AT CP FERA – NIB Specific READ AN ADD-ON (please) – like the State Budgets Advantage Perm – do both The CP can’t solve: The concept of FERA is based on the squo’s funding models for infrastructure and public works projects. Our Schwartz ’09 evidence indicates that the squo method is flawed since it is accompanied with red tape and a one-size-fits all approach; the NIB would change the system to more efficiently fund such projects. Any increment of additional solvency for the perm is a reason to vote affirmative – it o/w the risk of a one-shot DA. Links to Politics – the CP goes through Congress; their link evidence just indicates that the GOP opposes stimulus bills and a FERA CP would be just as, if not more, unpopular among the GOP. Their evidence saying it doesn’t link to politics is terrible – it just says that the CP might solve based on the work of one researcher; it has no reference to the political climate. Creating an NIB would result in better public works awareness and organization for increasing jobs – that’s our O’Connel evidence and our Lonardo evidence. Additionally, the plan would take pressure off the states for such programs. The Perm solves – an NIB would create better, more efficient investment in public works to generate employment – doesn’t link to politics Plumer, Reporter at Washington Post, ’11 (Brad, 9/19/11, Washington Post, “How Obama’s plan for infrastructure bank would work,” AM) One of the key aspects of President jobs plan is an idea that’s been knocking around Washington for some time: a national infrastructure bank that would leverage private investment to fund new roads, bridges, mass transit and other public-works endeavors. Here’s how it would work. The proposal, modeled after a bipartisan bill in the Senate, would take $10 billion in start-up money and identify transportation, water or energy projects that lack funding. Eligible projects would need to be worth at least $100 million and provide “a clear public benefit.” The bank would then work with private investors to finance the project through cheap long-term loans or loan guarantees, with the government picking up no more than half the tab — ideally, much less — for any given project.
ITAR doesn't interfere with competitiveness Burris, Major, 10 – (Mathew, January 1, 2010, “Tilting at Windmills? The Counterposing Policy Interests Driving The US Commercial Satellite Export Control Reform Debate,” ) TJ I have been in this business for 23 years and can speak from first-hand experience - ITAR is not at the root of any levels of competition in our industry, especially for launchers and spacecraft... I would state that in only a small percentage of cases ITAR has had any significant impact on the numbers of spacecraft units or revenue figures. ITAR just does not have a significant impact... I don't see that compliance is bad at all. At Sea Launch we have learned to work with ITAR as we operate in so many cultures and foreign nations. We all work together in a seamless manner. We have the vital internal link into competitiveness - Not shifting to a post-industrial knowledge economy poses the greatest threat to US competitiveness – the plan reinvigorates the US economy by generating long term growth – that’s Florida and Todorovich.