Summary

Key Concepts:
 The United States Government was founded on the concept of federalism. The 10th amendment
of the constitution says that powers not given to the federal government are given to the states
or the people.
o Certain rights such as property taxes, education, same-sex marriage, and more are
examples of rights not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution
and are therefore responsibilities primarily given to the states
o Examples of federal rights include immigration law and social security laws.
 In simple terms, the Federalism Disadvantage argues that the passing of the affirmative plan
violates federalism, and therefore deprives states’ of their rights which can lead to various
impacts such as secession and war internationally.
o The impact argument is that US federalism is uniquely key to preventing the impacts
because it is modelled globally. If federalism fails in the US, it impacts the foreign
countries that follow our lead.
 Glossary
10th Amendment: The part of the Constitution that says that the Federal Government
only powers specifically outlined in the Constitution and that all other powers are
delegated to the states or people
Federalism: A system of government that relies on the separation of powers between
the states and the federal government
Property Taxes: Taxes on property or land based on its value, usually determined by
local and state governments, to fund state affairs
 Federalism DA
1NC Shell (1/4)
Uniqueness- Federalism high now— pandemic era politics solidified state power and the federal
governments’ purely supportive economic role
Gerstle, 2020 (Gary, American History Professor at the University of Cambridge, May 2020.) The
New Federalism https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/new-federalism/611077/
Given how the federal government has been hollowed out, the work of the states has been
nation-saving. They are a kind of strategic reserve, the gift of Founding Fathers who believed
that concentrating too much power in one branch of government or one man might someday
destroy the republic. Though diminished across the middle third of the 20th century by a
Warren Court rightly intent on making them subservient to the federal Bill of Rights, the states,
even before the pandemic hit, had begun to discover that their police power was still robust.
On one issue after another, ranging from gay marriage and increases in the minimum wage to
climate-respecting laws and immigrant-rights decrees, states have started to show America
how it might find its way to a progressive future. And now states are leading America out of
the pandemic abyss. In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo demonstrates a level of
commitment, focus, and grit absent from a rudderless national government. In Massachusetts,
Governor Charlie Baker is putting in place a mass testing and tracking system that will, if it
succeeds, show every other state (and Washington, D.C.) how it can be done. In California,
Governor Gavin Newsom has called on healthy residents to form a volunteer corps to help the
needy, a move inspired by a spirit of common purpose and shared sacrifice that President
Trump has shown himself incapable of summoning. As even one advisor to the Trump
administration recently admitted to The Washington Post, “The states are just doing
everything on their own.” Ultimately, the states cannot do it alone. There are too many of
them, and some will always go rogue. States are also resource-poor relative to the federal
government, barred by the Constitution from minting their own money and prohibited by their
own state constitutions (in many cases) from ending their fiscal years in the red. Without
federal assistance, some are likely to be bankrupted by pandemic expenditures and forced to
lay off so many public workers that they will no longer be able to perform the most elementary
tasks of government. It is also unlikely that a state, or a consortium of states, can become the
prime mover in developing drug therapies and a vaccine. Here, too, the federal government
must take the lead. Thus, the states cannot succeed without the federal government recovering
something of the esprit that animated it from the Great Depression through the first decades of
the Cold War. And yet something about the new federalism will endure. States have once again
become the innovators in American political life and the institutions that are taking their
democratic remit seriously. If Americans emerge from the current darkness with their faith in
their fellow citizens and their government intact, the states will have lit the way. Somewhere,
Louis Brandeis must be smiling.
 1NC Shell (2/4)

Link- AFF expansion of federal oversight undermines federalism and harms existing core
social policies
Obinger et al., 2005 (Herbert, Professor and head of Political Economy of the Welfare State
Department at University of Bremen, 2005.) Federalism and the Welfare State New World and
European Experiences https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/federalism-and-the-welfare-
state/D17E1F512CB72574D3F5CF875688CC63#fndtn-information
The other possible source of major changes in the relationship of federalism and social policy is
the Supreme Court. Recent Supreme Court decisions on federalism issues have revived some
interpretations that had been dormant since the New Deal. Thus far, this sequence of
federalism decisions has not called into question the constitutional foundations of the core
social policies discussed in this chapter, but they could, particularly if future appointments
push the court further to the right. Any rethinking of Massachusetts v. Mellon and cases
following from it, for example, might limit the ability of the national government to influence
state policies by attaching conditions to federal grants. A revival of the Tenth Amendment
would have even broader effects. The Supreme Court might also address a statutory issue it has
so far avoided: whether Medicaid creates an individual entitlement, enforceable in court, or
only a guarantee of federal funding to the states. Lower courts have issued conflicting decisions
on this question.
 1NC Shell (3/4)

Internal link—U.S. Federalism is modeled globally

Calabresi, 1995 (Steven G., Associate Professor at Northwestern University School of Law and
J.D. from Yale University, December 1995.) A Government of Limited and Enumerated Powers
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2058&context=mlr
At the same time, U.S.-style constitutional federalism has become the order of the day in an
extraordinarily large number of [*760] very important countries, some of which once might
have been thought of as pure nation-states. Thus, the Federal Republic of Germany, the
Republic of Austria, the Russian Federation, Spain, India, and Nigeria all have decentralized
power by adopting constitutions that are significantly more federalist than the ones they
replaced. Many other nations that had been influenced long ago by American federalism have
chosen to retain and formalize their federal structures. Thus, the federalist constitutions of
Australia, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, for example, all are basically alive and well
today. As one surveys the world in 1995, American-style federalism of some kind or another is
everywhere triumphant, while the forces of nationalism, although still dangerous, seem to be
contained or in retreat. The few remaining highly centralized democratic nation-states like
Great Britain, France, and Italy all face serious secessionist or devolutionary crises. Other highly
centralized nation-states, like China, also seem ripe for a federalist, as well as a democratic,
change. Even many existing federal and confederal entities seem to face serious pressure to
devolve power further than they have done so far: thus, Russia, Spain, Canada, and Belgium all
have very serious devolutionary or secessionist movements of some kind. Indeed, secessionist
pressure has been so great that some federal structures recently have collapsed under its
weight, as has happened in Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union.
 1NC Shell (4/4)

