Federalism—ENDI – Work

Table of contents

NEG...........................................................................................................................................................31NC........................................................................................................................................................4

DA solves the aff/Overview...................................................................................................................7Uniqueness wall.....................................................................................................................................9

Link Wall.............................................................................................................................................11Vouchers link.......................................................................................................................................15

Tax credit link......................................................................................................................................16Small affs/funding link........................................................................................................................17

Generic Impact wall.............................................................................................................................18Modeling wall......................................................................................................................................20

Domestic Terrorism Impact.................................................................................................................24AT: Medicare impact turn....................................................................................................................28

Aff answers..............................................................................................................................................292AC—Thumpers..................................................................................................................................30

XT—Thumpers....................................................................................................................................322AC—Modelling defense....................................................................................................................33

XT—No modeling impact...................................................................................................................342AC—Terrorism defense.....................................................................................................................36

2AC—Impact turn: Medicare..............................................................................................................38XT—Medicare key disease prevention................................................................................................40

NEG

1NC Uniqueness—Federalism is strong now. Education is key. Commitment and support are strong throughout the federal system. Somin 5/22/17Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, and popular political participation., “Jeffrey Rosen on “federalism for the left and the right”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/05/22/jeffrey-rosen-on-federalism-for-the-left-and-the-right/?utm_term=.8c85cf84846fMany of the issues that recent presidents have tried to decide at the national level through executive orders are best resolved at the state or local levels instead. In an era of fierce partisan divisions, all sides are beginning to see the virtues of our federal system in accommodating differences—and

encouraging experimentation—on issues such as immigration, law enforcement and education.

Federalism has long been a cause on the right, but now it’s just as likely to be a rallying cry on the left. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary’s immigration and border-security subcommittee, recently said: “The Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment, protects states’ rights, and it prohibits federal actions that commandeer state and local officials. When it comes to immigration, these principles seem to be overlooked”

The framers of the Constitution would be pleased with this emerging consensus. By creating a national government with limited powers, they intended to allow the states and local governments to pursue a range of different policies on matters within what used to be called their “police

powers”—that is, their authority to regulate behavior, maintain order and promote the public good within their own territory. The founders considered this arrangement the best way to protect liberty and diversity of opinion, as well as to defend political minorities from nationalist tyranny and concentrated power….

A respect for federalism and state autonomy is perhaps the only way that all sides can peacefully coexist in today’s political environment. With dysfunction now reigning on Capitol Hill and federal courts increasingly ready to strike down the unilateral action of presidents, Americans will at least be able to take some comfort in local autonomy and control. In these polarized times, citizens who strongly disagree with each other may be able to unite around the goal of making federal power less intrusive and national politics less of a contest where the winner takes all.

Link—Trump’s stance on education is key to federalist balance—Trump must follow through on current XO’sPease 5/16/17“GETTING BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION IN EDUCATION”. Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. https://www.northdenvertribune.com/2017/05/16/federal-power-grab/

But an executive order is not enough and can be rescinded by the next president, as Trump is doing to his predecessor. The EO restricts itself to “under the law” and Congress

(both parties) clearly passed these major education laws identified in the order. Trump must more fully hinge his argument on the Constitution and on the doctrine of federalism, which preceded the Constitution as a carry-over from the Articles of Confederation, our first national

constitution. He should do so by arguing that he has no authority to enforce law that violates the separation of powers as created by the Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold. He must also encourage Congress to rescind those laws or, through the states, create a new amendment to the

Constitution using Article 5 of the Constitution. Otherwise, this immediate victory , his EO, will be short lived.

One of the first questions I ask students in an into to government class, since every textbook has a chapter on federalism is, “Who cares most whether Johnny can read, his mother or federal bureaucrats located hundreds often thousands of miles away.” It is generally agreed his mother does and is in a position to do most to remedy the problem by direct access to his teacher and school and can run for the school board if not satisfied.A second question, “Who suffers most if the school fails Johnny?” Again, his mother as responsible bureaucrats have moved on and she is left long term with the consequences of their failure with Johnny. As a life-long student or instructor, I have never seen evidence that the federal government can administrate the needs of Johnny better than most parents.My best and most caring teacher did her “magic” in a remote country school of two rooms; one a library the other a classroom. She taught all grades 1-8 at once with two or more students from

each grade. No electronic aid or devices—only a chalkboard and books. Government policies and money raining down from afar generally discourage individuality in teaching and creativity. Instead they often spawn collective thought, (the enemy of real education), by their distribution of money favoring some ideas and groups.

Federalism and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to retain it and to specifically list the powers of the federal government in Article I Section 8 leaving all other powers, in this case education, at state and local levels, was brilliant . Hopefully, the Trump EO will strike a new public debate eventually

removing all federal influence and funding in education . Trump is not yet a constitutionalist, but this move alone shows him closer than the

vast majority of presidents in my lifetime.

Internal link—U.S. Federalism is modeled globallyCalabresi 95 Associate Professor at Northwestern University School of Law- (Steven, "Symposium: Reflections On United States V. Lopez: "A Government Of Limited And Enumerated Powers": In Defense Of United States V. Lopez," Michigan Law Review, December 1995, Lexis)

At the same time, U.S.-style constitutional federalism has become the order of the day in an extraordinarily large number of [*760] very important countries, some of which once might have been thought of as pure nation-states. Thus, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of

Austria, the Russian Federation, Spain, India, and Nigeria all have decentralized power by adopting constitutions that are significantly more federalist than the ones they replaced . Many other nations that had been influenced long ago by American federalism have chosen to retain and formalize their federal structures. Thus, the federalist constitutions of Australia, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, for example, all are basically alive and well today. As one surveys the world in 1995, American-style federalism of some kind or another is everywhere triumphant, while the forces of nationalism, although still

dangerous, seem to be contained or in retreat. The few remaining highly centralized democratic nation-states like Great Britain, France, and Italy all face serious secessionist or devolutionary crises . Other highly centralized nation-states, like China, also seem ripe for a federalist, as well as a democratic, change . Even many existing federal and confederal entities seem to face serious pressure to devolve power further than they have done so far: thus, Russia, Spain, Canada, and Belgium all have very serious devolutionary or secessionist movements of some kind. Indeed, secessionist pressure has been so great that some federal structures recently have collapsed under its weight, as has happened in Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union.

Impx—Federalism prevents violence, secessions, and rebellions—prefer empiricsLawoti 3/18/09“Federalism for Nepal”, Mahendra Lawoti is professor at the department of political science at Western Michigan University, writer of several books and Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh with dissertation of Exclusionary Democratization: Multicultural Society and Political Institutions in Nepa., http://www.telegraphnepal.com/backup/telegraph/news_det.php?news_id=5041

Cross-national studies covering over 100 countries have shown that federalism minimizes violent conflicts whereas unitary structures are more apt to exacerbate ethnic conflicts. Frank S. Cohen (1997) analyzed ethnic conflicts and inter-

governmental organizations over nine 5-year –periods (1945-1948 and 1985-1989) among 223 ethnic groups in 100 countries. He found that federalism generates increases in the incidence of protests (low-level ethnic conflicts) but stifles the development of rebellions (high-level

conflicts). Increased access to institutional power provided by federalism leads to more low-level conflicts because local groups mobilize at the regional level to make demands on the regional governments . The perceptions that conflicts occur in federal structure is not entirely incorrect. But the conflicts are low-level and manageable ones. Often, these are desirable conflicts because they are expressions of disadvantaged groups and people for equality and justice, and part of a process that consolidates democracy. In addition, they also let off steam so that the protests do not turn into rebellions. As the demands at the regional levels are addressed, frustrations do not build up. It checks abrupt and severe outburst. That is why high levels of conflicts are found less in federal countries. On the other hand, Cohen found high levels of conflicts in unitary structures and centralized politics. According to Cohen (1997:624):

Federalism moderates politics by expanding the opportunity for victory. The increase in opportunities for political gain comes from the fragmentation/dispersion of policy-making power… the compartmentalizing character of federalism also assures cultural distinctiveness by offering dissatisfied ethnic minorities proximity to public affairs. Such close contact provides a feeling of both control and security that an ethnic group gains regarding its own affairs. In general, such institutional proximity expands the opportunities for political participation, socialization, and consequently, democratic consolidation.

Saidmeman, Lanoue, Campenini, and Stanton’s (2002: 118) findings also support Cohen’s analysis that federalism influences peace and violent dissent differently. They used Minority at Risk Phase III dataset and investigated 1264 ethnic groups. According to Saideman et al. (2002:118-120):

Federalism reduces the level of ethnic violence. In a federal structure, groups at the local level can influence many of the issues that matter dearly to them- education, law enforcement, and the like. Moreover, federal arrangements reduce the chances that any group will realize its greatest nightmare: having its culture, political and educational institutions destroyed by a hostile national majority.

These broad empirical studies support the earlier claims of Lijphart, Gurr, and Horowitz that power sharing and autonomy granting

institutions can foster peaceful accommodation and prevent violent conflicts among different groups in culturally plural societies. Lijphart (1977:88), in his award winning book Democracy in Plural Societies, argues that "Clear boundaries between the segments of a plural society have the advantage of limiting mutual contacts and consequently of limiting the chances of ever-present potential antagonisms to erupt into actual hostility". This is not to argue for isolated or closed polities, which is almost impossible in a progressively globalizing world. The case is that when quite distinct and self-differentiating cultures come into contact, antagonism between them may increase. Compared to federal structure, unitary structure may bring distinct cultural groups into intense contact more rapidly because more group members may stay within their regions of traditional settlements under federal arrangements whereas unitary structure may foster population movement.Federalism reduces conflicts because it provides autonomy to groups. Disputants within federal structures or any mechanisms that provide autonomy are better able to work out agreements on more specific issues that surface repeatedly in the programs of communal movement (Gurr 1993:298-299). Autonomy agreements have helped dampen rebellions by Basques in Spain, the Moros in the Philippines, the Miskitos in Nicaragua, the people of Bangladesh’s Chittagong Hill Tracts and the affairs of Ethiopia, among others (Gurr 1993:3190) The Indian experiences are also illustrative. Ghosh (1998) argues that India state manged many its violent ethnic conflicts by creating new states (Such as Andhra Pradesh, Gujurat, Punjab, Harayana, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland) and autonomous councils (Such as Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council, Bodoland Autonomous Council, and Jharkhand Area autonomous Council, Leh Autonomous Hill Development Council). The basic idea, according to Ghosh (1998:61), was to devolve powers to make the ethnic/linguistic groups feel that their identity was being respected by the state.

By providing autonomy, federalism also undermines militant appeals. Because effective autonomy provides resources and institutions through which groups can make significant progress toward their objectives , many ethnic activities and

supporters of ethnic movements are engaged through such arrangements. Thus it builds long-term support for peaceful solutions and undermines appeals to militant action (Gurr 1993:303). Policies of regional devolution in France, Spain and Italy, on the other hand, demonstrate that establishing self-managing autonomous regions can be politically and economically less burdensome for central states than keeping resistant peoples in line by force: autonomy arrangements have transformed destructive conflicts in these societies into positive interregional competition".

DA solves the aff/Overview DA solves the aff—Only preserving federalism can ensure state follow thruHess and Kelly 9/15/15“More Than a Slogan: Here are five good reasons federalism is so important in education.” Frederick M. Hess, Frederick M. Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and author of the new book, “Letters to a Young Education Reformer.” Andrew Kelly , Andrew P. Kelly is a resident scholar and director of the Center on Higher Education Reform at the American Entrprise Institute. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/09/15/5-reasons-federalism-in-education-mattersThose seeking to do more and more of the nation's education business in Washington fail to recognize that federalism has its own unique strengths when it comes to education. Now, those arguing for a larger federal role have reasonable points to make. Some states do have a history of ignoring failing schools or doing too little for disadvantaged students. It is also true that states can ignore federal inducements in order to go their own way (though that's easier said than done when non-participation comes with a giant price tag).

The response to these concerns should not be shallow sloganeering around the virtues of limited government, but a competing vision of how to order our community affairs and an explanation of why, at least in the American system,

the federal government just isn't well suited to govern education. Anything less makes it all too easy for liberals, and even well-intentioned moderates, to dismiss federalism as an inconvenient obstacle to be overcome rather than an asset to be embraced.

