Scott Walker

My opponent wants to bash my arguments simply for spelling errors, but I could easily discredit her entire case by showing how she used machine gunning argumentation which is at least worth a conduct point loss, but let's not dwell on that my entire round. My opponent seems to not understand baseline budgetting at all. Scott Walker cut the increase. I'll show an example below.Year 1: $250Year 2: $300Year 3: $350Scott Walker's Cuts.Year 1: $250Year 2: $290Year 3: $330As you can see above, Scott Walker cut the increase. Meaning that you can see that the increase was cut, but we are still seeing an increase in the budget. It's just not as high as it would've been with the $50 increase because the increase rate was cut back to $40. It's still increasing, but just at a smaller rate. My opponent even conceded in her last round that Walker's cuts are STILL an increase by provind the Stephen Porter sourcing. Ironically the sourcing she provided was from a right winged Republican Congressman who is arguing that cutting baseline budgetting is STILL an increase. This shows that my opponent is conceding this point.My opponent then slams my sourcing chart, but once again, I stated that it was an example as stated below. meaning that it isn't suppose to be about Wisconsin, but it is to JUST show the process. Again a concession by Con. I find it hilarious that my opponent sites the WDPI, because not only are they highly leftist biased, but if you look at their sourcing you can actually see that none of their sources lead to an existing page. It is obvious that this source should be clearly taken as blasphomy. Here is the source my opponent is refuring to. (http://wasb.org...) In the graph bellow we can see that 68% of those on Vouchers chose private schools. Now remember that I stated that Vouchers permit those students to chose their schools. Meaning that it can also be for public schools as well already showing another flaw in my opponent's argument. We can still see that my argument must be held over that of my opponent's even on the grounds of sourcing to that of her machine gun argumentation. (http://www.schoolchoicewi.org...) My opponent then goes off to attack that of those in voucher schools that they could already afford the private schools. First I would like to point out last time that the MPCP of the per-pupal student is half of that of the MPS aid (meaning that it's lower than most federal aid) at $6,442 per year. (http://www.schoolchoicewi.org...) As for the test scores I would like to share a report from the University of Arkansas on MPS vs. MPCP students. " MPCP students demonstrated a level of achievement growth in reading that was significantly higher than the matched sample of MPS students on the WKCE tests in the final year of the SCDP study; • Students in the MPCP have higher graduation rates than similar students in MPS:MPCP students were four percentage points more likely ever to have graduated from high school than their MPS counterparts; and MPCP students were seven percentage points more likely to have graduated in four years (on time) than their MPS counterparts. • MPCP students were four percentage points more likely to have enrolled in a four-year college or university than similar MPS students; and • MPCP students persisted in college through their first year at a rate of six percentage points higher than similar MPS students." (http://www.uaedreform.org...) [First, third, and last PDF on page]Finially, we can see that Vouchers are clearly a good choice here. Once again, I shall be grouping traffic and mw together. Though it may increase costs we can still extend across the DOT's report on Wisconsin issues. One would be sure to perfer a few minutes of a delay verses having a bridge collapse on them or having to pay for car repairs due to the road damage. This impact is higher and should be weighed more and holds more water in this debate than my opponent's argumentation here.My opponent slams the minimum wage drop, but if we look on a larger scale one can ask themselves, "Why are all the jobs moving over seas?" The answer is very simple. Lower wages and less regulations. We can see that a lowered wages and less regulation would bring jobs and profits back. This can be applied to Wisconsin and more locally produced goods provide more jobs via construction and for the business their. Not to mention what the business has to pay in taxes and Capital Gains. We can see that this, on ballance, is better than the status quo. If my opponent can't find the connection between the two then I shall spell it out. Privitization means that less funding for the parks through public spending. This means that the federal government can reallocate the tax payers dollars elsewhere or they can lower taxes. We have seen in the past, with the example of roadways, that private roads are better than public roads. One has to pay a toll, but the roads have better quality. The same can be applied to the parks. Sure the price will increase, but the private companies will take better care of the parks since it's their business they're running and they wouldn't have to go through state government red tape to fix a problem. Clammer means that wanting in an excess or an extreme fashion. Mainly used as an overstatement or an exageration. My opponent talks about malfunction and though this is true that these issues due happen, but one has to realize the issue of what happened with the escape from the Clinton Correctional falicialty (yes I know it's mispelled, but I'm running out of time) when the guards were brided with sexual favors. This is a key issue with the 'Human' factor that needs to be replaced. Plus machines don't get 'tired' thus there doesn't need to be a 'change of guard' with machinery.Unfortuantely I'm out of time and will have to addresss the pipeline next round.