Impact: Federalism prevents violence, secessions, and rebellions—prefer empirics

Lawoti, 2009 (Mahendra, Political Science Professor at Western Michigan University with a
Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh, March 2009.) Federalism for Nepal
http://www.telegraphnepal.com/backup/telegraph/news_det.php?news_id=5041
Cross-national studies covering over 100 countries have shown that federalism minimizes
violent conflicts whereas unitary structures are more apt to exacerbate ethnic conflicts. Frank
S. Cohen (1997) analyzed ethnic conflicts and inter-governmental organizations over nine 5-
year –periods (1945-1948 and 1985-1989) among 223 ethnic groups in 100 countries. He found
that federalism generates increases in the incidence of protests (low-level ethnic conflicts) but
stifles the development of rebellions (high-level conflicts). Increased access to institutional
power provided by federalism leads to more low-level conflicts because local groups mobilize at
the regional level to make demands on the regional governments. The perceptions that
conflicts occur in federal structure is not entirely incorrect. But the conflicts are low-level and
manageable ones. Often, these are desirable conflicts because they are expressions of
disadvantaged groups and people for equality and justice, and part of a process that
consolidates democracy. In addition, they also let off steam so that the protests do not turn
into rebellions. As the demands at the regional levels are addressed, frustrations do not build
up. It checks abrupt and severe outburst. That is why high levels of conflicts are found less in
federal countries. On the other hand, Cohen found high levels of conflicts in unitary structures
and centralized politics. According to Cohen (1997:624): Federalism moderates politics by
expanding the opportunity for victory. The increase in opportunities for political gain comes
from the fragmentation/dispersion of policy-making power… the compartmentalizing character
of federalism also assures cultural distinctiveness by offering dissatisfied ethnic minorities
proximity to public affairs. Such close contact provides a feeling of both control and security
that an ethnic group gains regarding its own affairs. In general, such institutional proximity
expands the opportunities for political participation, socialization, and consequently,
democratic consolidation. Saidmeman, Lanoue, Campenini, and Stanton’s (2002: 118) findings
also support Cohen’s analysis that federalism influences peace and violent dissent differently.
They used Minority at Risk Phase III dataset and investigated 1264 ethnic groups. According to
Saideman et al. (2002:118-120): Federalism reduces the level of ethnic violence. In a federal
structure, groups at the local level can influence many of the issues that matter dearly to
them- education, law enforcement, and the like. Moreover, federal arrangements reduce the
chances that any group will realize its greatest nightmare: having its culture, political and
educational institutions destroyed by a hostile national majority. These broad empirical
studies support the earlier claims of Lijphart, Gurr, and Horowitz that power sharing and
autonomy granting institutions can foster peaceful accommodation and prevent violent
conflicts among different groups in culturally plural societies.
 Uniqueness
Uniqueness: General
Federalism high now— pandemic era politics solidified state power and the governments’
supportive economic role
Gerstle, 2020 (Gary, American History Professor at the University of Cambridge, May 2020.) The
New Federalism https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/new-federalism/611077/
Given how the federal government has been hollowed out, the work of the states has been
nation-saving. They are a kind of strategic reserve, the gift of Founding Fathers who believed
that concentrating too much power in one branch of government or one man might someday
destroy the republic. Though diminished across the middle third of the 20th century by a
Warren Court rightly intent on making them subservient to the federal Bill of Rights, the states,
even before the pandemic hit, had begun to discover that their police power was still robust.
On one issue after another, ranging from gay marriage and increases in the minimum wage to
climate-respecting laws and immigrant-rights decrees, states have started to show America
how it might find its way to a progressive future. And now states are leading America out of
the pandemic abyss. In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo demonstrates a level of
commitment, focus, and grit absent from a rudderless national government. In Massachusetts,
Governor Charlie Baker is putting in place a mass testing and tracking system that will, if it
succeeds, show every other state (and Washington, D.C.) how it can be done. In California,
Governor Gavin Newsom has called on healthy residents to form a volunteer corps to help the
needy, a move inspired by a spirit of common purpose and shared sacrifice that President
Trump has shown himself incapable of summoning. As even one advisor to the Trump
administration recently admitted to The Washington Post, “The states are just doing
everything on their own.” Ultimately, the states cannot do it alone. There are too many of
them, and some will always go rogue. States are also resource-poor relative to the federal
government, barred by the Constitution from minting their own money and prohibited by their
own state constitutions (in many cases) from ending their fiscal years in the red. Without
federal assistance, some are likely to be bankrupted by pandemic expenditures and forced to
lay off so many public workers that they will no longer be able to perform the most elementary
tasks of government. It is also unlikely that a state, or a consortium of states, can become the
prime mover in developing drug therapies and a vaccine. Here, too, the federal government
must take the lead. Thus, the states cannot succeed without the federal government recovering
something of the esprit that animated it from the Great Depression through the first decades of
the Cold War. And yet something about the new federalism will endure. States have once again
become the innovators in American political life and the institutions that are taking their
democratic remit seriously. If Americans emerge from the current darkness with their faith in
their fellow citizens and their government intact, the states will have lit the way. Somewhere,
Louis Brandeis must be smiling.
 Uniqueness: UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (1/2)
Welfare is controlled by the states, even when federal funding is involved
Hansen, 2011 (John, Social worker with a Ph.D. in social welfare policy from Brandeis
University, 2011.) A Brief Overview of the State-Federal Relationship in Public Welfare
Programs, 1935-1996 https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/public-welfare/public-welfare-state-
federal-welfare-relationships/
Many years of piecemeal development and legislated changes resulted in a public welfare
system that was broad in scope, complicated and very expensive. Not surprisingly, the control
and financing of public welfare programs became more difficult, persistently causing tension
between the states and the federal government as each level sought to protect its interests.
States, for example, appealed for relaxation of federal policies and rules that they felt limited
their efforts to administer programs responsibly. The federal government adopted many of
these strictures for the very purpose of instilling discipline in state administration. From the
federal perspective, regulations insured that the needs of the poor would be met in an efficient
and equitable manner.
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) provided income assistance to families where
children lacked adequate parental financial support. Assistance was granted in the form of cash
benefits funded through a combination of federal, state and (in several states) local revenues.
While federal and state rules jointly govern the determination of eligibility and payment levels,
administration is the full responsibility of the states and their political subdivisions.
In FY 1982 an average 11.1 million persons per month, of whom 7.5 million were children,
received AFDC benefits at a cost for the year of about $13.5 billion, $6 billion of which was paid
by the states. Assistance levels were largely determined by the states. As a result, AFDC
benefit levels varied widely. In 1980 the average monthly payment per person ranged from
$29.83 to $162.61. The actual disparity of these amounts was narrowed by the availability of
food stamp benefits for public assistance recipients. Food stamp benefits were inversely related
to AFDC income.
 Uniqueness: UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (2/2)
States control welfare now— federal welfare reform proves
Weaver & Gais, 2002 (R. Kent and Thomas, Weaver is a Public Policy and Government Professor
at Georgetown University, Gais is a Provost Fellow at State University of New York, April 2002.)
State Policy Choices Under Welfare Reform https://www.brookings.edu/research/state-policy-
choices-under-welfare-reform/
The 1996 federal welfare reform law joined two approaches to changing welfare policy in the
United States. The law put in place many policies reflecting a conservative approach to the
goals of work, independence, and marriage. These included time limits on assistance, stricter
work requirements, and demands that teen mothers live with their parents and finish school.
The law also strengthened requirements that clients cooperate with child support enforcement
efforts and established stronger sanctions for noncompliance.
However, the law also created a block grant giving states flexibility in fashioning their own
policy and administrative strategies to achieve the goals of the law. State innovation and
experimentation are seen as critical ingredients of policy change. Federal time limits and work
requirements apply only to cash assistance funded by the federal block grant, Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). States can, however, devise programs without time limits
or work requirements when they use their own money, spending state funds under TANF’s
“maintenance of effort” provision, which requires states to spend 75 percent of the state
dollars they spent in 1994. States can even use federal TANF funds to provide benefits to low-
income families without time limits if those benefits help pay the costs of working, such as child
care or transportation. States can impose stricter work requirements or shorter time limits.
They can change many other eligibility requirements for cash assistance, including asset and
earnings disregards. They determine the services to be offered to low-income families and
define who is eligible for such services. And they have wide discretion over which providers—
public or private, secular or religious—carry out their programs.
 Uniqueness: GREEN NEW DEAL (1/1)
Property taxes are controlled by the states
Lav & Leachman, 2018 (Iris J. and Michael, Iris J. Lav is a Deputy Director for the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, Michael Leachman is the Senior Vice President for State Fiscal
Policy with a Sociology Ph.D. from Loyola University Chicago, July 2018.) State Limits on
Property Taxes Hamstring Local Services and Should Be Relaxed or Repealed
https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-limits-on-property-taxes-
hamstring-local-services-and-should-be#:~:text=Although%20property%20taxes%20are
%20primarily,and%20cover%20an%20entire%20state.
States Constrain Local Property Taxes
The property tax is primarily a local government tax and can be a flexible revenue source to
support schools and locally provided public services. In its purest form, it is based on an
assessment of the market values of all properties in a jurisdiction. Once these values are
established, the jurisdiction applies a tax rate to yield the amount of revenue needed to
support the desired level of services. Property tax limits interrupt this calculation. Some
constrain the percentage by which assessed values can grow each year, others limit the
property tax rate, and still others — the most severe — limit the percentage growth in property
tax revenue each year. These last are known as levy limits.
Although property taxes are primarily a local revenue source, states largely control the
conditions under which they are administered. Property tax limits generally are enacted by
states and cover an entire state. Some states have statutory limits enacted by legislatures;
others have constitutional limits, which generally required approval by voters.
 Uniqueness: SOCIAL SECURITY EXPANSION (1/2)
States control healthcare now
Institute of Medicine, 1988 (United States Committee for the Study of the Future of Public
Health, 1988.) Appendix A, Summary of the Public Health System in the United States
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218212/
States are the principal governmental entity responsible for protecting the public's health in
the United States. They conduct a wide range of activities in health. State health agencies
collect and analyze information; conduct inspections; plan; set policies and standards; carry out
national and state mandates; manage and oversee environmental, educational, and personal
health services; and assure access to health care for underserved residents; they are involved in
resources development; and they respond to health hazards and crises. (Hanlon and Pickett,
1984; Public Health Foundation, 1986b) States carry out most of their responsibilities through
their police power, the power "to enact and enforce laws to protect and promote the health,
safety, morals, order, peace, comfort, and general welfare of the people." (Grad, 1981) In the
tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, states and the people are designated as the
repository of all government powers not specifically designated to the federal government.
States, as sovereign governments, derive plenary and inherent power to govern from their
people. As guardians of the public interest, states have inherent power to act to protect citizens
of the state for the good of the entire citizenry. Massachusetts, the first state to establish a
State Board of Health, did so "in the interests of health and life among the citizens of the
Commonwealth." (Hanlon and Pickett, 1984) States also have the power to delegate agencies
with authority to carry out activities in their interest. As phrased in a state law of Virginia.
 Uniqueness: SOCIAL SECURITY EXPANSION (2/2)