Federalism matters for at least five reasons.It's a matter of size. Education advocates suffer from severe bouts of Finland and Singapore envy. They tend to ignore that most of these nations have populations of

5 million or so, or about the population of Maryland or Massachusetts. Trying to make rules for schools in a nation that's as large and diverse as the U.S. is simply a different challenge.

It aligns responsibility and accountability with authority. One problem with tackling education reform from Washington is that it's not members of Congress or federal bureaucrats who are charged with making things work or who are held accountable when they

don't. Instead, responsibility and blame fall on state leaders and on the leaders in those schools, districts and colleges who do the actual work. The more authority moves up the ladder in education, the more this divide worsens.It steers decisions towards the practical. No Child Left Behind promised that 100 percent of students would be proficient in reading and math by 2014. President Barack Obama wants to ensure that all students can attend community college for "free" – though most of the funds would come from states. It's easy for D.C.

politicians to make grand promises and leave the consequences to someone else. State leaders must balance the budget and are answerable to voters for what happens in schools and colleges; this tends to make them more pragmatic in pursuing reform.

When policymakers are embedded in a community, as mayors and state legislators are, there is also more trust and opportunity for compromise. That kind of practicality might disappoint firebrands eager for national solutions, but it's a better bet for students than the wish lists and airy promises of Beltway pols.

It leaves room for varied approaches to problem-solving. One of the perils of trying to "solve" things from Washington is that we wind up with one-size-fits-all solutions. No Child Left Behind emerged from a wave of state-based efforts to devise testing and accountability

systems. Those state efforts were immensely uneven, but they allowed a variety of approaches to emerge, yielding

the opportunity to learn, refine and reinvent. That's much more difficult when Washington is seeking something that can be applied across 50 states.

Link and turns case— The perception of federal encroachment means schools won’t follow thru kills implementation Fensterwald 1/19/16“Federal officials urged not to step on state's school reforms”, John Fensterwald, editor-at-large of EdSource Today, joined EdSource in 2012. Before that, he was editor and co-writer for the “Thoughts on Public Education (TOP-Ed)” website, a leading source of California education policy reporting and opinion, which he founded in 2009. For 11 years before then, John wrote editorials for the Mercury News in San Jose, with a focus on education. He worked as a reporter, news editor and opinion editor for three newspapers in New Hampshire for two decades before receiving a Knight Fellowship at Stanford University in 1997 and heading West., https://edsource.org/2016/federal-officials-urged-not-to-intrude-on-states-school-reform-essa-nclb-lcff/93632

Superintendents, teachers, advocates for students and business and community leaders sounded a strong, though not

unanimous, call Monday for federal officials to give California wide berth to fashion a school improvement system without micromanagement from Washington.“The best-run companies empower front-line workers. Focus on being a partner, not on telling us how to do the job but on helping us do the job,” David Rattray, executive vice president of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, told U.S. Department of Education officials at a hearing in Los Angeles on the Every Student Succeeds Act, the successor to the No Child Left Behind Act.In all-day hearings last week in Washington, D.C., and at UCLA on Monday, federal education officials led by Ann Whalen, senior adviser to Acting Education Secretary John King, sought advice on regulations to implement the new law. The watchword from California – from the State Board of Education to the local level –

was that the new regulations shouldn’t encroach on the flexibility that Congress intended when it passed and President Barack

Obama signed the law last month.

“ Implementation depends on lessons learned from the failure of NCLB ,” said Patricia Rucker, a member of the state board

who spoke in her role as a lobbyist for the California Teachers Association. “Balance federalism with local control. Rule making should be disciplined to respect the nuances of state plans.”

Uniqueness wall U/Q—Trump boost States on Education now—the plan would be seen as a reversalThe Blade 4/26/17“EDUCATION Trump order seeks to limit federal role in K-12 education”, http://www.toledoblade.com/Education/2017/04/26/Trump-order-seeks-to-limit-federal-role-in-K-12-education.htmlWASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed an executive order today that aims to reduce the federal government’s role in K-12 education.

Trump is giving Education Secretary Betsy DeVos just short of a year — 300 days — to identify areas where Washington has overstepped its legal authority in education, and modify and repeal regulations and guidance from her department, if necessary. A report will be returned to the White House and eventually made public, officials said.Trump complained that the government over the years has forced states and schools to comply with “federal whims.” He said the order will help restore local control over education.“We know that local communities do it best and know it best,” Trump said, surrounded by governors, members of Congress and teachers. “The time has come to empower parents and teachers to make the decisions that help their students achieve success.”Republicans have long chafed at federal government involvement in education, asserting that states and local governments, school boards and parents are best positioned to decide what students learn. Antipathy toward the Education Department ramped up under Trump’s predecessor,

President Barack Obama, who offered states billions of dollars of federal money to help improve their schools in exchange for adopting certain academic standards.

DeVos said time has shown that “one-size fits all policies and mandates from Washington simply don’t work.”But Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s second-largest teachers’ union, said the review was unnecessary because a bipartisan education law enacted in late 2015 had already shifted power from the federal government to states.“This is a case of been there, done that,” Weingarten said. She stressed that the law also contains key civil rights provisions that the federal government is obligated to uphold.The Center for Education Reform, which advocates for charter schools, said Trump’s executive order will promote innovation and freedom.“Conducting such a review is part and parcel of ensuring that education innovation and opportunity are able to take root throughout our various education sectors,” the organization said in a statement. “The connection between freedom and excellence is no secret.”Later today, Trump honored teachers as he welcomed the National Teacher of the Year and state-level winners to the Oval Office.“There is nothing more important than being a teacher,” he said.

Trump promised during the campaign to give state and local governments more control over education.The executive order is one of several the president is signing this week as he seeks to notch accomplishments by Saturday, his 100th day in office.

U/Q—Trump’s XO ceding control of education to the statesReuters 4/26/17“Trump seeks to shrink federal role in education with new order”, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-education-trump-idUSKBN17S2U8President Donald Trump on Wednesday ordered Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to review the U.S. government's role in school policy, which supporters cheered as the first step in creating more local control in education and critics worried could lead to lower quality schools in poorer neighborhoods.

DeVos has 300 days "to review and, if necessary, modify and repeal regulations and guidance issued by the Department of Education with a clear mandate to identify places where D.C. has overstepped its legal authority," said Rob Goad, a Department of Education official, according to a transcript of a White House call with reporters.

The second most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives, California's Kevin McCarthy, said the federal government had in recent years exceeded its legal authority in creating regulations and guidance.U/Q—Trump XO give states more control of educationKTLA 4/26/17“Trump Signs Executive Order Designed to Roll Back Federal Involvement in Education. APRIL 26, 2017,” http://ktla.com/2017/04/26/trump-signs-executive-order-designed-to-roll-back-federal-control-of-education/In a move meant to follow through on promises he made to conservatives during the 2016 campaign, President Donald

Trump signed an executive order Wednesday that aims to rein in federal control of education in the United States.

The order, which Trump signed while flanked by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Vice President Mike Pence and Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, initiates a process that could see substantial changes made to K-12 education in the United States, the clearest signal yet that Trump hopes to put his stamp on the Education Department before his 100th day in office on Saturday.

U/Q—Trump preserves federalism now—Recent XO’s ensures current balanceNational Review 2/23/17

“Returning Power to States and School”, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445181/trump-administration-transgender-guidelines-title-ix-rescinds-obama-letter-federalismYesterday the Trump administration preserved federalism, respected the principle of local control over local schools , and corrected one

of the Obama administration’s many lawless and radical executive actions. With a simple, two-page letter, the Departments of Education and Justice withdrew and rescinded two Obama-administration letters that purported to unilaterally redefine Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The Obama administration had expanded Title IX’s explicit ban on sex discrimination in federally funded educational institutions to encompass “gender identity” discrimination and then imposed intrusive “guidance” on every federally funded school in the nation, on matters ranging from pronoun usage to eligibility for sports teams and access to showers, bathrooms, and sleeping quarters on overnight trips.

Put plainly, the Obama administration used a letter to rewrite a statute and then applied that letter to every public school in the United States, from kindergarten through college. This is not how one makes law in our constitutional republic. New laws require new statutes,

and presidents do not have the power to rewrite old laws at will. At the very least, the Administrative Procedure Act requires that new and substantive agency rules go through a notice-and-comment procedure that gives the public a voice in the regulatory rulemaking process. The Obama administration skipped each of these steps.

Link Wall Link—The plan over steps—regulating school lunches crushes federalismMcCluskey 3/14/17“For the Love of Choice, Don’t Federalize It”, Neal McCluskey is director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom., https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/love-choice-dont-federalize-itThe first question facing any federal proposal should be whether it is allowed by the Constitution. That may seem quaint or quixotic, but it is fundamental: the Constitution gives Washington specifically enumerated powers, and that is all. Governing education, aside from

enforcing civil rights legislation and regulating schooling on federal lands, is not among them.There are sound practical reasons for respecting these constitutional limits. First and foremost, federalism defends against centralized control of America’s diverse communities and people. In addition, when sub-national units, such as states and school districts, try something new, the damage is isolated if a plan does not work; if it succeeds, others are free to replicate it and adapt it to their needs.But isn’t school choice fundamentally different from and better than federalism? Doesn’t it inherently move power from higher, more centralized levels to the lowest levels possible: children and families?

It does, and that is a tremendous strength. But as we’ve learned from roughly a quarter-century of experience with state-level school choice

programs and federal higher education policy, any connection to the federal government can have unintended consequences for choice, including incentivizing government control of the schools to which public money flows. That control can diminish and even eliminate the core value of school choice: the ability to choose something truly different.

Federal money means federal regulationWe should protect federalism both to ensure that differing methods of delivering choice can be tried without having to compete against a choice monopolist—an oxymoronic but all-too-real concept when discussing the feds—and to prevent national homogenization of private schools via the kinds of regulations that inevitably get attached to federal dough.On the first major concern—avoiding a monopoly choice system—I believe the most meaningful form of accountability is having to satisfy parents. But while I oppose most rules and regulations on schools participating in choice programs, I would never declare that my preferred amount of regulation is always and everywhere incontrovertibly right. Research does not make a slam-dunk case for any specific system. Research is limited, as are our minds. The way we learn what’s best now and continue to discover methods that may be better is to allow free action on a level playing field. Federalism helps us do just that.

On the second point—federal “help” rendering once-autonomous private institutions increasingly homogenous—all major forms of choice are susceptible to government control to varying degrees. The danger is far greater when that control comes from Washington, because you can’t even move to another state to escape it.

Link—School lunches key to overall federalismCorbin 5/28/14David Corbin is a Professor of Politics and Matthew Parks an Assistant Professor of Politics at The King’s College, New York City, “Who Killed Federalism?”, http://www.newrevolutionnow.org/nrn-blog/category/federalism

Nothing testifies to the death of federalism better than the rash of stories last week about federal requirements for public school lunches. Consider just a few:The representatives of the once-free people of Connecticut voted unanimously in both the state House and Senate to ban chocolate milk, lest its troublesomely high levels of sodium endanger a portion of their federal school lunch subsidies.In Washington, lawmakers debated how to respond to complaints that schools are having to divert money from teaching budgets “to cover the costs of mounds of wasted fruits and vegetables.” Experts suggest that enlisting “technical assistance” in organizing lunch lines and presenting food might help local schools cut their losses–especially since the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) gives extra subsidies to those who serve these not-so-enticing meals.

The USDA closed out the week by offering a “whole grain-rich pasta products” waiver to those schools that have found quality pasta difficult to come by–as long as said hardship is properly certified by their respective state board of education.We’ll pause a moment to let your nausea pass—hopefully not inspired by the thought of school children having to eat non-whole grain-rich pasta, at least while the two-year waiver period lasts.

The dynamic at work in this case illustrates the contemporary relationship between states and the federal government. It

begins with the promise of federal funding—assuming certain conditions are met. Revenue-strapped states scramble for the money like children diving for candy after a piñata bursts. This “extra” money is soon not extra at all—but rather a vital (even if relatively small) part of a barely

balanced budget. Meanwhile, the federal bureaucracy realizes that the original conditions attached to the money are inadequate to reach its ever-elusive goals. New rules follow with threats of withheld funds for non-compliance.For most states (see CT above), the decision is easy: comply. But what happens when the new regulations are impossibly onerous? Finally, out come the champions of federalism, whose alternative simply shovels a little less dirt on its grave.Hear the Republican lion in the un-eaten fruit and veggie war: “‘I want to do all I can to fight childhood obesity,’ Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), who has been sharply critical of the standards, said in an interview. ‘But I’ve heard from school districts, superintendents, and they are asking for flexibility. This top-down approach from Washington isn’t working. The plate waste is piling up.’”

