The US Federal Government Should Increase its Investment in ITS

On-Case: 1) Obama JUST signed a bill funding development of ITS called MAP-21. The bill was passed in summer of 2012. All of the benefits listed by Pro will happen whether we provide additional funding to ITS or not. Note that Pro specifically advocates an “increase” in funding. The bill explicitly funds research and development of ITS systems with the goal of reducing congestion, pollution, achieving standardization across state agencies. [1] Pro’s advocacy of additional funding is not needed and redundant- all the benefits he claims will happen in the status quo. 2) A) Turn: Moderate congestion helps creates an incentive for the use of mass transit and car-pooling by creating a cost to the use of private vehicles for transportation. Completely eliminating congestion would signal an over-investment in highway infrastructure relative to mass transit. The goal is balanced transportation strategy- not overfunding ITS. b) Mass transit emits 30% less C02 and saves households $6k in annual fuel costs [2]. The plan worsens global warming and hurts the economy. Global Warming is the greatest threat to humanity- shifting weather patterns threaten to turn global farmland into deserts. Shifting ecosystems will result in mass extinction of animal life and massive loss of biodiversity. This will cumulatively cause a massive drop in the Earth’s carrying capacity, threatening humanity with extinction. Global warming is the biggest impact in this round- the fate of the U.S. economy is trivial compared to the fate of the human species, we must prioritize survival. 3) Pro’s “war for talent” argument relies on a zero-sum model of international economy: that shifting of manufacturing markets means an economic loss. In reality the global economy is positive-sum [6]. The shifting of manufacturing jobs globally results in domestic growth in foreign economies and overall growth in the global economy. While this might be problematic in the short-term, the long-term effect is a more efficient global economy- i.e. cheaper products, growth of foreign markets and international trade. Setting policy with the intent of controlling U.S. position in the international economy would require an immense predictive capability that no mortal could hope to have- Pro decries the loss of manufacturers but has no ability to predict what market will replace the role of manufacturing in the future U.S. economy. 4) Moreover, manufacturing is on the rise in the U.S. [8] due to lagging EU and Chinese economies. The U.S. has the competitive edge right now. Note my evidence is from 2013- much more recent than Pro’s. 5) Stimulus spending doesn’t create jobs [7]. Several studies of OECD studies show strong negative correlation between government spending and business investment, a surge in investment following spending cuts, negative correlation between spending and GDP growth. Additionally, studies show no positive correlation between government spending and growth. At worst spending hurts the economy, at best the plan is neutral- the best option is to leave growth to the private sector. 6) Pro’s Keynesian economics is flawed- it just relocates money within the economy via government intervention, with the inefficiencies associated with taxation and government overhead. Every dollar Pro advocates we spend on “job creation” via infrastructure development came out of the pocket of a consumer or employer who could have created job demand more efficiently. Politics: 1) Republicans are adamant about reigning in national budget and debt, but the plan is not only a major government expenditure but a REDUNDANT one. The plan would infuriate the GOP and tank Obama’s credibility in negotiating bipartisan support. 2) GOP support is key to resolving the upcoming issues of sequestration, debt ceiling, and budget- they control the House. Additionally, many in the GOP are so fed up with Obama that they are willing to let us go over the cliffs-Gingrich advocated letting the government shut down on national TV [3]. Negotiations are a delicate balancing act and Pro is a two-ton scale-tipper. 3) Sequestration, etc. is the single biggest threat to the global economy. Passing the plan will tank any chance of bipartisan compromise and wreck the economy.[5] Failing to raise the debt ceiling will force the U.S. to either default on debt, resulting in massive devaluation of the dollar and spiking interest rates, or go into austerity via cutting benefits such as Social Security. Sequestration would result in 1.2 trillion in cuts, resulting in millions of job layoffs and huge cuts to the military. This would cause a global depression and cripple U.S. military Readiness. 4) U.S. military Readiness is crucial to global stability- multiple conflict flashpoints are held in check only by U.S. hegemony. For example, South Korea DMZ, Iran and the strait of Hormuz, and the Pakistan/Indian border. 5) Sequestration also turns the case, as it would result in major budget cuts to transportation- effectively undoing MAP21 and all the benefits claimed by Pro. 6) The impact Pro claims will take decades to realize due to the long-term nature of infrastructure projects and the fact that ITS is a new technology that requires future research and development. Conversely, the fiscal cliff impacts will occur within the next few months. Additionally, the fiscal cliff impacts are much more clearly understood in terms of scope and certainty. Spending: 1) Fiscal Restraint is key to preventing a Credit Downgrade of the U.S. [4] While the U.S. earned a AAA rating in 2012, the outlook to maintain that rating is contingent on U.S. ability to get its fiscal house in order. Note that credit ratings are based both on economic facts on the ground and on economic predictions, meaning that perception matters. Perception of fiscal irresponsibility results in a loss of creditor trust. 2) Plan destroys fiscal restraint by indulging in “luxury” government spending. At a time when the world is looking at the US to manage its budget, the plan dumps additional money into an already-funded program. Note this plan is especially bad because it represents redundant spending- it is the equivalent of buying a Porsche the week after buying a reliable economy car. The global spotlight is on the U.S. due to the fiscal cliff, new major funding would be devastating to financial reputation. 3) A credit downgrade would tank the global economy by devaluing the dollar. A downgrade also risks raising U.S. Treasury bond rates, potentially increasing Treasury debt payments by trillions and putting the U.S. on the path of Greece and Spain[9]. SOURCES: Pro did not provide full cites to ANY sources. This means neither I nor the judges can read the warrants to Pro’s claims. I can’t provide analytics to see if his evidence actually supports his claims or to compare it to mine. Where in conflict, prefer Con evidence because it is fully documented. CONCLUSION: Pro’s plan is redundant and ineffective- his economic arguments are based on flawed assumptions. Pro increases use of highway transportation thereby increasing the risk of Global Warming. Pro collapses negotiations about the fiscal cliff, causing a global depression. Pro ruins fiscal discipline, causing a global depression. [1] http://www.dot.gov... [2] http://www.apta.com... [3] http://thehill.com... [4] http://rt.com... [5] http://www.opb.org... [6] Mitschke, ‘The Influence of National Competition Policy on the International Competitiveness of Nations’ [7] http://mercatus.org... [8] http://uk.reuters.com... [9] http://charlesrowley.wordpress.com...