State taxation power upheld by the Court

CONAN, No Date (Constitution Annotated: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S constitution,
Organization dedicated to providing resources and legal analysis of the constitution.)
Amdt14.S1.7.2.1 State Taxing Power https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-
S1-7-2-1/ALDE_00000164/
The authority of states to tax income is universally recognized. Years ago the Court explained
that [e]njoyment of the privileges of residence in the state and the attendant right to invoke the
protection of its laws are inseparable from responsibility for sharing the costs of government. . .
. A tax measured by the net income of residents is an equitable method of distributing the
burdens of government among those who are privileged to enjoy its benefits. Also, a tax on
income is not constitutionally suspect because it is retroactive. The routine practice of making
taxes retroactive for the entire year of the legislative session in which the tax is enacted has
long been upheld, and there are also situations in which courts have upheld retroactive
application to the preceding year or two.
 Links
Link: General (1/2)
AFF expansion of federal oversight undermines federalism and harms existing core social
policies
Obinger et al., 2005 (Herbert, Professor and head of Political Economy of the Welfare State
Department at University of Bremen, 2005.) Federalism and the Welfare State New World and
European Experiences https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/federalism-and-the-welfare-
state/D17E1F512CB72574D3F5CF875688CC63#fndtn-information
The other possible source of major changes in the relationship of federalism and social policy is
the Supreme Court. Recent Supreme Court decisions on federalism issues have revived some
interpretations that had been dormant since the New Deal. Thus far, this sequence of
federalism decisions has not called into question the constitutional foundations of the core
social policies discussed in this chapter, but they could, particularly if future appointments
push the court further to the right. Any rethinking of Massachusetts v. Mellon and cases
following from it, for example, might limit the ability of the national government to influence
state policies by attaching conditions to federal grants. A revival of the Tenth Amendment
would have even broader effects. The Supreme Court might also address a statutory issue it has
so far avoided: whether Medicaid creates an individual entitlement, enforceable in court, or
only a guarantee of federal funding to the states. Lower courts have issued conflicting decisions
on this question.
 Link: General (2/2)

The AFF overreaches and expands federal influence to crowd-out state power
Mason, 2011 (Ruth, Professor of Law at University of Connecticut Law School and visiting
Professor at Yale Law School, 2011.) Federalism and the Taxing Power
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1645542
. For any regulatory area not exclusively assigned to the federal or state governments by the
Constitution, Madison envisioned that the people would choose their regulator. If they trusted
the federal government more, the people would invest more power with the federal
government, or vice versa. In this way, Madison believed that the federal and state
governments would check each other, so that neither would become oppressive. It is not
necessary to repeat at length here the well-known claim that conditional federal spending
jeopardizes federalism values. Instead, it should suffice to draw the analogy between federal
grant spending and federal tax spending. When it conditions grants upon states’
implementation of particular policies, the federal government thereby reduces the scope for
state policy experimentation and competition. Similarly, when the federal government uses
federal tax law to reach past the states to regulate private taxpayer behavior though tax
expenditures and penalties, it may leave less room for states to implement different or contrary
policies. Where federal tax incentives reward taxpayers for engaging in particular activities,
such as education, home ownership, and the purchase of private health insurance, those tax
incentives may displace the expression of local values and local political preferences.
Similarly, to at least some extent the federal government may override local political decisions
when it uses tax penalties to discourage certain activities, such as smoking, gambling, and
driving. If, in order to secure federal subsidies or avoid federal penalties, taxpayers strive to
meet federal (rather than local) standards, then the taxing power raises concerns similar to
those raised by the spending power. Specifically, if the federal government uses its taxing
power to enlarge the scope of its regulatory influence beyond its constitutionally enumerated
powers, it reduces the areas in which the states can compete with the federal government
and with each other.
 Link: UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (1/3)
UBI massively increases the scope of the federal government and compromises state rights
Rector & Teixeira, 2018 (Robert & Mimi, Robert is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for
Health and Welfare Policy, Mimi is a fellow in welfare policy at The Heritage Foundation,
February 2018.) Universal Basic Income Harms Recipients and Increases Dependence on
Government https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report/universal-basic-income-harms-
recipients-and-increases-dependence-government
The premise of universal basic income has a known track record of failure that hurts recipients
and increases dependence on government, based on test experiments on the closely related
negative income tax policy. In four controlled random assignment experiments across six states
between 1968 and 1980, the comparable policy was shown to reduce yearly hours worked
among recipients significantly. For each $1,000 in added benefits, there was an average $660
reduction in earnings, meaning that $3,000 in government benefits was required for a net
increase of $1,000 in family income. The results of these studies led policymakers to shift their
focus to work-based welfare benefit programs.
Additional Flaws in Comprehensive UBI Policy
Additionally, a comprehensive UBI policy would:
 Transfer funds away from the vulnerable to affluent persons capable of self-support. A
comprehensive UBI policy directs money to those who do not need it, including relatively
affluent families and young adults without dependents.
 Eliminate Social Security and Medicare payments and transfer funds to able-bodied non-
working adults. Virtually all policies advocating a guaranteed minimum income eliminate
Social Security and Medicare payments. Such a policy shifts resources from the elderly to
non-elderly, able-bodied adults without dependents. This poorly targeted welfare makes
the policy an inefficient use of financial resources.
 Increase government spending and the scope of government. Current government policy
makes a distinction between the elderly and disabled who cannot work to support
themselves and able-bodied non-elderly adults who can and should work to support
themselves. Aid to the latter group is conditioned largely on work; assistance is given only
when individuals are in need, and able-bodied recipients are expected to work or prepare
for work as a condition of receiving aid. In principle, work-capable adults who refuse to
work or prepare for work do not receive aid. The UBI eliminates all distinctions between
the elderly, disabled, and work-capable adults. Able-bodied adults who refuse to work are
entitled to the same benefits as everyone else. By establishing a new universal
entitlement and by creating for the first time a moral expectation that able-bodied adults
who refuse to support themselves should be entitled to aid from the taxpayer, a UBI
would set the stage for a massive expansion of government.
 Link: UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (2/3)