What’s the alternative to a “top-down approach from Washington”? Waivers from Washington. The USDA seems to get what Republicans miss: the name of the game is power. Grant a “whole grain-rich pasta products” waiver and you’re still running the game by your rules. The USDA giveth, and the USDA taketh away.

Real federalism—and, more importantly, real self-government—looks quite a bit different. In Federalist 45, James Madison addresses concerns that the sum total of power granted to the national government in the Constitution will endanger the powers, in the language of the 10th Amendment, “reserved to the States.” He begins to build his case to the contrary by

reminding his audience, as we do well to be reminded of today, that federalism is a means, not an end:

Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty?

Madison asserts that the balance between state and federal authority should be struck at the point where it most contributes to the “peace, liberty, and safety” of the American people, not the dignity of state or federal officeholders. In his day, that meant escaping the anarchic tendencies of the Articles of Confederation with a more robust national government, one capable of securing the common

defense, among other essential purposes. Today, we might simply posit the reverse—that we need to strengthen the states at the expense of the federal government.Madison did not expect such a day to come any time soon, given five ways the “State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government” in maintaining its share of power:…whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.On the first point, Madison submits that given that state legislatures possessed the power of “direct intervention” in electing Presidents, an “absolute and exclusive” power in electing Senators, and great “influence” in electing Representatives, “each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments.” But given the democratization of the national election process brought on by19th and 20th century Progressive sentiments and reforms, state legislatures no longer (1) appoint members of the electoral college; (2) directly elect Senators, or (3) possess much of an influence over the election of the Congressmen. Thus the Federal government is no longer dependent on the State governments for its election.The greater “weight of influence” Madison thought state governments would possess relative to the Federal government, given the higher ratio of local and state employees to federal employees, also has not diminished the power of the federal government. Consider this graph that charts the total number and ratio of federal to state to local employees since 1955. Approximately one out of every fourteen Americans is a government employee today, compared to one in twenty-two Americans in 1955. The greatest part of the total increase of government employees amounts to the enlargement of state and local government employment. It matters little if the lunch lady pouring chocolate milk down the sink and serving fruits and vegetables is a local government employee if her job ultimately depends on monies slopped out by federal bureaucrats wielding carrot sticks.Which brings us to the third part of Madison’s argument as to why the proposed federal republic was a great improvement over the earlier confederation; namely, its powers would be “few,” “defined,” and “exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” Madison likely never could have imagined the Federal government adding management of sodium intake to this list as the American people sat listless on the political sidelines.

As troubling as the death of federalism is, we need more fundamental reform, as the Republican response to the school lunch mandates makes clear. There is, after all, an even more important third leg to the governing stool, implicit in Madison’s argument, but made explicit in the 10th Amendment: the people. Often conservatives read that Amendment as if it is meant to protect the rights of the states. But it is much better understood, both textually and historically, as an attempt to protect the people’s distribution of powers among themselves, the states and the national government. If we really want to restore 10th Amendment government, we’ll need to work much harder at removing power from both state and federal hands than at replacing the divine right of the Washington King with the divine right of state Barons.

Link—Food standards: Current law favor states on lunch standards. The plan would roll the SQ back.-- AT: It’s the fed responsibilityThe Hill 5/1/17“Trump unwinding Michelle Obama's school lunch program rules”, http://thehill.com/regulation/healthcare/331400-trump-unwinding-first-ladys-school-lunch-program-rulesAgriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue took steps Monday to roll back healthy school lunch standards promoted by former first lady Michelle Obama in one of his first regulatory acts.

In an interim final rule, aimed at giving schools more flexibility, Perdue and his department are postponing further sodium reductions for at least three years and allowing schools to serve non-whole grain rich products occasionally as well as 1 percent flavored milk.

The rule allows states to exempt schools in the 2017-2018 school year from having to replace all their grains with whole-grain rich products if they are having a hard time meeting the standard.

Link—Fed control of school meal standard tanks federalismBakst and Sheffield 11/3/16Daren Bakst, Research Fellow in Agricultural Policy, Rachel Sheffield, Former Policy Analyst, DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, The Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity, “Getting the Facts Straight on School Meals and Child Nutrition Reauthorization”, http://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/getting-the-facts-straight-school-meals-and-child-nutrition-reauthorizationClaim: The federal government needs to dictate detailed school meal standards to ensure that students eat healthy food.

Reality: The most basic requirement of any school meal program should be to ensure that children actually eat. The current federal school meal standards have failed at meeting this basic requirement. There is still significant plate waste, as shown in the Government

Accountability Office’s research on the school lunch program.[16] Local officials also have little flexibility to adapt meals to best meet the needs of their students.Schools are rightfully complaining about the massive costs associated with implementing the new standards.[17] There are even claims that some schools are diverting

education money to meet federal meal requirements.[18] The school meal standards “debate” is not really a question of nutrition as much a

question of federalism and control.[19] Proponents are favoring a one-size-fits-all federally centralized policy while opponents are favoring states and

local community control.

The details of school meal standards should be left to local communities who best know the specific needs of their students. This is a pro-parent approach as well. By making the decisions local, parents can have more say as to what schools serve. (It is easier to have influence on local officials than on unaccountable USDA bureaucrats.) Such an approach will encourage innovation that could help communities learn from each other.

Link—Fed regulations on school lunches uniquely disrupt federalismFederalism in Action 5/29/14

“Federalism Debate Moves to School Cafeterias”, Federalism In Action (FIA), a 501c(3), is an energetic and results-oriented public policy organization – promoting American federalism, liberty, and fresh ideas aimed at limiting government. We seek to restore the proper balance between the federal government and the states – focusing on ways states can truly act as independent sovereigns and come up with local solutions. http://www.federalisminaction.com/2014/05/federalism-debate-moves-school-cafeterias/#sthash.UTp0wsJZ.dpbs

School lunches have become the latest hot topic in the federalism debate, and once again, federal funding is at the center of this controversy.

“The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010” requires public schools that accept federal funding for free and reduced lunch programs to abide by more restrictive food guidelines. These parameters require healthier school cafeteria options, including lighter menu items and reduced additives.

The law went into effect in 2012, and now many school boards are appealing to Washington to let them out.Why?Schools are reporting that a significant amount of cafeteria food is now going to waste , as kids are opting not to eat the

healthier options on their plate. These schools then face hefty costs to dispose of the large quantities of wasted food. Some districts report they are using teaching budgets to make up for the financial shortfalls that occur from the disposal process.

As a result, this week, a U.S. House subcommittee approved a spending bill that would provide temporary waivers for school lunch programs that could prove that they were operating at a net loss for six months.Some school districts are taking matters into their own hands. Recently, Arlington Heights District 214 in Illinois voted to opt out of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) free and reduced lunch program. They decided the $900,000 federal grant they received was not worth the financial hit they would take from having to comply with the federal subsidy’s stipulations.Dist. 214 Superintendent David Schuler warned the district would likely lose money if it complied with the federal requirements. They are still trying to figure out how they will make up the lost funding to continue the free and reduced-lunch meal program.This is yet another example of a failed one-size-fits-all approach to public policy.While healthy school lunches are a noble goal, mandating federal guidelines has only done a disservice to students, parents, and schools alike. If more districts like Arlington Heights opt out, then funding for the most vulnerable school children’s meal program will be at risk.School lunch policies, like many other decisions, should instead be made at the most local level possible and empower local people to solve problems locally.

Vouchers link The plan kills fizm. A national voucher program overturns states constitutionsVox 2/10/17“A comprehensive list of what Betsy DeVos can — and can’t — do next”, http://www.vox.com/2017/2/10/14550262/betsy-devos-education-vouchersA lot of Republicans in Congress support school vouchers, too, and once they’re involved, the options expand. But a national school voucher program is still highly unlikely, even with Republicans dominating the majority of state governments. One of the many hurdles: 38 states have constitutional amendments that block public funding from going to religious schools.

Tax credit link Tax credits kill fizmMcCluskey 3/14/17“For the Love of Choice, Don’t Federalize It”, Neal McCluskey is director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom., https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/love-choice-dont-federalize-itScholarship tax credits and education savings accounts appear to attract less regulation. Andrew Coulson compared vouchers and tax credits empirically and found that credits are less prone to regulation, probably because no one has tax dollars taken away and sent to someone else. Education savings accounts are too new to know for sure, but the hope is that they will avoid onerous rules because funds can be spent on multiple uses.

But even these seemingly less-regulation-prone choice mechanisms can come with controls . For instance,

schools taking kids with scholarships funded through Florida’s tax credit program must be approved by the state, meet teacher-qualification requirements, and show gains on either state exams or nationally norm-referenced tests. Students in Tennessee’s Individualized Education Account Program must take either a nationally norm-referenced test chosen by the state department of education or the state exam.

Even expanding tax-preferred 529 plans, which currently only apply to higher education expenses, to include K-12 education expenses could threaten schools’ autonomy. Any college on which a student wants to spend 529 account money must be accredited, and requiring that colleges be accredited to take students with federal aid is a major reason that we do not see more postsecondary education innovation. Indeed, accreditation is the primary way Washington regulates colleges; a student can only use federal aid at an accredited school, and the federal government regulates the accreditors.

Small affs/funding link Even small scale federal funding collapses federalism. The plan would cause an increase in demand for more federal regulation.McCluskey 3/14/17“For the Love of Choice, Don’t Federalize It”, Neal McCluskey is director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom., https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/love-choice-dont-federalize-itA dangerous cycle of aid-driven price inflation

But what if the proposed numbers of federal choice dollars, potential beneficiaries, and participating schools were small ? Wouldn’t that allay concerns about Washington dictating terms to private schools nationwide?

Well, not exactly. The numbers may start small, but the allure, and eventual necessity, of getting those dollars would likely grow quickly. Once a single group starts getting aid, others naturally demand the same thing. Looking further at higher education is instructive.In 1970-71, there were only a relative handful of federal student aid programs, and total aid, including loans, amounted to just $16.5 billion in 2015 dollars. The number of programs has since nearly doubled, and the total amount of federal aid in the 2015-16 academic year was $140.1 billion. Readily available data on the share of students receiving federal aid only goes back to the 1992-1993 academic year, but the growth in aid dependence is also clear: In 1992-93, 45 percent of full-time, full-year undergraduates used some form of federal aid. By 2011-12, that had jumped to 73 percent.What about federal higher education tax incentives? Though nonexistent until the 1996-97 school year, more than $18 billion in tax benefits were claimed in 2015-16.Aid money got baked into the system, and now colleges can no longer exist without taking students with federal aid. Aid-eschewing institutions would be unable to pay for all the stuff, academic and otherwise, that aid-accepting schools provide and would struggle mightily to attract students. And since aid is built into the prices, students need it, too.

With federal school choice, K-12 schools and families would also likely become hooked on federally connected cash, including money furnished through donation tax credits, and the vicious cycle of aid leading to price inflation would take off. This danger is especially acute in the context of a federal program since, unlike individual states, Washington can easily borrow or even print money it does not have. These abilities matter even for credits, allowing the feds to more easily forego tax revenue.With burgeoning federal aid, federal rules that would make autonomous private schools ever more homogenous and, well, public would also likely proliferate. We

have seen the regulation impetus in state-funded school choice programs. We have also seen it in higher education. That sector deals with adults and, hence, has been less prone to regulation than K-12 education, but it has nonetheless become increasingly subject to federal controls, including through accreditation and a Sword of Damocles—separation from student aid—hanging over institutions that, regardless of the mix of students they serve, do not meet federal performance metrics.

Imagine if there had been a federal voucher or tax credit program just a few years ago. Private schools nationwide could have faced heavy pressure to adopt nationally uniform curriculum standards . They could have been subjected to “Dear Colleague” letters prescribing, even for religious schools, their bathroom and locker room access policies. They could have been coerced into teacher evaluations based in part on standardized test scores. Choice, quite simply, could have been kneecapped, even if more people were able to exercise it.

