution suggests that the costs of interstate cooperation are apparently not insurmountable obstacles. Second, efforts by the states to forge their own solutions can illuminate the underlying reasons for such cooperation in a system in which the forces of maximization discourage such efforts. This section suggests that they do so often to retain their autonomy and to avoid federal preemption. Finally, comparing the efforts of the Conference in promulgating and advocating uniform state laws with the decisions by Congress to preempt historically state-governed areas of law leads to a discussion of whether the Conference's efforts might influence Congressional preemption decisions.

States Solve--Innovation

States solve infrastructure

States solve the nation’s infrastructure challenges

States solve through innovation

States Solve--Efficiency

State are more efficient at infrastructure building

http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=1447

What were the results of Madison’s veto? First, no harm was done to the nation. The state of New York built the Erie Canal and the profits from it went to the state government. Perhaps, New Yorkers built that canal more carefully because they knew they were accountable if the canal lost money. Second, Madison’s concern with balancing the federal budget and avoiding unconstitutional spending paid off less than twenty years later when the U.S. retired its national debt completely and began to run surpluses. Sticking to the Constitution led to stronger national finances. If states today (or maybe even private companies) built the highways, the politicians would have strong incentives to build carefully and cheaply. And the states, instead of looking to Washington, could work together to build interstate highways and major bridges. Finally, with less power in Washington we would have a smaller Department of Transportation in Washington, and less federal debt to lay on our children and grandchildren. Almost 200 years ago, James Madison showed us the way.

Federal infrastructure mistakes are magnified and replicated nation wide

Perhaps the biggest problem with federal involvement in infrastructure is that when Washington makes mistakes it replicates those mistakes across the nation. Federal efforts to build massive public housing projects in dozens of cities during the 20th century had very negative economic and social effects. Or consider the distortions caused by current federal subsidies for urban light-rail systems. These subsidies bias cities across the country to opt for light rail, yet rail systems are generally less efficient and flexible than bus systems, and they saddle cities with higher operating and maintenance costs down the road.10

Federal infrastructure is expensive and wasteful

NOW is right to acknowledge that government intervention in the market usually favors some groups and disadvantages others. But there's an even more important reason we should forget about federal infrastructure projects: They are rarely economically efficient. Government-run projects are notoriously wasteful and typically come in way over-budget. Money meant to employ new workers is channeled through agencies in Washington, D.C., which take their cut, and then it trickles through state and local governments, before reaching workers on the ground. And since government overseers lack the same bottom-line pressure of private sector bosses, workers don't face the same level of accountability for their work. And that's just the inefficiency that starts once the projects are picked. Needless to say, one can hardly expect politicians to prioritize projects on purely objective measures, which is why taxpayers end up funding reconstruction projects at airports with no passengers and of course bridges to nowhere.

States Solve--Flexibility

States solve infrastructure in a multitude of ways

As the nation works to strengthen its infrastructure, states have a key role to play in reinventing a wide range of policies and programs. Some states are expanding infrastructure revenue sources by engaging in public-private partnerships, implementing new user fees, and increasing existing funding streams. States are forming new subcabinets to focus on growth and development and to coordinate policy and planning. States are reducing demand for infrastructure during peak travel periods through congestion pricing systems. They also are investing in environmentally sustainable alternatives to conventional infrastructure, such as renewable energy and transit. States are continuing to hold departments of transportation accountable for spending decisions. They are incorporating new technologies, such as smart meters, to provide consumers with real-time information on their personal energy use to encourage conservation.

States solve better because they’re flexible

One idea that has received bipartisan support is a plan known as America Fast Forward. It’s a proposal to expand a federal program of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) that provides low-interest loans for transportation projects. The proposal’s biggest cheerleader is Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. In 2008, Angelinos approved a sales-tax hike for a set of highway and transit projects; but rather than funneling that revenue into new projects outright, Villaraigosa’s goal is to use the money to pay debt on a federal transportation loan. An upfront loan would allow the city to complete its projects rapidly while using the proceeds of its 30-year sales-tax hike to pay it back over time. Currently TIFIA isn’t big enough to accommodate such large-scale plans, which is why Los Angeles has backed a national push to expand the program from $122 million annually to $375 million, and to raise its cap from 33 percent of project costs to 49 percent. “It’s an idea that’s different from a grant program,” says L.A. Deputy Mayor for Transportation Jaime de la Vega. “We’re coming to the table with money and saying we need a partnership. It’s not a handout. State leaders are also backing a plan to reduce the number of federal highway programs from 55 to five, in an effort to gain greater flexibility in how the dollars are spent. That would help clear up what some people see as troublesome inconsistencies in how funds are meted out. For example, federal aid can be used for preventive maintenance of highways, but routine maintenance is considered a state responsibility. Rhode Island Transportation Director Michael Lewis recently testified before Congress that his state has to take on debt just to get the required match to receive transportation funds, when that money could have been used to perform maintenance. “Now is not the time to tie our hands and limit the use of transportation dollars and assets,” Lewis told Congress.