UBI violates the 10th amendment

Wang, 2019 (Welton, Founder and managing editor of The Bipartisan Press, October 2019.)
Andrew Yang’s UBI Could be Illegal https://www.thebipartisanpress.com/politics/andrew-
yangs-ubi-could-be-illegal/
The fundamental idea of universal basic income may or may not be the right idea, but more
importantly, UBI could be unconstitutional. The tenth amendment of the Constitution says,
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the tenth amendment,
any power not granted to the three branches of the government and not prohibited to the
States are up to the States to implement. In other words, Congress can’t make laws regarding
things it wasn’t specifically designated to govern. Congress’s powers are granted under Article I,
Section 8 of the Constitution. Specifically, Congress may, “…lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States,” among many other things. In order for Yang to implement his
Freedom Dividend, he would have to get Congressional approval. However, under the tenth
amendment, Congress doesn’t have the power to impose taxes to fund the Freedom Dividend,
nor does it have the ability to distribute it. On its face, it seems like Section 8 is granting
Congress the power to use tax money and distribute the Freedom Dividend (“general Welfare
of the United States”).
 Link: UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (3/3)

UBI is unconstitutional— passing the plan makes a limited federal government impossible
Wang, 2019 (Welton, Founder and managing editor of The Bipartisan Press, October 2019.)
Andrew Yang’s UBI Could be Illegal https://www.thebipartisanpress.com/politics/andrew-
yangs-ubi-could-be-illegal/
However, Paul Engel from The Constitution Study writes, “There are three nouns used in the
Constitution to designate the possessor of powers and over whom they can and cannot be
applied: the United States, the States, and the People. The term ‘United States’ refers to the
union of states and its government. The term ‘States’ or ‘Several States’ refers to the states
either individually or collectively. And ‘The People’ refers to individuals.” In this case, the
general welfare clause refers to the “United States.” If Congress were to enact a UBI bill, it
would be for the welfare of “the People” not “the United States” since universal basic income
benefits individual people, not the United States collectively. While the Constitution is written
very broadly and open for lots of interpretations, Paul also offers the reasoning behind why
“general welfare of the United States” doesn’t apply in this case: “…the United States of
America is the name given to the union of states. (Think of a corporation created by
stockholders.). Today we tend to think of states as a subdivision of the federal government, but
it is, in fact, the other way around. The United States is a creation of the states to which they
have delegated some of their powers. In this context, the states have delegated to Congress the
power to collect taxes for a limited number of things, common defense and general welfare of
the union itself. As James Madison put it, that is a general power. The rest of Article I, Section 8
are the specific powers that make up the common defense and general welfare for the union.
So things like Foreign commerce, coining money, creating federal courts, establishing post
roads, raising armies, etc. are the things Congress can collect taxes for since they are for the
common defense and general welfare of the United States. They are not for the welfare of the
states themselves or for the people of those states.“ “If the General Welfare Clause gave
Congress the power to do anything they could somehow identify as in the general welfare of
the people or the states of the United States, then the vast majority of the Constitution, along
with the idea of a limited federal government, would be effectively void. Why create a list of
powers if they are already included in the term “for the General Welfare”? This is confirmed by
James Madison in Federalist Papers #41: “It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay
and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common
defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to
exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general
welfare […] For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these
and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more
natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a
recital of particulars.” — Federalist Papers #41 If giving out UBI isn’t an enumerated power
given to Congress under the Constitution, then by the 10th amendment, Congress giving out
UBI is unconstitutional and thereby illegal.
 Link: GREEN NEW DEAL (1/3)
Energy policy is a state’s issue— plan violates state rights
ALEC, 2008 (The American Legislative Council, the largest nonpartisan organization emphasizing
federalist values, May 2008.) ALEC ENERGY PRINCIPLES https://alec.org/model-policy/alec-
energy-principles/
Federalism: The federal government must allow states to develop their own approaches to
energy policy based on their resources and demand. Misguided federal restrictions that ignore
regional and local realities impose costs that are beyond the control of those whom they most
affect. States know how best to utilize their land and natural resources, and their role in doing
so must be preserved.
 Link: GREEN NEW DEAL (2/3)
States regulate environmental policy— USFG cannot enforce needed infrastructure changes
without undermining federalism
Ferrey, 2020 (Steven, A Law Professor at Suffolk University Law School and a visiting Law
Professor at Harvard Law School, 2020.) THE “GREEN NEW DEAL”: CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS; REROUTING GREEN TECHNOLOGY https://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/05-Ferrey.pdf
Moreover, this division was tested in a 1982 Supreme Court case. In FERC v. Mississippi, the
Supreme Court declared that the federal government could not mandate any mandatory
requirements for states to implement any set of restructured retail power utility rates or
activities. So new federal programs may not prescribe substantive requirements for the states
to complete or implement pursuant to this second element of law. FERC v. Mississippi
illustrates that states get the final decision on retail rate matters and the regulation of activities
of retail utilities. And this authority may create hurdles to implementing the Green New Deal.
Under the Green New Deal, it is reasonable to assume that certain states, like the plaintiffs in
FERC v. Mississippi, will resent being told by the federal government what they have to do or
pay for regarding some or all of the redistributive effects of the proposed Green New Deal. It is
clear that the 50 states are of two minds about renewable energy versus traditional forms of
electricity production and related costs of electric power. President Trump has made protecting
traditional fossil fuels used for electric power a cornerstone of his pledges to the Nation.
Second, in this area of environmental law, there is a “cooperative federalism” that allows the
states some discretion on environmental areas affecting the quality of the air governed by the
Clean Air Act. These Green New Deal efforts seek to transition within ten years from the
dominant source of electric power production being derived from burning fossil fuels, to one
where no fossil fuels are used. Since electric power is regulated at both state and federal
levels, cooperation of both may be required to implement the Green New Deal. The states, for
those that are so motivated and choose to attempt to exercise both their inherent exclusive
authority over retail rates and the discretionary ability to exercise some regulatory power
under “cooperative federalism,” face two hurdles in implementing certain elements of the
Green New Deal. First, the Green New Deal seeks to transfer the costs of key infrastructure
from certain groups in the United States to other groups of people. If done as part of electric
power regulation (although the details or the Green New Deal are not yet in place), legal
precedent in many states may not let states do so. Second, Professor Jacobson’s roadmap for
use of 100% renewable solar and wind power requires a massive investment in new
transmission infrastructure to move power from solar and wind sites to population centers and
to spread it across the states hour-by-hour from the most productive locations for generation
at any given time. Unless every affected state supports this required new transmission
infrastructure constructed through its state, a state can block this, and there is no power of the
federal government to preempt this. Several states have recently successfully engaged in
blocking interstate transmission infrastructure expansion.
 Link: GREEN NEW DEAL (3/3)
AFF solvency dependent on property tax funding— solvency undermines state’s rights to
property tax
Forstater, 2006 (Matthew, Economics & Black Studies Professor at the University of Missouri-
Kansas City, July 2006.) Green Jobs: Public Service Employment and Environmental
Sustainability https://scihub.hkvisa.net/https://www.jstor.org/stable/40722393
Ecological tax reform begins from the premise that current tax and regulatory structures of
