On the following proposed "economic stimulus" plan

Please note I did address the minimum wage and child labor in the context of the new government. My opponent has presented a drastic overhaul to the government, so typical arguments concerning these issues in context of our current government are not relevant. All arguments must occur in the governmental framework my opponent offered. Under his framework unregulated unions would control labor; something my opponent intends to happen. This point coupled with deregulation of land use, regulations that preserve the land for future use, render all other points moot. I do not agree that elimination of all the regulatory agencies other than the few I listed would improve the economy. I simply do not have room to address them all, so I chose the ones that put the most pressure on my opponent's new government. Taxes: My opponent clearly stated the only income for the government would be a federal sales tax; therefore, all other taxes are eliminated under his plan including the ones he listed. I saw no need to address the individual taxes as they do not exist. The new unregulated, quasi-governmental role of Unions and Organized Crime: My opponent fully recognizes the new role unions would play in his new government, but does not address the horrid practices of unregulated unions and their connection with organized crime. As I stated, at least with the DoL we can provide political pressure and we have some oversight. Not so under his plan, as all regulatory committees and the regulations they enforce are gone. I addressed the minimum wage in respect to labor unions as the elimination of the minimum wage along with all DoL regulations, including child labor, and OSHA are gone. The unions would organize in the hole left by these now defunct regulatory committees, offering similar service, at a huge price. This new found power, along with deregulation would allow the harsh world of labor-racketeering to proliferate once again along with organized crime. [1] [2] According to the FBI "We work closely with the Office of Labor Racketeering in the Department of Labor and with the U. S. Attorneys' offices in investigating violations of labor law. " [3] Not anymore; the DoL does not exist. What is the economic impact of organized crime, especially with the newfound powers of the unregulated union? Hard to tell, but, "[I]t's estimated that global organized crime reaps illegal profits of around $1 trillion per year. "[4] Organized Crime families would place their people at the head of the union and control the means of production by strong arm tactics on business owners. This has all been done before. Unregulated unions do not benefit the United States economy as the proceeds from labor would go to organized crime, as history has shown, and the means to combat such activities would necessitate the reestablishment of the department of labor. Why spend the money to eliminate an agency we would have to recreate to deal with the problems caused by eliminating it? But we would not recreate it under my opponent's plan, as the government is not in the labor business anymore. DoL regulations are in place to combat such problems. Economic argument against Child Labor and for Education: This subject has been addressed so many times. Here is a great discussion paper on the topic. [5 at section 2.2] Child labor decreases human capital and would more so under my opponent's plan as he can only assume people would donate money to schools. Contrary to my opponent's statement, I know public schools are not free and in Tennessee our property taxes provide for the bulk of school funding, not our sales tax. Although the unions would address child labor, as we both see, the union will not cover all businesses, most of them, but not all. A parent is under no obligation to allow the child to attend school. The economic impact in the loss of human capital would be detrimental to the US. Child labor is exploitation plain and simple. We have dealt with this issue in the past [12] and the economic drawbacks of allowing such labor are the reduction of lifetime wage earnings for the child. An uneducated adult without the ability to read or write does not contribute to society as well as one with these fundamental abilities. Public Land: The US Government does charge admission to some of the parks; I never stated otherwise. My opponent listed three: Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, and Yellowstone. The government does not charge admission to the Smokey Mountain National Park, The Chickamauga Battlefield, most of the Smithsonian Museums [6], The Washington D. C. zoo [6], etc. Private bodies could purchase these areas and do several things; charge admission, close them off to the public for private use, sell them off piece by piece, or scrap them all together. My opponent lists some of the economic benefits of keeping the parks, and makes an assumption that the new private owners will keep them as tourist attractions as this will be the most profitable. This is certainly a possible use for the land, but the now unregulated logging companies may have a faster return on their investment without all the upkeep in reference to the Smoky Mountains. The Grand Canyon area is full of minerals – what interest would a mining company have in running a tourist attraction? Do you have any idea the market value for the donated exhibits in all the Smithsonian museums? Why keep them open, just sell the stuff to the highest bidder and sell the buildings, as condos in downtown DC carry a heavy price tag [7]. Private owners are perfectly capable of deciding to forgo long term benefits of ownership of land and make for a quick return all the while ignoring the future benefits. Example: We have a great example available in reference to the Grand Canyon. Uranium mines are popping up in a million acre buffer zone near our national landmark. Please note, the mining company is doing everything it can to maintain the area [8] (Good for them, by the way) not because these actions are cheaper or offer a better return, but because they are required. Private ownership of the land does not require such measures and the environmental regulations dealing with such activities are non-existent under my opponent's new government restructuring. All the numbers for tourism, offered by my opponent, do not hold when a negligent private owner allows the area to become contaminated. Indian Reservations I am aware that Indian Reservations are not public land, but the 30% number my opponent offered includes military and Indian lands hence the reason I asked [9] [10] [11]. Now, can the Indians keep the land as it is not private? This plan is not attainable: My opponent does not feel my claim concerning the attainability of this plan is warranted. I must disagree. The political make up of the US would not allow such drastic measures as the ones my opponent presents. His plan would manage to alienate some of the strongest political movements in the US and they have money and candidates. Any president attempting to implement such policies, especially as a whole, would have to contend with Congress, Environmentalists, Veterans, and the list goes on and on and it crosses party lines in the current two party system. 1. . http://www.americanmafia.com... 2. . http://www.fbi.gov... 3. . http://www.oig.dol.gov... 4. . http://www.fbi.gov... 5. . http://www.lex.unict.it... 6. . http://www.si.edu... 7. . http://dclofts.com... 8. . http://www.nytimes.com... 9. . http://strangemaps.wordpress.com... 10. . http://www.doi.gov... 11. . http://nationalatlas.gov... 12. . http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...