States Solve Transportation Infrastructure

States better than federal government for highways

The best solution would be to return all the gas tax money to the states, roughly in proportion to the money each pays in. This would allow states and localities to determine which roads and transit projects they really need—and are willing to pay for. California could decide for itself if it wants more roads, whether it can afford high-speed rail, and whether it wants to use congestion-pricing on crowded roads. The House Transportation Committee has found that getting a permit for a new road costs twice as much, and takes three times as long, when federal money is included than when financed with private or local dollars. Less federal control would also allow states to lure billions of dollars of private financing for new roads, which experts like Mr. Winston believe is the next big thing in transportation financing but is now generally prohibited. One of the worst features of Ms. Boxer's Senate bill is that she would exacerbate the funding shortage by adding new penalties if states leverage private dollars to build new toll roads and bridges.

States solve highways

Surface transportation assets in the United States have been largely funded and managed by the public sector. Responsibilities for financing, building, operating, and maintaining transportation assets have been shared among states, local governments, and the federal government, although the private sector has increasingly played a role in all of these aspects (in addition to the traditional private sector role in project design and construction). States play a large role in funding and operating surface transportation assets. States raise approximately 46 percent of all revenues to fund highways and transit, with the federal government contributing approximately 22 percent and local governments contributing 32 percent. 7 In terms of responsibility for operating the system and delivering transportation services for highway and transit users, states account for 47 percent of service delivery, with local governments providing 51 percent and the federal government providing 2 percent. 8 The vast majority of roads, bridges, and highways are state or locally owned. 9 State and local governments also own significant transit and intermodal freight assets; although, independent public entities own the largest share of transit facilities. 10

States solve high speed rail—several states prove

However, high speed rail in the United States is receiving a second look by many states and regions, in light of higher fuel prices, road and airport congestion, and security concerns. In the Northeast, Amtrak ridership of the new Acela Express was 3.1 million in FY 2007, while ridership in the Northeast Corridor as a whole, including Acela Express, Regional, and Keystone ridership was approximately 12 million. 132 States from Maine to Florida are seeking to expand Amtrak’s service even further. While the Acela operates at higher speeds of up to 150 mph, Amtrak trains in the rest of the United States are slower and often run on tracks owned and operated by freight railroads. In North Carolina and Virginia, for example, state officials are seeking to address these infrastructure needs by adding double-track trains to the corridor that would allow for more frequent and faster train service between Washington, D.C.; Richmond, Virginia; and Charlotte, North Carolina. In addition, such investments would benefit regional freight rail services in the northeastern United States and possibly provide relief to the region’s congested airspace. 133

Federal Government Doesn’t Solve Infrastructure

Federal government historically worse at infrastructure

Federal policies ignore state-specific needs

Another problem is that federal infrastructure spending comes with piles of regulations. Davis-Bacon rules and other federal regulations raise the cost of building infrastructure. Regulations also impose one-size-fits-all solutions on the states, even though the states have diverse needs. The former 55-mph speed limit, which used to be tied to federal highway funds, is a good example. Today, federal highway funds come with requirements for the states to spend money on activities such as bicycle paths, which state policymakers may think are extraneous.14

Federal funding doesn’t solve

Recession-driven declines in overall driving coupled with larger numbers of fuel-efficient vehicles have resulted in lower gas tax revenues. At the same time, the cost of building and repairing roads continues a steady climb. The nation faces a shortfall of $58 billion a year just to maintain highways and transit systems, and $119 billion a year to improve them, according to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. The unprecedented investment of the federal recovery act failed to fill even a single year’s gap. Even with the stimulus funds, 21 states cut transportation programs in FY 2010 and at least 11 plan to do so in FY 2011, including nine that did in 2010. “The systemic failure of current financing has made clear,” stated a blue ribbon study in Arkansas, “that the traditional approach to highway, road, street and bridge maintenance and construction is, in its present form, no longer sustainable when measured against a changing economic and technological environment, erosion of purchasing power and continuing escalation of costs.” Current revenues simply fail to meet current needs. At least a dozen other recent state studies on transportation essentials and revenue options come to the same conclusion. “The ARRA funding certainly was a help,” says Oklahoma Senator Gary Stanislawski. “But a one-time infusion of resources did not help solve the transportation infrastructure problem that the states—and our nation—are facing. No state possesses the resources to keep pace with the structural funding gap.”