most modern countries are not consistent with ecological sustainability. Current taxes tend to
discourage behaviors that should be encouraged, and vice versa. For example, taxes on income
and employment discourage work and job formation, while low tax rates and subsidies for
resource extraction and "dirty" technologies encourage pollution and resource depletion. In
some cases, taxes or tax breaks may encourage the right behavior but are insufficient, or need
to be coupled with complementary policies, to produce a comprehensive effect. A functional
finance approach to ecological tax reform could begin with the elimination of federal payroll
and income taxes and the adoption of certain property taxes. Taxes, tax credits, subsidies,
quotas, licenses, low-interest loans, and other regulatory policies could penalize unsustainable
behaviors and reward green ones. This is not the place for a comprehensive outline of
ecological tax reform, as functional finance and ecological tax reform are discussed in detail
elsewhere (Forstater 2002, 2003). My objective is to encourage ecological tax reform, as
outlined above, and to rid proposals of "sound finance" principles.
 Link: SOCIAL SECURITY EXPANSION (1/2)
Federal wealth tax destabilizes federalism and undermines state tax power
Zhang, 2020 (Alex, Ph.D. and J.D. from Yale University, 2020.) The Wealth Tax: Apportionment,
Federalism, and Constitutionality
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jlasc/vol23/iss4/1article=1247&context=jlasc
Scholarly conceptions of federalism have shifted dramatically in the past few decades. Partly
motivated by the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts’ emphases on federalism in constitutional
adjudications, and partly responding to the demise of the sovereignty model, scholars have
innovatively theorized the relationship between states and the federal government in the post
New-Deal and post-Civil-Rights-Movement era. This section situates the main issue addressed
by the Article—the state-by-state apportionment of a wealth tax—within the federalism
literature, arguing that the results of apportionment not only destabilize our system of
federalism but also impair the states’ abilities to carry out federal regulations and initiatives.
The traditional notion of federalism attributes sovereignty to both state and the federal
governments: within its own (separate and exclusive) sphere of regulation, each government
possesses plenary power without interference. Under the framework of dual and sovereignty
based federalism, which is outdated but still occasionally invoked by the Court, the
apportionment of a national wealth tax leads to disastrous results. First, although the precise
contours of sovereignty as a concept of political control and authority remain murky, it is
generally accepted that the ability to tax and to determine tax policy is central to sovereignty.
Tax policy is an instrument through which governments effectuate many of their substantive
economic goals and execute welfare programs (e.g., the Earned Income Tax Credit). Severe
restrictions on a state’s ability to shape its domestic tax policy, coupled with a substantial
reduction in its taxing power, thereby represent a concrete threat to the governmental
entity’s sovereignty. Second, if we take seriously the idea that state and local governments are
authoritative over certain spheres of regulation (e.g., education and municipal services)—or
even the much softer, process-federalism suggestion of “preserv[ing] the regulatory authority
of state and local institutions to legislate policy choices”—apportioning the wealth tax deprives
the state and local governments of any fiscal resource to implement their policy preferences.
In short, whether we think of sovereignty as depending on separate spheres of regulation or on
states’ autonomy, it is impossible to govern without the ability to tax—a lesson that the
national government learned well from the Articles of Confederation.
 Link: SOCIAL SECURITY EXPANSION (2/2)
Wealth tax eviscerates state fiscal independence that is crucial for health care reform
Zhang, 2020 (Alex, Ph.D. and J.D. from Yale University, 2020.) The Wealth Tax: Apportionment,
Federalism, and Constitutionality
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jlasc/vol23/iss4/1article=1247&context=jlasc
The dual sovereignty theory of federalism has fallen out of favor in the academy, even if some
scholars maintain that newer conceptions still reflect a troubling persistence of the sovereignty
assumption. Due to federalization—the process through which the federal government moves
into domains traditionally regulated by states—recent federalism literature increasingly
emphasizes the significant roles played by the states in federal regulatory regimes. State and
local agencies and institutions, for example, play central roles in implementing the health care
reforms of the Affordable Care Act, constitute an indispensable instrument in the regulation of
immigration, and even shape policies in national security and counter-terrorism, which are
areas traditionally thought to belong exclusively to the federal government. If the state
governments lose their ability to tax and their (relative) fiscal independence, they will cease
to fulfill their duties (and use their powers) as “servants” to the federal government.
 Impacts
Federalism prevents secessions internationally— AFF destabilizes and leads to war
Ryan, 17 (Erin, Assistant Professor at Lewis & Clark Law School and J.D. from Harvard Law
School, 2017) Secession and Federalism in the United States: Tools for Managing Regional
Conflict in a Pluralist Society. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2775377.
It also considers the development of American federalism, from a model emphasizing vertical
separation toward one that harnesses inevitable jurisdictional overlap to cultivate opportunities for
collaborative and competitive engagement. It assesses the unique advantages of American federalism
for mediating the opposing forces of political entropy, which operate to pull the component pieces of
pluralist nations apart, and political gravity, which pull them together in pursuit of common goals . It
considers both the successes and limits of the American model, identifying those aspects that are
instructive for governance elsewhere and those that may be inapplicable abroad. Finally, it reflects on
the way that federalism can act as a double-edged sword—or perhaps more accurately, a
simultaneous sword and shield—providing a potential conduit for claims to secession at the
same time that it functions as a safety valve to defuse the same impulses.
Beginning with a historical account of secession in the United States, Part I reviews American
secession movements at both the subnational and national level, with special focus on the paradigmatic
cases of the American Revolution and the American Civil War. Both examples demonstrate the deep
regional tensions that can surface within a larger overall polity, reflecting the challenges of pluralist
societies more generally. The southern states’ failed attempt to secede during the Civil War led to the
formal disavowal of secession in the United States—leaving us to grapple with the meaning of what
had already happened during the Revolutionary War, when the American colonies unilaterally
separated from Great Britain.
After considering the meaning of these wrenching moments in American history , Part II turns to our
preferred means of mediating regional conflict, the institution of constitutional federalism . By dividing
sovereign authority between local and national levels of government, federalism creates multiple
simultaneous forums for political contest, competition, and collaboration that have diffused regional
tension through engaged multilevel governance. Like all systems of federalism, the U.S. model
cultivates the “sweet spot” between competing claims for local autonomy and national
interdependence, allocating sovereign authority among levels of government where each best advances
the overall goal. The availability of nested political sites for regional expression,
interjurisdictional innovation, and negotiated governance have many benefits, including
fortification of the American Union against the kinds of conflicts that might otherwise lead toward
fragmentation.
Aff Responses
 Non-Unique
Thumper (1/1)
States CP
 What is a counter Plan?
When using this file as the negative there are few things to keep in mind. Counterplans are a strategy
that argues that while the affirmative may solve a real problem, it does so in a way that either makes the
problem worse and/or causes some other bigger problem. The negative will win if they win that they
solve the problems as well as the affirmative while avoiding a bad impact. Like all debate arguments
they have some predictable components.

First, counterplans, like plans, need a text. This will be the one or two sentence action that the negative
will defend. That text will change depending on which affirmative you are debating so make sure you
update it before every round.

Second, there is a 1NC shell that includes solvency. You must prove that you also solve the problems of
the affirmative even though you don’t do the same action.