Generic Impact wall Collapse of federalism bad—Imbalance causes government overstretch making the US vulnerable to terrorist attacks and limits natural disaster recovery. Empirics prove. Only maintaining balance via disengaging the fed from education solvesNivola 10/1/05Pietro S. Nivola, fmr Senior Fellow Emeritus - Governance Studies, received his A.B. and Ph.D. from Harvard University. He also holds an M.C.P. from the Harvard Graduate School of Design. Nivola was awarded Harvard's Frederick Sheldon Traveling Fellowship, and was a Samuel Andrew Stouffer Fellow at the Joint Center for Urban Studies of Harvard and M.I.T. “Why Federalism Matters”, https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-federalism-matters/Why the paternalists in Washington cannot resist dabbling in the quotidian tasks that need to be performed by state and local officials would require a lengthy treatise on bureaucratic behavior, congressional politics, and judicial activism. Suffice it to say that the

propensity, whatever its source, poses at least two fundamental problems.

The first is that some state and local governments may become sloppier about fulfilling their basic obligations. The Hurricane Katrina debacle revealed how ill-prepared the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana were for a potent tropical storm that could inundate the region. There were multiple explanations for this error, but one may well

have been habitual dependence of state and local officials on direction, and deliverance, by Uncle Sam. In Louisiana, a state that was receiving more federal aid than any other for Army Corps of Engineers projects, the expectation seemed to be that shoring up the local defenses against floods was chiefly the responsibility of Congress and the Corps, and that if the defenses failed, bureaucrats in the Federal Emergency Management Agency would instantly ride to the rescue. That assumption proved fatal . Relentlessly pressured to spend money on other local projects, and unable to plan centrally for every possible calamity that might occur somewhere in this huge country, the federal government botched its role in the Katrina crisis every step of the way—the flood prevention, the response, and the recovery. The local authorities in this tragedy should have known better, and taken greater precautions.

Apart from creating confusion and complacency in local communities, a second sort of disorder begot by a national government too immersed in their day-to-day minutia is that it may become less mindful of its own paramount priorities.

Consider an obvious one: the security threat presented by Islamic extremism. This should have been the U.S. government’s first concern, starting from at least the early 1990s. The prelude to September 11, 2001 was eventful and ominous. Fanatics with ties to Osama bin Laden had bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. Muslim militants had tried to hijack an airliner and crash it into the Eiffel Tower in 1994. U.S. military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, were blown up, killing nearly a score of American servicemen in 1996. Courtesy of Al Qaeda, truck bombings at the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998 caused thousands of casualties. Al Qaeda operatives attacked the USS Cole in 2000.

And so it went, year after year. What is remarkable was not that the jihadists successfully struck the Twin Towers again in the fall of 2001 but that the United States and its allies threw no forceful counterpunches during the preceding decade, and that practically nothing was done to prepare the American people for

the epic struggle they would have to wage. Instead, the Clinton administration and both parties in Congress mostly remained engrossed in domestic issues, no matter how picayune or petty. Neither of the presidential candidates in the 2000 election seemed attentive to the fact that the country and the world were menaced by terrorism . On the day of reckoning, when word reached President George W. Bush that United Airlines flight 175 had slammed into a New York skyscraper, he was busy visiting a second-grade classroom at an elementary school in Sarasota, Florida.

The government’s missteps leading up to September 11th, in short, had to do with more than bureaucratic lapses of the kind

identified in the 9/11 Commission’s detailed litany. The failure was also rooted in a kind of systemic attention deficit disorder. Diverting too much time and energy to what de Tocqueville had termed “secondary affairs,” the nation’s public servants from top to bottom grew distracted and overextended.To be sure, the past four years have brought some notable changes. Fortifying the nation’s security and foreign policy, for instance, remains a problematic work in progress, but is at least no longer an item relegated to the hind sections of newspapers and presidential speeches. Nonetheless, distraction and overextension are old habits that the government in Washington hasn’t kicked. Controversies of the most local, indeed sub-local, sort—like the case of Terri Schiavo—still make their way to the top, transfixing Congress and even the White House.The sensible way to disencumber the federal government and sharpen its focus is to take federalism seriously—which is

to say, desist from fussing with the management of local public schools , municipal staffing practices, sanitation standards,

routine criminal justice, family end-of-life disputes, and countless other chores customarily in the ambit of state and local governance. Engineering such a disengagement on a full scale, however, implies reopening a large and unsettled debate: What are the proper spheres of national and local authority?

Federalism solves conflictStepan 99

Alfred Stepan, who was Gladstone Professor of Government at Oxford University in 1996–99, is now Wallace Sayre Professor of Government at Columbia University., “Federalism and Democracy: Beyond the U.S. Model, From: Journal of Democracy Volume 10, Number 4, October 1999 pp. 19-34Yet in spite of these potential problems, federal rather than unitary states are the form most often associated with multinational democracies. Federal states are also associated with large populations, extensive territories, and democracies with territorially based

linguistic fragmentation. In fact, every single longstanding democracy in a territorially based multilingual and multinational polity is a federal state. [End Page 19]Although there are many multinational polities in the world, few of them are democracies. Those multinational democracies that do exist, however (Switzerland,

Canada, Belgium, Spain, and India), are all federal. Although all these democracies, except for Switzerland, have had problems managing their

multinational polities (and even Switzerland had the Sonderbund War, the secession of the Catholic cantons in 1848), they remain reasonably stable.

By contrast, Sri Lanka, a territorially based multilingual and multinational unitary state that feared the “slippery slope” of federalism, could not cope with its ethnic divisions and plunged headlong into a bloody civil war that has lasted more than 15 years.

In addition to the strong association between multinational democracies and federalism, the six longstanding democracies that score highest on an

index of linguistic and ethnic diversity—India, Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, and the United States—are all federal states. The fact that these

nations chose to adopt a federal system does not prove anything; it does, however, suggest that federalism may help these countries manage the problems that come with ethnic and linguistic diversity. In fact, in my judgment, if countries such as

Indonesia, Russia, Nigeria, China, and Burma are ever to become stable democracies, they will have to craft workable federal systems that allow cultural diversity, a robust capacity for socioeconomic development, and a general standard of equality among their citizens.

Modeling wall Syriaa) U.S. attempting to install federalism in Syria now-- Al-Monitor 5/15/17“Will arming of YPG help open Kurdish corridor in Syria?”, http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/05/turkey-united-states-will-guns-open-kurdish-corridor.htmlAccording to Salih Gedo, secretary-general of Syrian Kurdish Democratic Left Party, the weapons will pave the way to federalism for the Kurds. He told Al-Monitor that the decision to supply guns to the YPG has uplifted the spirits of all Kurds; he also called for there to be political support for Kurdish space in a federal Syria.

“No doubt this will have a resounding effect in the region. The spirits of our fighters and people alike have risen meteorically. This major step will bring success to Kurds. The project we have is federalism . If we are also supported politically, we will succeed. Guns by themselves are not enough for the Kurds. Fighting by our fighters is not enough; they must also have political gains. We need political backing for federalism, which is the centerpiece for all Kurds. US support, coming from a

superpower, is very important for us,” Gedo said.

b) that support is key to Syrian stabilityRubin 4/16/17“Federalism, U.S. role keys to stable Syria”, Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. http://www.yakimaherald.com/opinion/columnists/federalism-u-s-role-keys-to-stable-syria/article_853a7d90-2182-11e7-8b91-c7e354a6ed56.html

“The Americans and the SDF together” are already setting up the civilian council that will administer Raqqa after liberation, says Muslim. “They can have their own federal state or be part of the north federal (Kurdish) state, whichever they choose.”The Russians have shown some interest in autonomy for the Syrian Kurds, but Assad has furiously opposed the concept. Some U.S. officials hint that, after liberation, Raqqa could be handed back to Assad (with whom the Kurds have had some dealings). These officials believe the regime would keep the jihadis from returning. Given the past, that is bull.Muslim insists the Kurds would never agree — unless Assad accepted the concept of federalism. “There won’t be a centralized authority like before,” he says. “If (the regime) accepts federalism it would be a different basis. But if they are not going to change, Syria will be divided.”

Ultimately, a federal formula holds the only hope for stabilizing Sunni Arab areas in the rest of the country .

Muslim thinks the Syrian regime might accept the federalism formula if not for Iran, the other key Assad backer. He hopes America will keep some forces in the Kurdish federal state as a balance to Iran and to help prevent any return of jihadis. (A U.S. presence, and intense diplomacy, would also prevent Turkey from clashing with Syrian Kurds, whom it views with the same hostility it does its own PKK Turkish rebels.)Bottom line: The White House must continue to warn Putin that a centralized Syria can’t survive because Assad won’t be able to control it and the United States won’t

let him gas his way to achieving it. Moreover, a federal formula, whether formalized or de facto for now, is the only way to stabilize Syria, and the Kurdish template provides the model.

c) Syrian Instability spills over destabilizes the Middle EastPedram 8/12/14Shiva Pedram was an intern with the National Security and International Policy team at the Center for American Progress. “Syrian Refugee Crisis Threatens Stability in the Middle East”, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2014/08/12/95595/syrian-refugee-crisis-threatens-stability-in-the-middle-east/The risk of instability in the Middle East has increased as Syrian refugees continue to flee to neighboring countries in order to escape the civil war at home. These countries are experiencing economic and political pressure due to the massive refugee influx that has dramatically increased their population sizes and strained their resources.

The Syrian conflict began in March 2011 with a series of peaceful protests and has since resulted in the death of more than 170,000 people and

uprooted an additional 9 million. The latest figures from the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR, show that approximately 2.9 million refugees currently reside in the neighboring countries of Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. An additional

6.5 million remain internally displaced. These numbers continue to grow at a rate of around 100,000 people per month.Syria’s neighboring countries are reaching their limits . They may no longer be able to accommodate the

flow of refugees, having already placed themselves at risk for political violence and economic decline. There is an urgent need for international assistance—not only for the refugees escaping violence but also for the host countries protecting them.

d) That sparks WW3—Draws in U.S. and RussiaShukla 15reporter with a MBA in finance [Vikas, “Yemen Conflict Could Trigger World War 3,” Value Walk, 3-30-2015, http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/03/yemen-conflict-world-war-3/, accessed 7-22-2015]

After launching airstrikes in Yemen last Thursday, the Saudi Arabia-led coalition is reportedly sending 150,000 ground troops to fight the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. The conflict in Yemen is much deeper than it appears on the surface, and if it continues to escalate, it could lead us to a World War 3 . Sunni Saudi Arabia aims to check the growing influence of Shiite Iran in the region. Security experts believe that Riyadh cannot afford to see another Shiite nation in the Middle-East and it will do everything possible to defeat Houthis in Yemen.Wider Middle-East conflict may escalate into World War 3Gulf diplomatic sources told Reuters that the Saudi-led airstrikes were planned to last a month, but could extend up to six months. Yemen conflict is pushing the Middle-East to a much bigger conflict. The Saudi versus Iran confrontation has created a lot of confusion and unpredictability. The U.S. is supporting Iran-backed militants in Iraq, but opposing Iran-backed rebels in Yemen.The UAE and Egypt are part of the Saudi-led strike in Yemen, but are bombing Libyan factions backed by Qatar and Turkey, who fully support the Saudi offensive in Yemen. The conflict in Syria is mainly the result of competition between regional powers to outmaneuver each other, says Liz Sly of The Washington Post. In short, Middle-East countries are frenemies, depending on which conflict you are talking about.Saudi Arabia considers itself guardian of the Sunni interest in the Middle-East. But over the past few years, Sunni influence has been shrinking as Shiite Iran expands its influence, said Mustafa Alani of Gulf Research Center. Iranian-backed rebels have played a crucial role in propping up President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Iran-backed militias control more territory in Iraq than the Iraqi army. In Lebanon, the Iranian-supported Hezbollah movement reigns supreme.By launching airstrikes in Yemen, Saudi Arabia has sent a clear signal that it will no longer tolerate Iran's growing influence. So, the Yemen conflict is not just about Yemen, it's more about changing the power equations. How could it lead to a World War 3? It seems unlikely on the surface. But Iran is not the one to stay silent as Saudi Arabia bombs Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen.World War 3: Russia, Iran vs. Saudi Arabia, U.S.?And Russia may support Iran in its fight against the U.S.-backed Saudi Arabia, triggering a World War

3. Last month, even before Saudi decided to bomb Yemen, Russia warned that it would help Iran attack Saudi Arabia if the U.S. armed Ukraine against Russian-backed rebels. Moscow said that it would "respond asymmetrically against Washington or its allies on other fronts" if the U.S. arms Ukraine. Worse, Putin has already accused the United States of supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine.The U.S. has also been strengthening its military presence in Europe to reassure its allies. A World War 3 won't be out of the realm of possibility if Vladimir Putin decides to support Iran against Saudi Arabia. And Putin has already shown that he fears no one, not even the U.S.Philippinesa) Philippines to model US federalism—by 2022ABS-CBN News 5/7/17“PH federalism to be modeled after US, Germany”, http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/05/07/17/ph-federalism-to-be-modeled-after-us-germanyMANILA - The government’s model for federalism will be the United States or Germany, said Senate President Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III in a conference on federalism in Davao City, Saturday.