States Solve Infrastructure Comparatively Better

States better than the federal government

In its report on the state of U.S. infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers gives America a grade of "D."37 However, the ASCE report mainly focuses on infrastructure provided by governments, so if you believe that this low grade is correct, then it is mainly due to government failures. The ASCE lobbies for more federal spending, but OECD data shows that public-sector spending on infrastructure is about the same in this country as in other high-income nations. Some of the infrastructure shortcomings in the United States stem from mismanagement and misallocation by the federal government, rather than a lack of taxpayer support. So part of the solution is to decentralize infrastructure financing, management, and ownership as much as possible. State and local governments and the private sector are more likely to make sound investment decisions without the federal subsidies and regulations that distort their decisionmaking.

State would solve infrastructure more efficiently

Despite its smaller magnitude, public-sector infrastructure spending is also very important to the U.S. economy. But the usual recommendation to simply spend more federal taxpayer money on infrastructure is misguided. For one thing, the government simply can't afford more spending given its massive ongoing deficits. More importantly, much of the infrastructure spending carried out by Washington would be more efficiently handled by devolving it to state and local governments and the private sector.

Revenue sharing means states solve better locally

States Race to the Top

States race to the top

Critique: Maybe the federal government screws up, but so do state governments and private companies.

Response: Of course. But as the op-ed noted, when the Feds screw-up they botch it for the entire country, often for many decades. The federal government is a monopoly, and monopolies breed inefficiency. By contrast, the states compete with each other and learn from each other to an extent. And when private companies screw up repeatedly, they go belly up.

Competition means states will race-to-the-top

Finally, the race-to-the-bottom rationale for federal government domination of environmental regulation is based on the assumption that the federal government in practice can do a better job at regulating than the state governments. There are strong reasons to believe that this assumption is wrong. The race-to-the-bottom justification for federal intervention, while critical of state political processes, ignores the problem of interest group domination of the legislative process in Washington. The interest group problem is more acute at the federal level than at the state level due to the lack of competition among regulators at the national level. On the other hand, there are numerous reasons to believe that the Washington political market reflects its own regulatory common pool problem, with logrolling for environmental votes with votes on totally unrelated issues.

The states alone create better solutions to any problem

AT: Crosses State Lines

Federal government not needed, even if it crosses state lines—private companies prove

Response: Numerous people made this point regarding my op-ed, but I’m afraid they didn’t put their thinking caps on. Private energy pipelines cross state and international borders, and so do the huge systems of the private freight railroads, such as Union Pacific.

States coordinate on infrastructure projects

Coordinate infrastructure decisions across government agencies and levels of government as well as between states and regions and ensure that energy and environmental costs and concerns are considered. New efforts are needed to enhance planning and coordination across levels of government. States are pursuing new governance models that seek to break down silos and ensure that state infrastructure investments are coordinated across agencies to leverage maximum benefits. In addition, states are incorporating energy and environmental considerations into state planning efforts and improving coordination with neighboring states in situations where regional infrastructure is involved.

States work together on infrastructure

While there has been discussion of coordinating and combining funding sources for infrastructure and requiring competition for projects, such as through the proposed federal infrastructure bank, it is not likely that the majority of the nation’s infrastructure dollars will be spent this way in the near future (for more on this, see Chapter 3, Section A). Instead there will likely remain dedicated funding streams for specific categories of infrastructure. However, states can act to ensure that agencies coordinate through the planning process so that state dollars are not spent at cross-purposes. For example, states can work to coordinate expenditures on transportation and housing in an attempt to link communities with transit.

AT: States Have No Money

States have multiple revenue streams for infrastructure

As noted in previous sections, states face serious revenue challenges to fund necessary infrastructure repairs and improvements. Thus, states are pursuing or considering a variety of new revenue strategies to augment existing sources including: new twists on government funding, private sector funding and financing, and taxes and user fees. While states have long relied on traditional versions of these measures to pay for most categories of infrastructure, new actions to refine or rethink the use of these tools are being employed including inflation-indexing of current fuel taxes, creative use of sales taxes and tax credits, establishing PPPs to leverage private capital, and creating new carbon-based taxes and using proceeds from the auction of emissions credits under GHG cap and trade programs. These funding mechanisms, in addition to serving as a source of new revenue can also help manage demand. These related benefits from such revenue sources mentioned are noted in the following sections.