Finally, a counterplan includes a net benefit. A net benefit is a disadvantage that the counterplan avoids
and the plan calls. It is a reason to prefer the negative’s arguments instead of the affirmative’s
arguments.
 Beating the Counter Plan
A CP argues that the affirmative may solve a real problem, but they do so in a way that causes other
worse problems. As the affirmative, you should first always try to STOP the CP:

1) Solvency Deficit: Make an argument that the counterplan doesn’t solve as well as the affirmative.
This can come from cards in the file. It may also be embedded in cards in your 1AC.

2) Theoretical Objections: Make an argument that there is a reason the counterplan should not exist.

3) Offense (against the net benefit): You will want to answer the net benefit like you would any
disadvantage. Attack the link, uniqueness, and impact of the net benefit. For example, if you can
win that the affirmative is better for the economy than the CP you will win.

4) Permutations: This argument means that the plan and the CP could exist at the same time while not
triggering the net benefit. Some permutations are simple “Perm do both” others require evidence. For
example, in this counterplan the counterplan excludes the federal government part of the plan, so the
best permutation is perm do the affirmative and then the CP, which would argue that the federal
government is necessary to resolve wealth inequality.
 1NC Shell
1NC UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME
Counterplan Text: The 50 state governments and relevant territories should implement a
Universal Basic Income.

States are equipped to implement UBI, they know best

Tanner, 2015 (Michael, senior fellow at the CATO institute who specializes in welfare policy,
May 2015.) The Pros and Cons of a Guaranteed National Income
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa773.pdf
Any guaranteed income proposal would, of course, involve both coercion and redistribution. It
would also represent a federally imposed one-size-fits-all approach. As such, it should be
approached with caution and skepticism. In an ideal world, private charity would be the
primary mechanism for assisting the poor. Certainly private charity has a much stronger track
record of providing the type of assistance that offers a route out of poverty. And, because
charity is voluntary, it comes without the moral questions inherent in any redistribution
scheme. At the very least, welfare should be a function of state and/or local governments, not
the federal government. States can, in Justice Brandeis’ words, “serve as a laboratory; and try
novel and social experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Putting states and
localities in charge of welfare, as was the case for much of this country’s history, would allow
greater experimentation and competition.
 1NC GREEN NEW DEAL
Counterplan Text: The 50 state governments and relevant territories should adopt the Green
Jobs Guarantee provision of the Green New Deal

States are equipped to adopt GND policies, empirics prove

Reese, 2020 (April, Environmental Science M.A. from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies, February 2020.) What a Green New Deal would look like in every state
https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/green-new-deal-state-by-state/
Washington has not yet answered the GND’s call to action. Bills that would advance objectives
like making buildings more efficient and curbing emissions have sputtered, the US has no
federal renewable-energy target, and the current administration has overwritten emissions-
reduction efforts like former president Barack Obama’s plan to phase out coal.
The state level, however, is a different story. In the absence of a federal mandate, local
governments and institutions are stepping up. “Since the Green New Deal, we’ve seen more
[state] governments put forth more policies,” says Ben Beachy, Director of Sierra Club’s Living
Economy Program. At least 20 states have adopted, or are considering, a 100 percent
renewables requirement for electric utilities, according to a report last year from EQ Research,
and 100 cities have done so, too. A few governments, including those representing Maine, Los
Angeles, and New York City, branded their policies as Green New Deal avatars. In others, the
influence is more covert.
As states pursue fixes tailored to their individual priorities—from phasing out coal-fired power
to getting more electric vehicles on the road—the GND doctrine is gaining momentum, climate
policy experts say.
 1NC SOCIAL SECURITY EXPANSION
Counterplan Text: 50 state governments and relevant territories should follow the Next
Generation of the Healthcare Workforce Learning Collaborative guidelines to redesign the
healthcare workforce

State leadership can effectively redesign the healthcare workforce

Le Duc, 2022 (Nathan, Corporate Fellow at the NGA with a B.A. in Political Science & Economics
at the University of Utah, June 2022.) State Efforts To Expand The Healthcare Workforce
https://www.nga.org/news/commentary/state-efforts-to-expand-the-healthcare-workforce/
NGA Center For Best Practices Healthcare Workforce Learning Collaborative The NGA Center
recently facilitated a healthcare workforce development discussion between state leaders and
industry experts as a kick-off to the Next Generation of the Healthcare Workforce Collaborative
– a project supporting Governors’ offices and other senior state officials in implementing
strategies to strengthen and grow the next generation of the healthcare workforce. During this
initial meeting, states and experts emphasized the effects of COVID, the aging workforce, and
technology changes to healthcare systems across the country. Participants also highlighted the
crucial role of interagency support and subject matter experts in gathering and interpreting
healthcare workforce data and creating a comprehensive strategy. Healthcare Workforce
Planning And Redesign Through well-coordinated forecasting, Governors’ offices can predict the
needs and demographic distribution of the healthcare workforce and initiate interventions.
Accurate workforce planning includes data collection and analysis, policy coordination, the
development of recruitment and retention strategies, coordinated education and training
pathways, and health care workforce redesign – all of which can be championed through state
leadership. For example, on the heels of an acute worker shortage earlier this year, Governor
Newsom announced new pay incentives to aid recruitment and expand healthcare jobs in
California. Other planning and redesign strategies could include: coordinating the expansion of
access to health workforce data sources (such as licensure data and all-payer claims databases),
encouraging the alignment of education and training outcomes with population health needs,
focusing state funded projects on increasing diversity and cultural competency, removing
barriers to entry for new professionals moving to the state, investing in maximizing health
technology to reach populations in rural and underserved areas, and integrating
mental/behavioral health and oral health care with primary and acute care. “To recognize the
tireless work of these workers and to support the retention of workers in an environment of
high vacancies and turnover, the state will provide a baseline payment and will increase the
payment up to $1,500 if employers commit to fully matching the additional amount.” Governor
Gavin Newsom, California Budget Proposal
 2NC/1NR SOLVENCY
2NC/1NR UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (1/2)
Alaska proves states solve better for UBI – funding can come from state’s industries to avoid
worsening federal deficit spending
Wharton Staff 18 (Knowledge at Wharton, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania,
May 10.) Why Alaska’s Experience Shows Promise for Universal Basic Income
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/podcast/knowledge-at-wharton-podcast/alaskas-
experience-shows-promise-universal-basic-income/
But while Finland seems to have hit a roadblock, a study of Alaska’s oil royalty program shows a
very different picture. “One of the concerns is … if you give people money for nothing, why
should they work?” says Ioana Marinescu, a professor at the Penn School of Social Policy &
Practice. “What we found was astonishing — which is that on average Alaskans work at the
same rate as comparable states” such as Utah and Wyoming. That’s because when people get
extra cash, they tend to spend it, Marinescu said. Surrounding businesses, such as the
neighborhood café or boutique, see increased sales as a result and then hire more employees
to handle the boom. “The two put together end up seeing no effect on employment,” she said.
“That’s very interesting to us to see that when this is applied on a big scale, … if a whole state
would implement this, this can have interesting and important effects on the economy.”
Marinescu and Hiilamo discussed the pros and cons of universal basic income programs on the
Knowledge at Wharton show on Wharton Business Radio on SiriusXM channel 111. (Listen to
the podcast at the top of this page.) In Alaska’s oil royalty program, every resident gets an
annual dividend generally between $1,000 and $2,000 from the Alaska Permanent Fund, which
earns revenues from oil and mining leases. The amount varies as oil prices fluctuate. For 2017,
the government announced a dividend of $1,100 per person including children. So a family of
five could have gotten $5,500 last year. According to Marinescu’s research paper on Alaska’s
program, co-authored by University of Chicago professor Damon Jones, “the dividend had no
effect on employment, and increased part-time work by 1.8 percentage points.” Further, they
found that “receiving this basic income tends to increase education among the most
disadvantaged youth.” They stay longer in school when they receive a basic income, she
explained.
 2NC/1NR UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (2/2)
States have the power to build upon local efforts toward UBI— CP paves the way for broader
policy changes
Economic Security Project, 22. The Economic Security Project (ESP) works to advance economic
prosperity by providing research, supporting campaigns to get from pilot to policy, and working
to change narratives about economic inequality and poverty. “States Lead the Way,”
“Reimagining the Social Safety Net Through Implementation of a Guaranteed Income.”
Economic Security Project, Shriver Center on Poverty Law. Report. April 13, 2022.
https://economicsecurityproject.org/resource/states-lead/
Historically, states have played a critical role in testing concepts to improve the lives of low-
income residents and created a blueprint for anti-poverty measures that can be implemented
nationwide. It is time to boldly reimagine and revitalize an eroded social safety net, and states
have an opportunity to lead by example. The devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted
mitigation strategies intended to get cash to people were impacted. Federal policies such as
increased unemployment insurance, an expanded and fully refundable Child Tax Credit (CTC),
and stimulus checks have led to burgeoning support for permanent cash transfer programs like
a guaranteed income. Additionally, state and local governments added to relief efforts by using
federal dollars provided by both the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) to fund cash transfer programs of their own.
At the same time, an increasing number of municipalities and other units of local government
across the country are exploring guaranteed income demonstrations in their community, and
states should seize this opportunity to build upon this work. Local guaranteed income
programs, though limited in scope, produce incredibly valuable data to prove the efficacy of
unconditional cash programs, which are critical for states to obtain buy-in from the necessary
stakeholders. One limitation of local programs, however, is that they often aren’t scaled to
study the potential for community-level change or other broader economic impacts. At the
federal level, the expanded CTC being debated as part of President Biden’s American Families
Plan represents a form of guaranteed income for 39 million households. Unfortunately, federal
conversations around nationwide cash transfer programs – like an expanded CTC - have been
underwhelming. As of December 2021, the Build Back Better Act does maintain the fully
refundable nature of the expanded-CTC, allowing low- and no-income families excluded pre-
pandemic to continue to receive a credit, but only a temporary extension is being considered
for the increased amounts families received during the pandemic.
 2NC/1NR GREEN NEW DEAL (1/2)
Precedent proves states can implement green politics— CP solves without undermining
federalism
Dawson, 2023 (Ashley, City of New York Professor and Public Power NY movement member,
May 2023.) How to Win A Green New Deal in Your State https://12ft.io/proxy?
ref=&q=https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/dsa-new-york-build-public-
renewables-act/
New York just became the first US state to pass a major Green New Deal policy. After four
years of organizing, the Build Public Renewables Act (BPRA) is now in the New York state
budget. Passage of the act is a massive challenge to fossil fuel hegemony and a major victory for
public power.
The BPRA authorizes and directs the state’s public power provider—the New York Power
Authority (NYPA)—to plan, build, and operate renewable energy projects across the state to
meet the ambitious timetable to decarbonize the grid mandated by the Climate Act of 2019.
The NYPA, the largest public utility in the country, provides the most affordable energy in the
state, but until now, it has been prohibited from building and owning new utility-scale
renewable generation projects because of lobbying by profit-seeking private energy companies.
 2NC/1NR GREEN NEW DEAL (2/2)

