On the following proposed "economic stimulus" plan

"The resolution is affirmed if the economy as a whole would be helped by these proposals. The resolution is negated if otherwise." This is still the criteria for whether or not the debate is won. I would like to ask that my opponent post his sources in his arguments. Now, responding to my opponent's negative case. OVERVIEW My opponent calls my plan "drastic". However, he makes no economic argument against it in this paragraph. MY OPPONENT'S DROPPED POINTS -My opponent has made no case against the elimination of the minimum wage. -My opponent has made no case against the elimination of the EPA, DoT, DoA, DoC, ID, and many other government agencies. -My opponent has made no case against the elimination of the corporate income taxes, the progressive income tax, the estate tax, or the capital gains tax. -My opponent has made no case against free trade. So, let it be known in the context of this debate that all of these decisions help the economy. LABOUR REGULATIONS AND THE AGENCIES THAT MAKE AND ENFORCE THEM My opponent makes the case that what the DoL currently does would be passed on to labour unions. This was my intention. He then argues that the increased size of these labour unions would cause wages to augment and therefore prices to augment. Under his alternative, the DoL, all of the same effects occur, as he and his source concede. So, in terms of effects, they are equal. Now, we shall examine their costs: With a DoL, funds must be allocated to bureaucrats whose jobs are unnecessary (as their effect is achieved without them). Because these jobs are producing no wealth or positive effect, they are simply a drain on the economy. Eliminating this unnecessary drain would be beneficial. My opponent makes no case for the existence of a minimum wage. My opponent makes no economic argument against child labour. PUBLIC LAND My opponent's case against this policy is: "They could charge for admission" (The funny thing is: government already charges for admission). [1] [2] [3] "[They could] block access" (This would be unprofitable (they'd pass up the opportunity to make hundreds of millions of dollars [4] [5]); therefore, it wouldn't be done). "[They could] simply scrap the national landmark altogether" (This would only be done if it was more profitable than keeping it up for public view. The more profitable option naturally helps the economy more by producing more wealth). So, my opponent's three grievances will not harm the economy. My opponent brings up Indian Reservations. Indian Reservations are not public land [6]. My opponent asks what land is to be private. This would naturally be the land freed by the elimination of unnecessary government agencies and land that government is not using. This may or may not include National and State Parks, monuments, etc. WELFARE AND SUPPORT My opponent makes a rather stark claim that children would be left out in the cold. This is not true. Without welfare, the National Retail Sales Tax would be much lower than otherwise. Without an income tax, etc., individuals would have more money to donate to charities, orphanages, etc. If anything, the private welfare system is more efficient than the public welfare system because individual charities must convince the public that their money would go to a good cause. Naturally, this would cause the most needy to recieve the most benefits. Also, without public welfare bureaucracies, the system is even more efficient, as less money is wasted on do-nothing public employees. EDUCATION My opponent seems to assume that public education is really free, that it costs absolutely nothing. In a similar situation to welfare, the education system is also most effective when privately managed. There is no central administration bureaucracy to drain tax dollars. Individuals would have more money available to pay for education. Naturally, because education has been funded at mostly a state and local level [7], and with many of these states funded by sales taxes [8], the payment for education has already been mostly equal. Without this payment at the federal level, more funds would be available than necessary for a successful private education system. So, all of my opponent's grievances here are also unjustified. THE GOLD STANDARD My opponent has effectively conceded this point. A TAX SYSTEM My opponent proposes two alternatives to a national retail sales tax system. They are the so-called FairTax system and a national retail sales tax system with a subsidy. The inefficiencies within both of my opponent's systems is that they require bureaucracies to decide a poverty line and/or collect and manage information on incomes, expenses, etc [9]. Both create unnecessary public waste by doing so, and therefore add an unnecessary drain on the economy. The National Retail Sales Tax is preferable because it only requires a collection bureaucracy, while alternatives require a collection bureaucracy, a system that oversees individual economic activity, and other unnecessary bureaucracies. My proposed Retail Sales Tax system would most effectively ease the costs on the poor in ways that other sales tax systems work: by not applying the tax to groceries [10], etc. This would ease this small tax burden on the poor without creating a stalking agency like the current IRS. My opponent's remaining claims concern the regressive nature of the tax. The NRST is only regressive in that it is more regressive than the current progressive system. (Here, regressive means "decreasing proportionately with an increase in the tax base" [11] and progressive means "noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income" [12] ). My opponent has not argued why a tax that is truly neither regressive nor progressive would not be ideal. MY OPPONENT'S CLOSING STATEMENTS My opponent makes an unwarranted claim that my proposal is unattainable. Again, eliminating unnecessary aspects of government is ideal in that it allows more money to flow through the private sector and less into a wasteful and unnecessary public sector. [1] http://www.yosemitehikes.com... [2] http://www.yellowstone-natl-park.com... [3] http://www.nps.gov... [4] http://www.nau.edu... [5] http://www.travelwest.net... [6] http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov... [7] http://www.ed.gov... [8] http://www.salesandusetax.com... [9] http://www.cato.org... [10] http://www.denverpost.com... [11] http://dictionary.reference.com... [12] http://dictionary.reference.com... Thank you.