Federal government is an irresponsible spender

Critique: My view of devolving infrastructure funding to the states is unrealistic because only the federal government has enough “resources” to do big projects.

Response: The federal government has no magical source of money. All “federal dollars” ultimately come from taxpayers who live in the 50 states. It is true that the federal government can run larger deficits that state governments, but that’s a reason not to give the Feds responsibility for spending activities because they tend to go hog wild.

AT: States Spending DA

Federal infrastructure spending worsens state budget shortfalls

Some States Hit Harder The problem for states is that federal infrastructure spending rarely covers 100 percent of construction costs, instead commonly providing a rather small percent of the total project cost. In states without prevailing wage laws, increased federal participation in infrastructure spending decisions, plus Davis-Bacon, could increase the cost of projects more than the value of the federal contribution.

Federal infrastructure spending hurts state budgets

States already spend the most on infrastructure

AT: Permutation

Fed involvement will tank the project

Federal government involvement means funding gets wasted on unnecessary projects

The United States has the capability to address the country’s infrastructure issues, but there is only a loose connection between federal spending and improvements in public infrastructure because of misguided federal policies. Typically, the federal government offers seed funding to states to initiate capital spending projects, but leaves the states to complete and maintain them. As a result, state and local governments are encouraged to spend money on projects that may be a lower priority than projects initiated and funded locally.

Federal-state cooperation causes cost overruns

AT: States CP Bad Theory

1. The counterplan is predictable. The 1nc Gilman evidence is indicative of a comparative literature base surrounding social services. The key question is where we should devote attention: the federal government or the states.

2. The counterplan is reciprocal. The affirmative fiats hundreds of politicians to vote for the plan, for the plan to be upheld by the Supreme Court, and to be enforced by the executive. The negative should be allowed to fiat domestic governmental actors.

3. The counterplan is not multi-actor fiat. The counterplan fiats 50 governors act in unison through the NCCUSL. The 1nc Razook evidence describes this process as common, enforceable, and predictable.

4. The counterplan tests the federal key warrant. The affirmative can read any advantage based off of federal action, and that is offense against the counterplan. If the negative cannot test the federal warrant, there will be a topic explosion because any harms area can then be an affirmative

5. The counterplan increases affirmative ground. They can read disadvantages to any state acting, or to the NCCUSL acting as a whole.

6. The counterplan increases education. The counterplan increases education about non-federal agencies and politics. Since the affirmative does not use the states, only the negative provides this education.

7. Best policy option justifies negative actor testing. Since the judge is simply an individual in a room seeking solutions to problems, there is no reason his or her ballot should be limited to the federal government.

8. Err negative on theory. The affirmative speaks first and last, chooses the topic, and has nearly infinite prep time to delegate towards defending their plan.

9. Reject the argument not the team – If the affirmative wins that the counterplan is illegitimate, that is a reason that the counterplan should not be considered in the judge’s decision. Voting affirmative on theory is a non-starter because it does not affirm the resolution.

Federalism Links

Infrastructure is a state issue

http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=1447

The Constitution does not grant Congress the right to appropriate funds for infrastructure. Therefore, the Founders usually argued that states or private companies should do the work; neither good government nor just results occurred when the people in Georgia could be taxed to pave a road or build a canal in New York. The problem was, of course, that some congressmen, then as now, wanted to bring federal funds to their state. The congressmen from New York, for example, had incentives in 1817 to attract federal dollars to their state to build the ambitious Erie Canal—the longest proposed canal in the world. That canal would indeed prove to be a success and a money-maker, but President James Madison vetoed the 1817 bill to spend federal money to build the Erie Canal, and other improvements. He knew the roads were needed, but he wanted New York to build its own canal, and Georgia to pave its own roads. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution did not make road building a federal function, and Madison wanted to go with the Constitution. “I am constrained,” Madison said, “by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution.” Hence the veto.

Infrastructure has devolved to the states

The state-federal partnership helped to build the Interstate Highway System. More recently, the roles of governments have been changing. In 1970, federal funding represented 28 percent of all funding (capital and operating) for highways, with states and localities providing 72 percent of highway funding. 21 In 2006, the federal contribution had fallen to only 20 percent of all highway funding, with states and localities providing 80 percent. 22 In addition to a gradual but definite trend towards the devolution of funding responsibility from the federal government to state and local governments, there have been other changes as well.