States have the funds— AFF PSE program uses property taxes that only states have access to
Urban Institute, ND (Urban Institute, Organization dedicated to providing resources to help
people navigate state and local politics.) State and Local Backgrounds: Property Taxes
https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-
initiative/projects/state-and-local-backgrounders/property-taxes#:~:text=Taxpayers%20in
%20all%2050%20states,levy%20taxes%20on%20personal%20property
A property tax is a tax levied on "real property" (land and buildings, both residential and
commercial) or personal property (business equipment, inventories, and noncommercial motor
vehicles). Taxpayers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia pay property taxes, but the tax
on real property is primarily levied by local governments (cities, counties, and school districts)
rather than state governments. With a few exceptions, states typically levy taxes on personal
property. How much revenue do state and local governments raise from property taxes? State
and local governments collected a combined $600 billion in revenue from property taxes, or
17 percent of general revenue, in 2020. Property tax revenue as a percentage of state and local
general revenue was higher than general sales tax revenue, individual income tax revenue, and
corporate income tax revenue in 2020.
 2NC/1NR SOCIAL SECURITY EXPANSION (1/3)
The healthcare workforce differs from state to state, states know their needs best—
Oregon proves
Le Duc, 2022 (Nathan, Corporate Fellow at the NGA with a B.A. in Political Science & Economics
at the University of Utah, June 2022.) State Efforts To Expand The Healthcare Workforce
https://www.nga.org/news/commentary/state-efforts-to-expand-the-healthcare-workforce/
Identifying Strategies To Better Collect And Analyze Data To Inform And Evaluate Policy Although
healthcare workforce trends are nationwide, local needs can vary drastically. State leaders have
highlighted community-based data tools and metrics for their central role in accurate planning and
policy adjustments. However, state and industry experts are concerned that many employers and states
have yet to fully develop sufficient healthcare workforce data systems. Some warn that even well-
structured approaches can do more harm than good if those programs are disconnected from accurate
workforce data. Coordination between licensing boards, state agencies and employers can help states
collect and leverage healthcare workforce data to assess the supply, demand, and distribution of health
care providers and to plan for the future. By collecting standardized information on licensed healthcare
professionals, states can streamline and consolidate healthcare workforce data across systems and
provide critical analysis to address key policy issues and improve health care access and delivery.
Aligning Education And Training Outcomes With Healthcare Needs State leaders can facilitate a
coordinated realignment across sectors of education and training programs, resources and job
opportunities. This intentional focus on systematic collaboration can improve workforce and training
outcomes for underserved communities by resolving institutional barriers to employment and improving
the relevance of and return-on-investment for postsecondary programs. Work-based learning,
competency-based education, stackable credential programs, and other innovative educational
pathways can provide additional flexibility and support to prospective healthcare professionals who may
otherwise struggle to receive the training they require. For example, earlier this year, Governor Kate
Brown of Oregon secured $200M for Future Ready Oregon, a workforce development initiative that will
provide underserved communities with access to a variety of educational and career pathways that
experts and state leaders had identified as priority areas in their workforce planning process.
“Approaching workforce development with an equity lens really is the heart and soul of this legislation.
This means identifying barriers to career advancement for underserved communities, providing support
services to help individuals overcome those barriers, and viewing these supports –such as child care
access, or broadband – as critical infrastructure. ”Governor Kate Brown, Future Ready Oregon Bill
Signing
 2NC/1NR SOCIAL SECURITY EXPANSION (2/3)

