The US Fed Gvt. should substantially increase public health assistance to sub-suharan Africa.

Alright, sounds good. First and foremost notice that you dropped everything above but my moral hazard argument. So I will get back to that and add the others into my summary. I'm going to hit stock issues then just ask you questions for your benefit. INHERENCY: 1. Play pumps international already has plans to put 4000 play pumps into African countries. Impact: No point of doing your plan that says it will put 140 in. Already 4000 being put in. 2. PLAY PUMP INITIATIVES ALREADY BEING CREATED BY U.S - HABERMAN '06 Haberman 06 (Maggie, writer for the New York Post, lexis nexis, "Laura Stars at Bill's Do Good Bash", September 21 2006)PM The annual Clinton Global Initiative, aimed at finding cures for hardships like hunger and AIDS, kicked off yesterday with an appearance by First Lady Laura Bush. Symbolizing the bipartisan atmosphere of the event, Mrs. Bush and former President Bill Clinton announced to the crowd of about 1,000 attendees at the Sheraton New York a public-private partnership to deliver clean water to sub-Saharan Africa. Called the Play Pumps Alliance, the clean-water plan puts merry-go-rounds on water pumps. Impact: Same as last, once again no need to do a plan that is already happening. HARMS: I grant you your harms but offer an alternative causality. 1. WATER IN MANY REGIONS OF AFRICA IS LACKING - BBC '01 BBC 01 (British Broadcasting Corporation, Africa's shared water worries, http://news.bbc.co.uk..., November 30, 2001) MEKD In Nigeria, Water Resources Minister Muktari Shagari gave a stark warning that no fewer than 17 nations faced the risk of severe water shortages by the year 2010, the Daily Trust reported. He noted that although water was abundant in Africa on a regional scale, it was unevenly distributed by nature and that there was not enough available to sustain the growing population. "Due to recurring droughts and chronic water shortages in many areas, the majority of African countries and people pay an increasingly high price for water," he said. IMPACT: Your contraption promotes safe water. However with no water to sanitize it cannot function. Sticking a Play Pump in a sand dune is not going to do anything. It can't turn sand into water. They need water before they can get clean water. PLAN: (Plan presses, topicality, vagueness) 1. How much are you going to install how much is it going to cost? By not telling me both you severely limit the neg ground by not allowing me to run any sort of financial DA. Plan vagueness. 2. How do you plan to get the pumps there? What will you be doing in the event that the pumps break? 3. You say a play pump can reach 3 million people? Prove it. If I stick a play pump in the middle of a random desert will people be able to access it? Also if there are 3 million people at a pump and each person takes perhaps 20 seconds to get a bucket of water that means it will take each person 694.444444 days before they can get a bucket of water. ((3 mil * 20 secs) / 60 secs / 60 mins / 24 hours) Even if it only takes 1 person 1 second to get water from the pump (which sounds like it might be a long process of hand pumping) that is still 34.72222 days between water buckets. 4. On your tax. Extra-topicality. This plank of plan falls no where under the resolution. Standards: Infinitely regressive. It opens the door for planks of plan that are like "We should feed dieing children in India while doing this". This leads to garnered advantages that have nothing to do with the resolution and horrifying sucks up my ground (which is outside the resolution). Fairness, cuts my ground on DAs. I need to be voted on for this to promote fairness but at the very least this plank of plan needs to be severed from plan. This results in no solvency. Also. Aff team is not allowed to fiat outside of the resolution. Infinitely regressive, opens up doors for Aff to fiat NGOs, private actors, people in general. 5. Can't fiat play pumps international. There is no guarantee play pumps int. will work with U.S gov and without this there is no solvency. Fiating NGO's is outside the resolution, which is the NEgs ground. This is cutting my ground, is unfair to me, and promotes infinte regression to single actors and people fiats. SOLVENCY: 1. You say play pumps international workers, doctors, volunteers will be sent over. Does this mean we are simply giving play pumps int. money to do this? In which case. Topicality: USFG Violation: Using play pumps international. USFG is giving them money, they are actually doing something. Standards: a. Education - I participated in this round to learn how the USFG could increase its aid to africa, not how the USFG could increase its aid to play pumps. b. Education - I participated and the judges judged this round not to learn how Play pumps could increase its aid to Africa. c. Ground - Play pumps is outside the resolution, you are definitely stealing my ground. You stop me from running the play pumps counter plan. Voters: a. A priori - This is a pre-fiat issue and needs to be voted on before anything else for the above standards. 2. I maintain you cannot solve because of lack of water. 3. I also maintain you cannot solve because of lack of infrastructure in place. I.E roads, construction materials, vehicles. 4. Can't solve because corrupt governments will steal your aid. Kill your workers etc... 5. Can't solve because once again this is viewing the problem from an American perspective and doesn't actually consult with Africans. We've been aiding them like this for the last 40-50 years with no results. Whats so special about your viewpoint that is going to fix things? 6. You definitely promote dependency. These things are going to require workers to fix when they break. They will be dependent on us for workers. If you are going to train workers in Africa then you will further brain drain. They will come to America for better jobs with their talents. Which leaves you back at square one with broken play pumps. 7. I maintain that you are increasing biopower. Exploiting Africans through increasing their lives. Dependency etc.... 8. Finally onto moral hazard. You ask for proof of it happening in Africa. A. ASSISTANCE ENCOURAGES CORRUPTION AND HOLDS UP HIERARCHIES - Lerrick '05 Adam Lerrick, Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, December 2005. INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS REPORT, Gailliot Center for Public Policy, Aid to Africa at Risk: Covering Up Corruption, pg. 1 But corruption prevents aid from benefiting or even reaching the poor and has instead enriched and entrenched a series of destructive governing elites. How to give wisely, cost-effectively and directly for the benefit of the poor remains the elusive goal. Rich nations are now poised to fund an exponential increase in development funding for the world's poorest countries. But after 40 years and US$ 500 billion of failed aid to Africa, giving in the same old ways will simply pour more money into what corruption renders "a leaky begging bowl". B. HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE ENCOURAGES WORSE BEHAVIOR THROUGH A MORAL HAZARD – Bandow '07 [Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow and the CATO Institute, 2007. FOREIGN FOLLIES BOOK REVIEW, Gambling on Humanitarian Intervention, Accessed 4-28-07, http://www.antiwar.com...] However, there's another potential problem with humanitarian intervention that advocates of warmongering for good rarely acknowledge: threatening to intervene to settle bitter internal conflicts creates an incentive for weaker parties to foment such conflicts. For many rebellious groups, outside intervention is the only hope for success; thus, triggering involvement by a neighboring nation, regional power, or the globe's superpower becomes an overriding objective. In economic-speak this is the problem of "moral hazard."