Federal government is a small player

Politics Links

The controversy surrounding the stimulus bill combined with other legislative initiatives, including the health care reform bill, led to an electoral revolt that swept in a new wave of legislators who arrived in statehouses and Washington, D.C., with a fiscally conservative public mandate. The shifting political tide has effectively thwarted forward-thinking projects that would begin building the next generation of the nation’s infrastructure. Most notably, ambitious plans for a national network of high-speed intercity passenger rail have been tempered as newly elected governors in key states have rejected federal seed money and opponents of deficit spending continue to voice strident criticism. In this highly charged political environment, any proposed major expenditure of the taxpayers’ money will be subject to intense scrutiny against the backdrop of a fragile economic recovery, the rapidly increasing federal deficit and the ongoing burden of foreign debt obligations. As a firm that must manage within its means, AECOM understands the concerns many taxpayers express regarding deficit spending and other financial challenges facing the nation; however, infrastructure spending provides taxpayers substantial return on their investment over the long term in the form of jobs, economic growth, improved productivity, enhanced mobility, a better environment, and the safe and ample supply of public services.

Infrastructure spending unpopular with the public

Projects like the interstate highway system helped make the United States a global power, allowing freight and people to move about the country. American commerce relies on roads, says someone who should know - Norman Mineta, former secretary of the commerce and transportation departments. So why he is worried? Says Mineta, transportation is a policy issue that citizens take for granted until it’s denied to them. “Everything you need – what you eat, what you wear – got there through some form of transportation, but few people care unless they’re affected by it.” However, even when they are affected by it – by broken levees in New Orleans or exploding steam pipes in New York – Mineta says most Americans would rather avoid the issue. Referring to a poll about Americans’ opinions of an increase in the gasoline tax, taken in the wake of Minnesota’s Interstate 35 bridge collapse, Mineta says he was startled to learn that a majority of Americans opposed a five-cent increase in the federal tax that help fund road projects. “You would think that the tragedy would jar people into a realization that we need to be doing something about it, but it’s one of those issues that you need a constant beating of the drum,” he says.

Infrastructure investment politically unpopular

“A lot of people are throwing their hats in the ring running for president and no one is addressing infrastructure issues,” Marcuson says. “In the last couple of years, we’ve had a ceiling failure in one of the tunnels in the Big Dig and we had a catastrophic failure with the I-35 bridge in Minnesota. All of these things have a pretty short window and the country has to take advantage of that window. We have to get the politicians’ attention.” That might be difficult, says C. William Ibbs of the University of California at Berkeley, where he teaches engineering and planning. “Politicians want things that will bring them instant votes than things that take them 12 years to build. It’s a disconnect between the attention span of the politicians and the required time to build major projects,” Ibbs says.

Spending Links

Federal infrastructure spending breaks the bank

Infrastructure spending by the federal government promotes corruption because the work goes to the most politically well-connected contractors. At the state level where the money is spent, it is often "pay to play." Since decisions about infrastructure spending often result from a brokered process (witness Congressional earmarks), there is often a disconnect between the spending and where it is needed most. Politicians collude with unions to increase the costs of construction through what are called Project Labor Agreements. These pacts are supposed to guarantee labor peace, but what they actually do is pad the costs of labor to the benefit of politically well-connected unions. Federal "prevailing wage" requirements (Davis Bacon) ensure that infrastructure spending costs more than the market would dictate. The result is inefficiencies in spending and the creation of fewer jobs. We suffer from an overhang of debt. Adding to the burden by spending billions more on public works projects does not solve the problem. It makes it worse. "Stimulus" spending, or whatever you want to call it, is modern-day alchemy.

Federal projects are more expensive because of wage laws

Government infrastructure spending makes sense because borrowing costs are low; the 10 year Treasury bond rate is about 2%. This argument would be bolstered if labor costs were also relatively low. The Davis-Bacon Act, however, forces government contractors to pay artificially high wages and benefits. This means that fewer projects will be completed for each billion dollars budgeted for infrastructure. If the wages paid on government construction projects could freely adjust to market conditions, labor costs would be much lower in many parts of the U.S. The following figure shows construction employment in three states particularly hard hit by the 2008 recession: Florida, Michigan, and Nevada. Construction employment is down 40% to 62% from its pre-recession peak in these states. The large demand reductions in the Florida, Michigan and Nevada construction industries put downward pressure on construction wages. Davis-Bacon prevents this from lowering labor costs for Federal projects. The U.S. Department of Labor sets the prevailing wage in each area based on surveys of unions and employers that are administered by its Wage and Hours Division (not the Bureau of Labor Statistics).