States can follow NGA guidelines to combat racial disparities and low retention in the
healthcare workforce
Le Duc, 2022 (Nathan, Corporate Fellow at the NGA with a B.A. in Political Science & Economics
at the University of Utah, June 2022.) State Efforts To Expand The Healthcare Workforce
https://www.nga.org/news/commentary/state-efforts-to-expand-the-healthcare-workforce/
There are also longstanding racial and economic disparities in healthcare workforce
development. People of color are underrepresented in higher paid roles and
disproportionately hold the low-wage frontline occupations such as direct care roles that were
most affected by illness and death during the pandemic. These multifaceted challenges have
resulted in a wide array of issues that Governors are seeking to address to ensure sustainability.
Last year, Governor Mark Gordon deployed $30M in state and federal funds to provide staffing
relief and support for current healthcare staff and to secure traveling medical staff in Wyoming.
“These are very stressful times for all of us…but particularly those in the healthcare industry,”
Governor Gordon said. “This is a means to thank them and to try to make sure we can keep
them on the job.” In response to these trends, Governors have celebrated the healthcare
workforce and called for an increased focus on their recruitment and retention , as well as
renewed equitable access to medical career pathways. This year, the NGA Center for Best
Practices will assist Governors in these efforts by leading the Next Generation of the Healthcare
Workforce Learning Collaborative to bolster state health systems. This work draws upon the
resources of the Healthcare Delivery and Postsecondary Education teams within the NGA
Center to provide technical assistance around key workforce priority areas, including:
Healthcare workforce planning and redesign Identifying strategies to better collect and analyze
data to inform and evaluate policy Aligning education and training outcomes with population
health needs Building workforce capacity in rural and underserved areas through training,
recruitment, retention and technology Identifying mechanisms and implementing state policies
to allow providers to practice at the top of their license Aligning statewide delivery system and
payment reform efforts Integrating mental/behavioral health and oral health care with primary
and acute care
 2NC/1NR SOCIAL SECURITY EXPANSION (3/3)

Michigan, New Jersey, Maine and more prove states can solve— state leadership is essential
Roman et al., 2022 (Courtney, Senior program officer at the Center for Healthcare Strategies
with an M.A. in sociology from the American University, May 2022.) Direct Care Workforce
Policy and Action Guide
https://www.milbank.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/DirectCareWorker_Toolkit_final.pdf
STATE LEADERSHIP IS ESSENTIAL State leadership — including state legislators and government
agencies from across all sectors working in partnership with DCWs — has a central role to play
in strengthening the direct care workforce. The most powerful models of positive change are
rooted in state leaders working together, finding common ground, and involving allies at all
levels (e.g., DCWs, care recipients, advocacy groups, researchers, universities, and providers) to
collaboratively identify mutually agreeable goals and strategies. Examples of state leadership-
driven activities to support the direct care workforce include: • In 2020, the Michigan
Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) established a statewide DCW Advisory
Committee with representation from leaders and stakeholders across all care settings, state-
funded programs, and populations. Together, these cross-sector partners are working to
address the state’s DCW shortage and make policy, regulatory, and programmatic
recommendations to MDHHS and Michigan legislators. Michigan formed workgroups to address
professionalization, training and advocacy, adequate and equitable PPE distribution, and better
communications across sectors and with DCWs. • In 2018, New Jersey created a Caregivers
Task Force to research the availability of caregiver support services in the state and provide
recommendations for the improvement and expansion of such services. Members of the task
force represent DCWs who provide care to individuals with a wide range of needs, including
older Americans and those with mental illness, disabilities, chronic health conditions, cognitive
or behavioral health challenges, or intellectual and developmental disabilities. • Twenty
governors mentioned plans to bolster the direct care workforce and tackle shortages in their
2022 State of the State addresses. Iowa announced a new apprenticeship program for high
school students that would offer them the ability to become certified nursing assistants (CNAs)
before graduating high school. Nine governors focused on strategies to retain the existing
workforce — particularly individuals who are experiencing exhaustion from the COVID-19
pandemic. Alabama, Colorado, Maine, New York, and Wisconsin discussed plans to offer
increased compensation through pay raises, higher Medicaid reimbursement rates, or
bonuses. Colorado and Illinois mentioned plans to waive licensing fees for health care
providers, such as DCWs, in their states.
 Answer to Perm
Answer to Perm (1/3)

Perm fails— the federal government crowds out state political action thus violating
federalism
Adler, 06 (Jonathan H., Environmental Law Professor at Case Western Reserve University,
2006.) When Is Two a Crowd: The impact of Federal Action on State Environmental Regulation
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/178
Federal policies that directly influence state regulatory decisions are only half of the picture.
Just as federal action may encourage or discourage state regulatory action directly, federal
action may indirectly, or even incidentally, encourage or discourage state regulatory action.
Federal policies will facilitate greater state regulation where such actions reduce the costs of
state implementation, such as by subsidizing necessary research, or where federal policies
increase the demand for given regulatory policies at the state level so as to alter or “set” state
policy agendas. Federal policies will discourage state regulatory action where they “signal” that
state regulatory action is excessive or unnecessary, or where they reduce the marginal benefits
of adopting state regulatory programs—benefits either to the general welfare, those interest
groups demanding state regulatory activity, or to the policy-makers responsible for adopting
the relevant policies. Such crowding out is most likely to occur where federal regulations serve
as a substitute for state regulations, though there may be other factors that have a similar
effect. Adding in these indirect influences— facilitation, agenda setting, signaling, and crowding
out—produces a more complete matrix of the ways in which federal policies influence state
regulatory choices (see Figure 1b below).
 Answer to Perm (2/3)

Perm fails— the federal government overpowers state policy and undermines state
autonomy
Galle, 2021 (Brian, Law Professor at Georgetown University with a J.D from Harvard Law,
November 2021.) The American Rescue Plan and the Future of the Safety Net
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-american-rescue-plan-and-the-future-of-the-
safety-net
This is the familiar paradox of cooperative-federalism doctrine. When the Court steps in to
"protect" states from federal commandeering or coercion, it pushes Congress towards two
extreme options: abandon its plans or make them wholly federal with little meaningful policy
role for states. 9 Sometimes this gambit will foil legislative efforts, but sometimes it will instead
move us towards nationalization. Depending on which prevails more often, efforts to protect
state autonomy may instead result in less.
 Answer to Perm (3/3)
Perm still links to the Disadvantage— federal cooperation makes the violation of state rights
inevitable
Greenblatt, 2010 (Alan, Longtime writer at NPR, Governing, and contributions to Vox and more,
August 2010.) Is the president exploiting the states’ fiscal woes to push his policies?
http://www.ncsl.org/magazine/federalism-in-the-age-of-obama.aspx
Obama understands that he has states over a barrel financially. He has shown a great deal of
interest in collaborating with states when he can, and he certainly is willing to federalize ideas
that bubble up from them. But he also understands that their budget situations have
diminished the ability of states to set their own courses. The federal spigot may be about to
shut off, as this spring’s struggles to find extra money for Medicaid and teachers demonstrated.
And the White House and a Congress riven by partisanship may leave plenty for states to do on
their own. Still, this is not an administration that will support a federalism that provides more
money to states to focus on their own plans and initiatives. “This is an administration that
doesn’t take the states and locals as it finds them. It has an agenda,” says Paul Posner, a
federalism expert at George Mason University in Virginia. “The focus will be on national goals. I
can see this administration pursuing additional ways to put money down in the state and local
sectors but tying it to strong national goals. It’s going to have to be a twofer.” The result might
be a kind of symbiotic federalism. Washington needs states to carry out its grand visions on the
ground, but the administration also fully intends to give them numerous pushes in its preferred
direction. Most federal money goes out to states through set formulas. But the Obama
administration is clearly interested in pursuing variations on its Race to the Top model, using
competitive grants to get states to dance to its tune. If the effort at the federal level is
successful, it will put a new twist on the old observation from Supreme Court Justice Louis D.
Brandeis that states are the laboratories of democracy. “Rather than states being the
laboratories of democracy in and of themselves,” says Howard, of Federal Funds Information
for States, “some of them will become the federal government’s laboratories of democracy.”