Pimentel, who spoke during the Centrist Democratic Party of the Philippines’ eighth national congress, said the country’s form of federalism will both be parliamentary and presidential.

“Our model will be like U.S. or Germany. The Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) model for federalism is uniquely Filipino. They can call it semi-parliamentary and semi-presidential. Kaya nga you cannot label it,” said Pimentel, who is also president of PDP-Laban, Pres. Duterte’s political party.

"Nasa education stage pa tayo. We are still in the stage of informing the people [about] the essence of federalism. We are introducing the people the various models of federalism.”PDP-Laban is confident the shift to federalism will happen before Duterte’s term ends in 2022.

b) Only federalism solves the conflictGmanetwork 4/27/17

“Federalism is the last chance to resolve Mindanao conflict – former chief justice”, THIS CARD HAS A GOOGLE TRANSLATION Ihttp://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/608200/federalism-is-the-last-chance-to-resolve-mindanao-conflict-former-chief-justice/story/

A federal form of government may be the last chance for the Philippines to resolve the decades-long conflict in Mindanao, former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno said Monday.

"Not masosolve that if we have a unitary form of government, because the Muslims dine demand of self rule, not delegated rule. Given just show that under a federal form of government," Puno told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting of business groups in Makati City.Part of the meeting was the Employers Confederation of the Philippines, Management Association of the Philippines, Makati Business Club and Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

A federal government may be the last chance to address concerns, or risk having a siege in Mindanao ,

according to the former chief justice."Kung hindi pa natin mabigay 'yan – hindi pa nabibigay ng past Presidents natin – baka tuloy-tuloy na silang umalis. And that is a big, big problem," he said."'Yan talagang maapektuhan tayong lahat niyan. Politically, economically, socially," he added.

c) Failure risk increased death and social damage that can’t be quantified Campo & Judd 2/2005Salvatore Schiavo-Campo Author, Mary Judd Mindanao Coordinator, “The Mindanao Conflict in the Philippines: Roots, Costs, and Potential Peace Dividend”. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCPR/214578-1111996036679/20482477/WP24_Web.pdfAlthough the indirect economic costs and the social damage from the conflict cannot be quantified with any precision, they certainly

dwarf the $2–3 billion in direct economic costs. They are listed and briefly explained as

follows.Human and Social Costs The heavy human and social toll of the conflict includes, only since the 1970s: · An estimated

120,000 deaths, and uncounted numbers of wounded and disabled; · Displacement of more than two million people, of whom almost half in 2000 alone, during PresidentEstrada’s “all-out-war”; · The emergence of “Muslim ghettos” in various cities in Mindanao

and elsewhere in the country made up of displaced persons and individuals forced out of their areas of residence owing to the disappearance of employment

opportunities caused by the conflict; · The exodus of illegal Muslim migrants to the neighboring state of Sabah, Malaysia. The recent crackdown by the Malaysian authorities as part of their anti-terrorist campaign resulted in en-masse deportation, and ensuing social and economic problems

in their communities of origin; Increased incidence of poverty—already the highest in the country—from 56% in 1991 to 62.5% in 1997 and 71.3%

in 2000. (Fourteen of the 20 poorest provinces in the Philippines are found in Mindanao); · Rampant kidnap-for-ransom activities and other

crimes against persons and property, as a result of the bad security situation directly related to the conflict; and, for the same reason · Trafficking of illegal drugs and the criminal activities spawned by substance abuse have become a major law and order problem in the area – historically free of these problems.

XT— federalism is key to managing ethnic tensions within the regionCNN Philippines 5/18/16“Will the Philippines be better off under a federal government?”, http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2015/03/31/Philippines-federalism-debate.htmlThe chicken or the egg?

It's not surprising that federalism has constantly been a hot-button issue in view of the seemingly unequal allocation of resources

between what critics call “imperial Manila” and the rest of the country.It's a debate akin to the chicken and egg dilemma: Does Metro Manila's economic powerhouse status justify its large share of the national budget? Or is it an economic powerhouse precisely because of the amount of funds it receives in the first place?Those who believe that the region is shouldering the country's economy have some numbers to back them up.Figures from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) published on July 2015 show that Metro Manila had the largest contribution to the country's 2014 gross domestic product (GDP), accounting for a 36.3 percent share.Likewise, NCR's per capita gross regional domestic product (GRDP) during that same year stood at P203,132 — nearly three times the national average (P71,726).DevolutionAlthough the government currently maintains a unitary structure, it still allows the devolution of power through the Local Government Code of 1991.The code is "considered the most radical and far reaching policy that addressed the decades-old problem of a highly centralized politico-administrative system with most significant political and administrative decisions concentrated in Manila."U.P. Public Administration and Governance Prof. Alex Brillantes, and Donna Moscare, made that assessment in a paper they presented at the International Conference of the East West Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 2002.Brillantes and Moscare said under the code, it is the responsibility of local governments to deliver basic services and exercise authority over local issues. These include, among others, hospital services, tourism promotion, the enforcement of environmental laws, and the inspection of food products.

There have also been movements for greater autonomy, such as the proposed creation of a Bangsamoro region to replace the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

Under the original Bangsamoro Basic Law proposed by President Benigno Aquino III, only 25 percent of taxes from the region will go to the national government. The remaining 75 percent will go directly the region.Subsidiarity

Proponents of federalism point to a need for a more efficient government .Among them are Jose Abueva, former president of the University of the Philippines, who said: "Decentralized governance is also related to the principle of subsidiarity: Problems should be attended to at the lowest level in which they can be solved, by the people directly concerned, without elevating the problems for decision at higher levels."

"With more power, authority and resources managed by the leaders in the States and their local governments which will be more visible and accessible to the people all over the country, the people will be more aware of the importance of electing good leaders."

Brillantes and Moscare argued that federalism will complement the country's diversity: "The federal structure devises a flexible arrangement for varying forms of self-government to suit different circumstances and contingencies.""After World War 2, India, Malaysia, and Nigeria used the federal mechanism to settle ethnic diversity. Pakistan also used the federal design to manage ethno-national diversity after it emerged as an independent state," they added.

Domestic Terrorism Impact Collapse of federalism kills homeland security effectiveness Roberts 14Professor in Government at the Virginia Tech Center for Public Administration and Policy [Patrick, “The Lessons of Civil Defense Federalism for the Homeland Security Era,” Journal of Policy History, Vol. 26, No. 3, p. 354-356, Emory Libraries] From the point of view of American government, homeland security could learn from civil defense’s success in using federalism to meet diverse needs across geographic regions and mission areas. Contemporary homeland security programs have drawn criticism for developing procedures that prioritize the terrorist threat and marginalize efforts to prepare for natural hazards such as fires and floods.3 Homeland security policies have also been shown to lack coordination and accountability, and reformers have proposed greater centralization and federal government oversight to bring coherence to the field.4 In contrast to this recommendation, the decentralized federalism of the early civil defense period offers advantages over the more heriarchical and centralized approach to today’s homeland security. [End Page 354]This article analyzes three areas in which civil defenders achieved purposes that ought to be of interest to today’s homeland security officials: public involvement, state and local implementation of a national program, and preparation for natural disasters. Homeland security agencies have achieved mixed results at best in these areas. One of the primary achievements of civil defense, in contrast, was the substantial level of public involvement in and awareness of the program in its World War II and Cold War varieties. To be fair, Americans during that period were more likely to belong to voluntary associations such as the PTA or church groups than to participate in formal civil defense programs.5 Nevertheless, the point of civil defense was to build awareness of the collective national effort to prepare for attack, and many Americans did volunteer. During World War II, a small number of civil servants recruited citizen volunteers to plan evacuation routes and blackout drills and monitor the skies for enemy aircraft. The collective national effort continued on a smaller scale during the Cold War.In addition to public involvement in a national project, civil defenders at the state and local level succeeded in using a national and largely military program to prepare for natural disasters. For example, North Carolina’s governor created programs to involve citizens in military-style planning for air attacks as well as planning for floods and hurricanes. When disasters did occur, civil defense agencies and volunteers used their managerial and technical skills to aid in the response. State and local civil defenders went beyond the militaristic national aims of civil defense in implementing the programs in their districts .

National leaders knew that this flexibility helped to make civil defense more palatable ; a national-level program to prepare for attack from overseas was a hard sell unless the program could have some day-to-day utility for states and localities. Since then, American federalism has transformed from a division of labor among separate spheres to greater cooperation among levels of government to a situation where federal authorities presume to take the lead in all domains. The collapse of an earlier federalism of shared responsibilities has been costly for today’s homeland security programs.6One obvious basis for comparison is the shared federal character of both Cold War civil defense and contemporary homeland security. Cold War civil defense was arguably a more successful case of subnational governments using federalism to suit their needs, whereas homeland security policies have spawned complaints about an overbearing national-level bureaucracy . For example, May et al. criticize homeland security’s “failure to foster a strong [End Page 355] constituency among state and local interests, or among first responders.”7 What is more, some homeland security officials have made the same point: during his tenure, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff hyperbolically warned against a “‘Soviet-style’ management, where there’s the heavy hand of government on everything” version of homeland security .

Instead, he thought states and localities should have more discretion.8 By contrast, one might say that civil defense half a century ago showed the light hand of government and the dividends of such an approach.Civil defense’s successes are remarkable given that national politicians interpreted civil defense as first and foremost a defensive military tactic. In achieving its defense aim, however, President Dwight Eisenhower recognized that effective civil defense needed cooperation from localities. Eisenhower was one of the last presidents to endorse the spirit of cooperative federalism, where the national government pursues national aims but has faith in the distinctive capacities of the states.9 The construction of interstate highway systems is the paradigmatic example: Congress appropriated the funds and set standards, while states carried out the construction. Like civil defense, the highway project was justified as essential for national defense, but the roads were used largely for civilian purposes. Eisenhower used the same rhetoric of cooperative federalism in other domains. “Civil defense by its nature is a critical local problem,” he said. “You cannot give civil defense to Atlanta from New York City or vice versa. The people on the spot have got to take an interest or it cannot be done.”10 The need for local buy in allowed state and local civil defense agencies to use their resources to prepare for a range of situations, including natural disasters . Local buy in also required local mobilization, signing up people to volunteer for drills and campaigns.In an age in which American government is criticized for being broken because of its outdated Constitution and gridlock among branches of government, or when federalism is said to fail during catastrophic disasters, the history of civil defense provides a more

hopeful example.11 One of the virtues of American federalism is its ability to respond to different needs in different geographic areas. The development of speedy and expert hurricane preparations and response in Florida and California’s evolving building codes to protect against earthquakes are just two contemporary examples of how subnational governments made innovations beyond national government standards.12 The history of civil defense also shows the virtues of an American federalism that allows states and localities to participate in a national project , while giving them substantial discretion to meet geographically-specific needs. [End Page 356]

That’s key to prevent terrorism Jenkins 15Senior Adviser to the RAND President and a MA in history from University of California (Los Angeles) [Brian, “The Implications of the Paris Terrorist Attack for American Strategy in Syria and Homeland Security,” RAND, Nov 2015, p. 8-10, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/CT400/CT445/RAND_CT445.pdf, accessed 15 Aug 2016]

The United States must be prepared for an array of terrorist attacks—mini-Mumbai scenarios like the one carried out in Paris cannot be ruled out .Authorities have uncovered a number of plots involving armed assaults by gunmen and suicide attacks. More likely to unfold on American soil, however, are the low-level, often amateurish attempts that we are familiar with.Larger-scale terrorist plots, if initiated from abroad, would still require local confederates. The record of U.S. intelligence efforts since 9/11 has been remarkable. Of close to 60 known jihadist terrorist plots, all but a handful have been interrupted. We are batting .900.Intelligence has been our first line of defense. The 9/11 attacks brought about unprecedented international cooperation among intelligence services and law enforcement organizations. This needs to be maintained and expanded. Our European allies are still struggling to achieve the kind of cooperation among their intelligence services that we have achieved here. The United States should assist Europe in whatever way it can while enhancing American access to vital information on foreign fighters or terrorist networks that could threaten U.S. security.Americans are uncomfortable with domestic intelligence efforts, and some communities find them offensive. Domestic intelligence is vital to homeland security and to preventing the kind of suspicions and hostilities that arise when terrorist attacks occur. Efforts aimed at countering violent extremism, which some communities find equally offensive, cannot substitute for domestic intelligence and criminal investigations.Foreign fighters coming back from Syria must be identified. The Visa Waiver program does not offer anybody a free pass to enter the country. There are still checks in place. But terrorist watch lists need to be informed by continuing exchanges of information between the United States and visa waiver countries.The intelligence role of U.S. Customs and Border Protection can be enhanced. Secondary interviews of those arriving at U.S. ports of entry should be viewed as opportunities to collect intelligence. I am not suggesting that we increase the number of secondary interviews, but that we exploit them.The United States does not face the deluge of refugees pouring into Europe. Unlike Europe, U.S. authorities will have more opportunities to vet applicants before they arrive, and the numbers being admitted are much smaller.However, these are extraordinary circumstances. While the refugees may be fleeing from some of the same groups that are currently being attacked by the United States, they are coming from an active war zone where violence continues, where loyalties are fluid, and where America’s opponents are exhorting followers to carry out terrorist attacks in the United States. Security concerns dictate thorough vetting.It is not just a matter of keeping the bad guys out. The refugees currently flowing into Europe include a large percentage of single young males. This is typical of refugee populations, but these young men are coming from violent environments; they have little or no education; they will be difficult to employ. Frustrated and angry, some will turn to crime. Others may be receptive to radical ideologies.Recruiting does happen here. Beginning in 2007, several dozen Somali-Americans, mainly from Minneapolis, returned to Somalia to fight invaders from Ethiopia and later to join al Qaeda’s affiliate, al-Shabaab. This was a community already troubled by its young men joining street gangs. After learning of the recruiting that had secretly been going on, the community cooperated with authorities to successfully halt it.The United States excels at assimilating immigrants, but a tiny fraction of America’s new arrivals invariably bring the quarrels of their homeland with them. In a country of immigrants, this is not a new phenomenon. Previous diasporas have produced their share of terrorist groups and criminal gangs. There is no evidence, as far as I know, to indicate that Arab or Muslim immigrants in this country are having trouble assimilating into American society.The conflicts in the Middle East and their consequences add layers to the existing terrorist threat. The threat is dynamic, and every major terrorist attack tells us more about how our foes operate.

ExtinctionHellman 8 Martin E. Hellman, emeritus prof of engineering @ Stanford, “Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence” SPRING 2008 THE BENT OF TAU BETA PI, http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdfThe threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the public’s mind than the threat of a full-scale nuclear war, yet this article focuses primarily on the latter. An explanation is therefore in order before proceeding. A terrorist attack involving a nuclear weapon would be a catastrophe of immense proportions: “A 10-kiloton bomb detonated at Grand Central Station on a typical work day would likely kill some half a million people, and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic damage. America and its way of life would be changed forever.” [Bunn 2003, pages viii-ix]. The likelihood of such an attack is also significant. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has estimated the chance of a nuclear terrorist incident within the next decade to be roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15]. David Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, estimates those odds at less than one percent, but notes, “We would never accept a situation where the chance of a major nuclear accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere near 1% .... A nuclear terrorism attack is a low-probability event, but we can’t live in a world where it’s anything but extremely low-probability.” [Hegland 2005]. In a survey of 85 national security experts, Senator Richard Lugar found a median estimate of 20 percent for the “probability of an attack involving a nuclear explosion occurring somewhere in the world in the next 10 years,” with 79 percent of the respondents believing “it more likely to be carried out by terrorists” than by a government [Lugar 2005, pp. 14-15]. I support increased efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, but that is not inconsistent with the approach of this article. Because terrorism is one of the potential trigger mechanisms for a full-scale nuclear war, the risk analyses proposed herein will include estimating the risk of nuclear terrorism as one component of the overall risk. If that risk, the overall risk, or both are found to be unacceptable, then the proposed remedies would be directed to reduce which- ever risk(s) warrant attention. Similar remarks apply to a number of other threats (e.g., nuclear war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan). his article would be incomplete if it only dealt with the threat of nuclear terrorism and neglected the threat of full- scale nuclear war. If both risks are unacceptable, an effort to reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In fact, society’s almost total neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes studying that risk all the more important. The cosT of World War iii The danger associated with nuclear deterrence depends on both the cost of a failure and the failure rate.3 This section explores the cost of a failure of nuclear deterrence, and the next section is concerned with the failure rate. While other definitions are possible, this article defines a failure of deterrence to mean a full-scale exchange of all nuclear weapons available to the U.S. and Russia, an event that will be termed World War III. Approximately 20 million people died as a result of the first World War. World War II’s fatalities were double or triple that number—chaos prevented a more precise deter- mination. In both cases humanity recovered, and the world today bears few scars that attest to the horror of those two wars. Many people therefore implicitly believe that a third World War would be horrible but survivable, an extrapola- tion of the effects of the first two global wars. In that view, World War III, while horrible, is something that humanity may just have to face and from which it will then have to recover. In contrast, some of those most qualified to assess the situation hold a very different view. In a 1961 speech to a joint session of the Philippine Con- gress, General Douglas MacArthur, stated, “Global war has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides. … If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you stand only to lose. No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs of double suicide.” Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ex- pressed a similar view: “If deterrence fails and conflict develops, the present U.S. and NATO strategy carries with it a high risk that Western civilization will be destroyed” [McNamara 1986, page 6]. More recently, George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn4 echoed those concerns when they quoted President Reagan’s belief that nuclear weapons were “totally irrational, totally inhu- mane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.” [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less emotional terms, still convey the horrendous toll that World War III would exact: “The resulting deaths would be far beyond any precedent. Executive branch calculations show a range of U.S. deaths from 35 to 77 percent (i.e., 79-160 million dead) … a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20 million and 30 million additional people on each side .... These calculations reflect only deaths during the first 30 days. Additional millions would be injured, and many would eventually die from lack of adequate medical care … millions of people might starve or freeze during the follow- ing winter, but it is not possible to estimate how many. … further millions … might eventually die of latent radiation effects.” [OTA 1979, page 8] This OTA report also noted the possibility of serious ecological damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a concern that as- sumed a new potentiality when the TTAPS report [TTAPS 1983] proposed that the ash and dust from so many nearly simultaneous nuclear explosions and their resultant fire- storms could usher in a nuclear winter that might erase homo sapiens from the face of the earth, much as many scientists now believe the K-T Extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs resulted from an impact winter caused by ash and dust from a large asteroid or comet striking Earth. The TTAPS report produced a heated debate, and there is still no scientific consensus on whether a nuclear winter would follow a full-scale nuclear war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007] suggests that even a limited nuclear exchange or one between newer nuclear-weapon states, such as India and Pakistan, could have devastating long-lasting climatic consequences due to the large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities. While it is uncertain how destructive World War III would be, prudence dictates that we apply the same engi- neering conservatism that saved the Golden Gate Bridge from collapsing on its 50th anniversary and assume that preventing World War III is a necessity—not an option.

AT: Medicare impact turn Non-unique—Trump and the GOP already targeting a gut of Medicare nowFitzgerald 1/23/17Jennifer Fitzgerald, the CEO and co-founder of PolicyGenius, an independent digital insurance company for consumers. “Beyond Obamacare—How Trump and Price will disrupt the health care system”, http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/23/trump-price-plans-for-obamacare-medicare-and-medicaid-commentary.htmlWhether you're talking about the Republicans in general or Trump in particular, the major change to Medicaid will likely come in the form of block grants.In short, here's how Medicaid works now: each dollar spent in the program by a state government is matched by the federal government. Sometimes more money is

given for states with a higher number of low-income citizens. Block grants would provide a lump sum of money to states. That's basically it.

States wouldn't get additional federal funds, which means that they'd either have to raise taxes to make up the difference, charge enrollees, or cut spending to programs. Paul Ryan wants to allow states to require adults to work or receive training before they receive Medicaid funds, and to charge Medicaid premiums. Under Mike Pence, Indiana's Medicaid system began requiring premium payments, a system that happened to be guided by Seema Verma, who Trump nominated to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Estimates predict that over the next decade, annual block grant increases would average 4.3 percent less than Medicaid's projected growth, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also estimates that by 2024, under Ryan's proposed plan, Medicaid and CHIP -- the Children's Health Insurance Program -- would be cut by 26 percent. The Republican course of action will result in one of two different outcomes: the residents of the state pay more (whether it's only the enrollees, or everyone

in the form of tax hikes) or the most vulnerable population loses access to much-needed services – or both.

Aff answers

2AC—Thumpers Trump ICE XOs thump FizmWill 5/10/17George Will writes a twice-weekly column on politics and domestic and foreign affairs. Attended Trinity College and Oxford University and received a PhD from Princeton., “Trump’s violations of federalism would make Obama jealous”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-violations-of-federalism-would-make-obama-jealous/2017/05/10/7cf6b5d6-34dd-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?utm_term=.3ed065b78e79

The executive order was perpetrated in a helter-skelter, harum-scarum, slapdash manner five days after the inauguration, before the administration was humming

like a well-tuned Lamborghini. The order says that sanctuary cities have caused “immeasurable harm” to “the very fabric of our republic,” a thunderous judgment offered without evidence of the shredded fabric or even a definition of “sanctuary city.”

They are cities that limit the cooperation of local law-enforcement personnel with federal immigration enforcement efforts. There are defensible reasons for some non-cooperation: e.g., preserving cooperative relations between local police and immigrant communities, which facilitates crime-fighting. But many such cities anoint themselves sanctuaries as an act of self-congratulatory virtue-signaling and to pander to immigrant communities.The executive order is either a superfluous nullity or it is constitutional vandalism. It says cities “that fail to comply with applicable federal law” shall “not receive federal funds, except as mandated by law.” A U.S. district judge in Northern California has held that the executive order is “toothless” if it pertains to merely a few federal grants, and even they do not unambiguously state in their texts that funding is conditional on active cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. If, however, the order extends to other federal grants, it violates the separation of powers: The spending power is vested in Congress, so presidents cannot unilaterally insert new conditions on funding.Several senior White House officials, operating in pre-Lamborghini mode, denounced this judge’s decision as another excess by the much-reversed U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Actually, although this court might hear an appeal of the judge’s decision, it had nothing to do with the decision.It is federal law that a state “may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” This does not, however, prevent any government entity from voluntarily withholding information.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,

nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”) means that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials to enforce federal laws. The function of the anti-commandeering doctrine is, in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia, the “preservation of the states as independent and autonomous political entities.”Last Sunday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed legislation setting criminal and civil penalties for state and local officials who refuse to comply with federal immigration laws and detention requests. As policy, this may or may not be wise; as an exercise of the state’s police power, it is not constitutionally problematic. But regarding the federal executive order, professor Ilya Somin of George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School says:

“Trump’s order is exactly the kind of high-handed federal coercion of states and undermining of separation of powers that outraged conservatives under [President Barack] Obama. In fact, Obama did not go as far as Trump seems to do here. Obama never claimed sweeping authority to impose new conditions on federal grants beyond those specifically imposed by Congress.”

Trump’s immigration fight thumps fizmRubin 5/8/17Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective., “Trump’s attack on sanctuary cities isn’t for their residents’ benefit”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/08/trumps-attack-on-sanctuary-cities-isnt-for-their-residents-benefit/?utm_term=.9d72a8fad9ac

While Trump’s action is of little legal consequence, it has a very real and negative effect on policing. BuzzFeed reported:While some law enforcement agencies have in the past sought to stay out of the political fight on immigration, the debate over sanctuary cities has brought the discussion to city halls and state legislatures, forcing local police and sheriffs to choose a side, at times splitting neighboring departments.

So, yes, some police organizations do support the feds’ efforts. If they and their jurisdictions want to spend their time and resources chasing down those who have committed no serious crime, that is their prerogative. Voters can decide whether that makes them safer or not. That is the essence of federalism — giving localities the option to decide for themselves the practices and policies that best fit their needs.Once upon a time, Republicans understood this and took an evidence-based approach to fighting crime. (New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, heralded as a crime-fighter,

maintained policies that Trump would say make New York a “sanctuary city.”) It seems that the GOP’s obsession with vilifying illegal immigrants now takes priority over constitutional principles (such as federalism) and crime-fighting.

XT—Thumpers Trump kills fizm nowRubin 5/8/17Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective., “Trump’s attack on sanctuary cities isn’t for their residents’ benefit”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/08/trumps-attack-on-sanctuary-cities-isnt-for-their-residents-benefit/?utm_term=.9d72a8fad9ac

Other studies have reached the same conclusion again and again. It therefore should not surprise anyone that urban police officers and mayors overwhelmingly oppose President Trump’s “crackdown” and threats to yank funding from cities. It is

the height of arrogance and contrary to conservatives’ respect for federalism for the Trump administration to try to override the priorities of local law enforcement, in essence saying that the officials closest to the people should not make decisions about their own law enforcement priorities.

Amendments to NGA decks federalismNew Jersey Conservation Foundation 5/5/17“Proposed Federal Legislation would Fast-Track Pipeline Approvals, Jeopardize Health and Safety”, https://www.tapinto.net/towns/franklin-township/articles/proposed-federal-legislation-would-fast-track-pip-4FAR HILLS, NJ - Legislation proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives would give more authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission at the expense of the more detailed environmental reviews that other federal and state agencies are required to conduct for pipeline applications, according to an attorney for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation and the Stony Brook–Millstone Watershed Association.

The proposed amendments to the Natural Gas Act, heard Wednesday by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and

Power, “would create unnecessary chaos and upset the careful balance of cooperative federalism,”

testified Jennifer Danis, senior staff attorney, Eastern Environmental Law Center.

“The proposed changes would undermine states’ rights by inappropriately expanding FERC’s Natural Gas Act

authority. The proposal would interfere with federal and state agencies’ ability to protect natural resources for the public,” she added.

2AC—Modelling defense No impx—U.S. modeled federalism is ineffective. Even if modeled the best principles aren’t usedCalabresi 2015“DOES INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN MAKE A DIFFERENCE?”, Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law; Visiting Professor of Political Science, Brown University 2010–2018, Vol. 109, No. 3 Symposium, http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=nulrTwo distinctive features of American constitutionalism that have been much copied abroad are the U.S. systems of federalism

and presidential separation of powers.3 The results have not been very encouraging . In otherwise stable western constitutional democracies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Spain , federalism has led to powerful separatist movements,4 and, as a result, the specter of secession hangs over those countries. The

experience abroad with exports of U.S.-style presidential separation of powers has been, if anything, even worse. Many presidential separation of powers democracies in Latin America have at one time or another degenerated into an authoritarian system of one-man presidential rule,5 and the same thing has also happened in Russia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea.6 As a result, political scientists, advisers, and constitution writers today often weigh in against federal or separation of powers systems and in favor of unitary, parliamentary structures.7 Those unitary parliamentary structures, however, have also degenerated into authoritarian rule as in Japan and Italy prior to World War II.

In this Essay, I identify two key features of U.S. constitutional design that I think are integral to the success of

U.S. federal and presidential separation of powers. These features, however , are not widely known and not widely copied when emerging democracies choose to write a constitution. In Part I, I focus on the facts that American federalism is characterized by a much larger number of state entities than exist in most federal regimes and that state boundary lines are drawn fairly arbitrarily, crosscutting regional, religious, and ethnic boundaries. In Part II, I highlight five features of the U.S. system of presidential separation of powers. These five features make American presidents much weaker than those in other presidential systems, such as France. The failures of presidential systems in other countries are largely due to their failure to copy aspects of U.S. constitutionalism that constrain our presidents. I focus my discussion in both parts on the experience of those countries with constitutional democracies that are members of the Group of Twenty (G20) nations, which together produce 85% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP).8 If we could better explain and understand the constitutional experience in the G20 nations, we could do so all over the world.

XT—No modeling impact No modeling impact— No one models U.S. style federalism—design flaws plus age mean countries look elsewhere to design federal systems. Most recent data provesStumpf 5/29/13Dr. István Stumpf is a Justice on the Constitutional Court of Hungary., “Model, Resource, or Outlier? What Effect Has the U.S. Constitution Had on the Recently Adopted Constitutions of Other Nations?”, http://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/model-resource-or-outlier-what-effect-has-the-us-constitution-had-theThe United States Constitution’s Declining SimilarityThe existence of this generic set of rights begs the question of whether certain countries have led the way in adopting these generic rights and, if so, to what extent

these rights pioneers have impacted the subsequent constitutional practices of other countries. As the article’s title suggests, we focused first and foremost on the U.S. Constitution and whether the conventional wisdom of its status as a constitutional pioneer was supported by the data.[11]

Unsurprisingly, attempting to gauge one constitution’s “influence” on another involves various conceptual and methodological

challenges. To illustrate, a highly generic constitution may be generic because others have followed its lead, because it has modeled others, or simply by

coincidence. That said, if two constitutions are becoming increasingly dissimilar, by definition, one cannot be following the other. That is, neither is exerting influence on the other (at least not in a positive way).This is the phenomenon we observed in comparing the U.S. Constitution to the rest of the world ; based

on the rights index, the U.S. has become less similar to the world since 1946 and, with a current index of 0.30, is less similar now than at any point during the studied period. This phenomenon has occurred even among current American allies; among countries in regions with close cultural and historic ties to the U.S. (namely, Latin America and Western Europe); and among democracies. Only among common law countries is constitutional similarity higher than it was after World War II, but even that similarity has decreased since the 1960s.Rights provisions are not the only constitutional elements that have lost favor with the rest of the world; structural provisions pioneered by American constitutionalism

—such as federalism , presidentialism, and judicial review—have also been losing their global appeal .

For instance, in the early 20th century, 22 percent of constitutions provided for federalistic systems, while today, just 12 percent do.A similar trend has occurred for presidentialism, another American innovation. Since the end of World War II, the percentage of countries employing purely presidential systems has declined, mainly in favor of mixed systems, which were a favorite of former Soviet bloc countries.Finally, though judicial review is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, it has proved the most popular American structural innovation. But though the popularity of judicial review in general has exploded over the past six decades, most countries have opted for the European style of review (which designates a single, constitutional court which alone has the power to nullify laws inconsistent with the constitution) over the American model (in which all courts are empowered to strike unconstitutional laws). In 1946, over 80 percent of countries exercised American-style constitutional review; today, fewer than half do.

Reasons for the DeclineIt appears that several factors are driving the U.S. Constitution’s increasing atypicality. First, while in 2006 the average national constitutions contained 34 rights (of the 60 we identify), the U.S. Constitution contains relatively few—just 21—and the rights it does contain are often themselves atypical.Just one-third of constitutions provide for church and state separation, as does the U.S. Establishment Clause, and only 2 percent of constitutions (including, e.g.,

Mexico and Guatemala) contain a “right to bear arms.” Conversely, the U.S. Constitution omits some of the most globally popular rights, such as women’s rights, the right to social security, the right to food, and the right to health care.

These peculiarities, together with the fact that the U.S. Constitution is both old and particularly hard to amend, have led some to characterize the Constitution as simply antiquated or obsolete.Thus, one reason why the Constitution is increasingly atypical may be that modern drafters in other countries prefer to look to modern legal innovations in crafting their own governing documents, and though American law may offer some such innovations, the U.S. Constitution cannot. In fact, foreign drafters may be attracted to provisions recognized in comparably modern U.S. statutory law, or even U.S. constitutional law—but not in the Constitution itself. Examples include the statutory innovations in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Social Security Act, as well as the constitutional doctrines of substantive due process and judicial review.

2AC—Terrorism defense SQ solves – strikes kill financial access for terroristNew York Times 1/21/16, U.S. Drops Bombs Not Just on ISIS, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/us-drops-bombs-not-just-on-isis-but-on-its-cash-too.html WASHINGTON — With sanctions, blacklists and other measures doing little to financially break the Islamic State, the United States has turned to a far simpler tactic to empty the group’s coffers: It is literally blowing them up. American warplanes have struck nine depots where the group is believed to have stashed tens of millions of dollars in cash, said Col. Steven H. Warren, a spokesman for the Americanled coalition. The strikes began in the summer and the latest came Monday in Mosul, Iraq, he said, showing a video in which plumes of cash could be seen fluttering about in the moments after a building was demolished by a bomb. Colonel Warren, who spoke

via video teleconference from Baghdad, could not say how much money had been destroyed in Mosul — “ tens of millions

of dollars” was the estimate offered — or whether the bills were Iraqi dinars, American dollars or some other currency. But he did offer up a catch phrase for the tactic: “Strike the Daesh cash, as we call it around here.” Daesh, the Arabic name by which many in the Middle East

derisively refer to the Islamic State, may not actually rhyme with cash (its pronunciation is closer to “daish” than “dash”). But the military

appears confident that bombing cash depots is helping to sap the financial strength of the Islamic State,

which American officials and experts believe may be bringing in around $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year. “Striking these cash collection points hurts this enemy,” Colonel Warren said. “They operate on cash, right? There is no credit in” the Islamic State. That may not be strictly true. Western officials and experts who track Islamic State finances say there are examples of the militants using oil or other goods to procure needed supplies, including ammunition and other military equipment. And how much cash the Islamic State is actually storing in depots, rather than laundering through regional banks and money transfer businesses, is an open question. In fact, Treasury Department officials charged with undermining Islamic State finances were saying as recently as November — months after the military began striking cash depots — that the United States and its allies were having trouble cutting the flow of money to the group. That is in large part because of how the group obtains money, wringing it from the people and territory it controls, which limits the impact of sanctions and financial blacklists. The Islamic State has looted roughly $1 billion from bank vaults across Syria and Iraq, and it exacts taxes, tolls and traffic fines from those who live under its control. It makes millions of dollars a month smuggling oil. It traffics in looted antiquities and ransoms for kidnapped foreigners, and drums up donations from wealthy supporters in the Persian Gulf. Still, there are indications that the Islamic State’s finances have been under pressure in recent months with some reports indicating that the group had to cut pay to some fighters. If that is the case, experts say it is probably because of military setbacks, such as the loss of Ramadi, Iraq, which deprived the Islamic State of a bustling commercial center whose inhabitants and businesses the militants could extort, tax and fine. The falling price of oil, which the militants typically sell for about half the going rate, has also had an impact, said a European official who tracks militant finances and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence. Airstrikes against oil tankers and wells controlled by the Islamic State have also cut into the group’s earnings, though it is hard to quantify how deeply at this point, the official said. The military, for its part, insists its attacks on the Islamic State’s oil smuggling operations and cash depots is making a difference. “A combination of taking away their ability to earn money by striking oil and taking away the money that they have on hand by striking the Daesh cash

really puts the squeeze on them ,” Colonel Warren said.

Terrorism isn’t an existential risk – their impact is fearmongering – prefer the opinion of the commander in chiefMueller and Stewart 2/24/15 John Mueller is Senior Research Scientist at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Political Science, both at Ohio State University, and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Mark G. Stewart is Australian Research Council Professorial Fellow and Professor and Director at the Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability at the University of Newcastle in Australia, Terrorism poses no existential threat to America. We must stop pretending otherwise, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/24/terrorism-poses-no-existential-threat-to-americaOne of the most unchallenged, zany assertions during the war on terror has been that terrorists present an existential threat to the United States, the modern state and civilization itself. This is important because the overwrought expression, if accepted as valid, could close off evaluation of security efforts. For example, no defense of civil liberties is likely to be terribly effective if people believe the threat from terrorism to be existential. At long last, President Barack Obama and other top officials are beginning to back away from this absurd position. This much overdue development may not last, however. Extravagant alarmism about the pathological but self-destructive Islamic State (Isis) in areas of Syria and Iraq may cause us to backslide. The notion that international terrorism presents an existential threat was spawned by the traumatized in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Rudy Giuliani, mayor of New York at the time, recalls that all “security experts” expected “dozens and dozens and multiyears of attacks like this” and, in her book The Dark Side, Jane Mayer observed that “the only certainty shared by virtually the entire American intelligence community” was that “a second wave of even more devastating terrorist attacks on America was imminent”. Duly terrified, US intelligence services were soon imaginatively calculating the number

of trained al-Qaida operatives in the United States to be between 2,000 and 5,000. Also compelling was the extrapolation that, because the 9/11 terrorists were successful with box-cutters, they might well be able to turn out

nuclear weapons . Soon it was being authoritatively proclaimed that atomic terrorists could “destroy civilization as we know it” and that

it was likely that a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States would transpire by 2014. No atomic terrorists have yet appeared (al-Qaida’s entire budget in 2001 for research on all weapons of mass destruction totaled less than $4,000), and intelligence has been far better at counting al-Qaida operatives in the country than at finding them. But the notion that terrorism presents an existential threat has played on. By 2008, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff declared it to be a “significant existential” one - carefully differentiating it, apparently, from all those insignificant existential threats Americans have faced in the past. The bizarre formulation survived into the Obama years. In October 2009, Bruce Riedel, an advisor to the new administration, publicly maintained the al-Qaida threat to the country to be existential. In 2014, however, things began to change. In a speech at Harvard in October, Vice President Joseph Biden offered the thought that “we face no existential threat – none – to our way of life or our ultimate security.” After a decent interval of three months, President Barack Obama reiterated this point at a press conference, and then expanded in an interview a few weeks later, adding that the US should not “provide a victory to these terrorist networks by over-inflating their importance and suggesting in some fashion that they are an existential threat to the United States or the world order.” Later, his national security advisor, Susan Rice, echoed the point in a formal speech.

No risk of nuclear terrorism---too many obstaclesJohn J. Mearsheimer 14 R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, “America Unhinged”, January 2, nationalinterest.org/article/america-unhinged-9639?page=showAm I overlooking the obvious threat that strikes fear into the hearts of so many Americans, which is terrorism? Not at all. Sure, the United States has a terrorism problem . But it is a minor threat . There is no question we fell victim to a spectacular attack on September 11, but it did not cripple the United States

in any meaningful way and another attack of that magnitude is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. Indeed, there has not been a single instance over the past twelve years of a terrorist organization exploding a primitive bomb on American soil, much less striking a major blow. Terrorism—most of it arising from domestic groups—was a much bigger problem in the United States during the 1970s than it has been since the Twin Towers were toppled.¶ What about the possibility that a terrorist group might obtain a

nuclear weapon ? Such an occurrence would be a game changer, but the chances of that happening are virtually nil. No nuclear-armed

state is going to supply terrorists with a nuclear weapon because it would have no control over how the recipients might use that weapon. Political turmoil in a nuclear-armed state could in theory allow terrorists to grab a loose nuclear weapon, but the United States already has detailed plans to deal with that highly unlikely contingency.¶ Terrorists might also try to acquire fissile material and build their own bomb. But that scenario is extremely unlikely as well: there are significant obstacles to getting enough material and even bigger obstacles to building a bomb and then delivering it. More generally, virtually every country has a profound interest in making sure no terrorist group acquires a

nuclear weapon, because they cannot be sure they will not be the target of a nuclear attack, either by the terrorists or another country the terrorists strike. Nuclear terrorism, in short, is not a serious threat. And to the extent that we should worry about it, the main remedy is to encourage and help other states to place nuclear materials in highly secure custody.

2AC—Impact turn: Medicare A) Boosting Federalism in the context of school lunches spills over to a rollback of Medicare. Thinkprogress.org 5/22/12“GOP Rep. Rob Bishop Claims Federal School Lunch Program Is Unconstitutional”, https://thinkprogress.org/gop-rep-rob-bishop-claims-federal-school-lunch-program-is-unconstitutional-510670c5c5a3Under the federal Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, public schools can elect to receive federal funding for their meals programs, but they can be required to give back some of those funds if they fail to comply with certain rules. That’s what happened to two schools in Utah last week after they broke their agreement with the federal government by selling non-nutritious sodas during the school day.Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), however, thinks that requiring schools to actually do what they agreed to do in order to receive federal funds is unconstitutional. He took to the floor shortly after these two schools were told to pay back some of the money they received to rail against the idea that public schools should keep their promises:

It was wrong for congress to invade the role of states. It was wrong to punish kids for these silly reasons. It is wrong to violate federalism. If a community, school, and their PTA. wanted to create the standards themselves, fine. It is wrong for this body to think that every issue has to be decided here in this room and it is wrong for us to forget that the 10th amendment has a purpose. . . . It is there for a reason and should be respected.

Requiring schools to keep their promises does not violate the Constitution — at least when those promises are made in order to receive federal funding. Moreover, if Bishop were correct that holding public schools or other state government bodies to their word is unconstitutional, than far more than health school lunches would be at stake. Bishop’s theory would also

apply to other, similar, federal programs, including Medicaid. Like the school lunch program, Medicaid is a federal-state partnership in which the federal government gives the states money, with certain conditions, to implement a

program that serves low income Americans. If Bishop’s constitutional argument successfully brought down the school

lunch program, Medicare and other similar programs could be next .

Bishop will also have a tough time finding anything in the Constitution that supports his theory. The Constitution grants Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes” and “provide for the . . . general welfare of the United States.” This includes the

federal government’s constitutional power to provide for the general welfare by funding state education or healthcare programs and imposing conditions on the way that money is used  — and nothing in the language of the Tenth Amendment takes this power away. States are of course free to refuse federal money, but if they accept it they must abide by conditions that Congress attaches. Otherwise Congress would have no power to prevent states from taking billions of dollars in federal grants and spending the money on the salaries of state government officials.

B) That’s bad—Medicare is critical to the overall health of the country. This is uniquely important to 65 million Americans Garfield and Paradise 13’ Rachel Garfield is a Senior Researcher for the Kaiser Family Foundation and Associate Director for its Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Julia Paradise is an Associate Director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured (KCMU), a major program of the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), 8/2/13, http://kff.org/report-section/what-is-medicaids-impact-on-access-to-care-health-outcomes-and-quality-of-care-setting-the-record-straight-on-the-evidence-issue-brief/Medicaid, the nation’s main public health insurance program for low-income people, now covers over 65 million Americans – more than 1 in every 5 – at least some time during the year. The program’s beneficiaries include many of the most disadvantaged individuals and families in the U.S. in terms of poverty, poor health, and disability. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided for a broad expansion of Medicaid to cover millions of low-income uninsured adults whom the program has historically excluded. However, as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision on the ACA, the Medicaid expansion is, in effect, a state option. Almost half the states are moving forward with the Medicaid expansion. But the others, which are home to half the uninsured adults who could gain Medicaid coverage under the ACA, have decided not to expand Medicaid at this time or are still debating the issue. Controversy about the Medicaid expansion has been stoked by an assertion that first appeared in a Wall Street Journal editorial a couple of years ago and has since resurfaced periodically, that “Medicaid is worse than no coverage at all.”1 2 3 4 5 6 This claim about

Medicaid is sharply at odds with the authoritative findings of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on Consequences of Uninsurance, detailed in Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late, the second of six

reports the IOM issued on the subject in the early 2000’s.7 Based on a comprehensive review of the research examining the impact of health insurance on adults, the IOM charted the causal pathway from coverage to better health outcomes, concluding: Health

insurance coverage is associated with better health outcomes for adults. It is also associated with having a regular source of care and with greater and more appropriate use of health services. These factors, in turn, improve the likelihood of disease screening and early detection, the management of chronic illness, and effective treatment of acute conditions such as traumatic brain injury and heart attacks. The ultimate result is improved health outcomes. In light of Medicaid’s large and growing coverage role, and the significant health care needs of its beneficiaries, an evidence-based assessment of the program’s impact on access to care, health outcomes, and quality of care is of major interest. Such an assessment would also be helpful given perennial concerns about insufficient physician participation in Medicaid, generally attributed to low fees paid by state Medicaid programs. Since Medicaid was established nearly 45 years ago, a large body of research on and analysis of the program has accumulated. After first reviewing the purpose of health insurance and the distinctive profile of the Medicaid population – both considerations that lend important context to the research findings – this brief takes a look at what the literature shows overall regarding the difference Medicaid makes.

XT—Medicare key disease prevention Medicare is key to healthcare research and innovation. The Hill 9/29/14,Judd Gregg: Medicare shortfall demands attention, http://thehill.com/opinion/judd-gregg/219141-judd-gregg-medicare-shortfall-demands-attentionAt Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, there was recently a gathering of major healthcare public policy experts, senior staff of congressional health committees, and people concerned about both the health of Medicare and the health of the nation’s fiscal situation. It was a small group with a specific goal: To come up with some doable proposals that are bipartisan in nature and can be used both to improve the delivery of Medicare to seniors and to reduce its unsustainable cost path, which is a large driver of the nation’s debt. It was called “The Dartmouth Summit.” Dartmouth was chosen because of the leading role Dartmouth academics have played over the years in putting together exceptional statistics and analyses regarding the way healthcare is delivered in America. A document such as the Dartmouth Atlas, an in-depth, long-term study of the healthcare system, has become a bible of fair and accurate reporting on healthcare. (I am a

distinguished fellow at Dartmouth’s Center for Global Business and Government.) It was important because Medicare is a critical part of the safety net for American seniors and is an extraordinary success. Yet its costs are also the primary driver of our looming national debt crisis. It has an unfunded liability

of approximately $55 trillion. Medicare is also the No. 1 provider of resources to the medical community and thus a key player in research, innovation and healthcare policy for all, not just seniors. But it is not viable in its present structure unless we want to bankrupt future generations to pay for it.

New innovations are key— Lack of vaccines risk diseases that threaten human survival Darling 12 Astrobiologist Dirk Schulze-Makuch and British astronomer David Darling, Seattle's Big Blog, “9 Strange Ways the World Really Might End,” http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2012/03/18/9-strange-ways-the-world-really-might-end/?fb_xd_fragment, Washington State UniversityOur body is in constant competition with a dizzying array of viruses, bacteria, and parasites, many of which treat us simply as a source of food

or a vehicle for reproduction. What’s troubling is that these microbes can mutate and evolve at fantastic speed – the more so

thanks to the burgeoning human population – confronting our bodies with new dangers every year. HIV, Ebola, bird flu, and

antibiotic-resistant “super bugs” are just a few of the pathogenic threats to humanity that have surfaced over the past few decades. Our soaring numbers, ubiquitous international travel, and the increasing use of chemicals and biological agents without full knowledge of their consequences, have increased the risk of unstoppable pandemics arising from mutant viruses and their ilk. Bubonic plague, the Black Death, and the Spanish Flu are vivid examples from history of how microbial agents can decimate populations. But the consequences aren’t limited to a high body count. When the death toll gets high enough, it can disrupt the very fabric of society. According to U.S. government studies, if a global pandemic affecting at least half the world’s population were to strike today,

health professionals wouldn’t be able to cope with the vast numbers of sick and succumbing people. The result of so many deaths would have serious implications for the infrastructure, food supply, and security of 21st century man. While an untreatable pandemic could strike suddenly and potentially bring civilization to its knees in weeks or months, degenerative diseases might do so over longer periods. The most common degenerative disease is cancer . Every second men and every third women in the western world will be diagnosed with this disease in their lifetime. Degeneration of our environment through the release of toxins and wastes, air pollution, and intake of unhealthy foods is making this problem worse. If cancer, or some other form of degenerative disease, were to become even more commonplace and strike before reproduction, or become infectious (as seen in the transmitted facial cancer of the Tasmanian Devil, a

carnivorous marsupial in Australia) the very survival of our species could be threatened.