States Counterplan problem?
SAFETEA-LU enacted in 2005 (Public Law 109-59, 109th Congress) discusses how transportation infrastructure projects are incredibly complex and require coordination between multiple levels of government. A states counterplan could run into substantial solvency deficit if the “states go it alone” as many states counterplan specify…
SAFETEA-LU Law, Public law 109-59, 2005
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ059.109, accessed August 6, 2009)
(3) Critical high-cost transportation infrastructure
facilities often include multiple levels of government,
agencies, modes of transportation, and transportation goals and
planning processes that are not easily addressed or funded
within existing surface transportation program categories.
What is a states counterplan?
There are a few different ways people run a states counterplan but the most common, and easiest for the negative to run, is to replace USFG in your plan text with “all 50 states.” So rather than the USFG running your plan at the federal level, all 50 states will run your plan at the state level. If you have taken your introduction to political science class yet you will have probably reviewed the federalist v. anti-federalist who made a lot of these states rights arguments regarding our constitution.
For an easy illustration, imagine your debate team. You can have your coach run the practice, telling you what to do, what to research etc. Or, you can have the debaters run the practice, deciding for themselves what to do during that time. The first scenario would be like the USFG telling the states what to do whereas the second scenario the debaters would be like the states implementing their own policy. Each debater may run the practice a little different – but the control of the practice (ie, the policy) lies not with the coach but with the debater.
Why do a states counterplan?
The states counterplan is usually a staple of the generic negative argument tool box. Since the resolution requires USFG action you can pretty much count on being able to run the states counterplan every round. Usually debaters will pair it with a federalism disadvantage arguing that this policy gives the federal government too much control and we should bring back the power to the states. A big part of the current health care debate is revolving around the question of federalism – how much control are you willing to give the federal government in health care? (note, just an example, I don’t necessarily agree the current health care reform has a problem with federalism…). Here is an example file on federalism from the high school topic.
What is states counterplan theory say?
- The rules state that counterplans can not concern the “form of government.” Some judges believe this means that the states counterplan is excluded from the rules. I interpret that a little different since my research points to the “form of government” meaning what government system we have (republic, monarchy, anarchy, etc…). But it’s something to be careful with regarding states counterplans in NFA-LD
- Can you fiat 50 states? I see no problem or relevant distinction why we would allow an affirmative to fiat the USFG but not each state. Fiat is simply a tool to allow us to debate post plan. You can fiat any actor/plan text you want – the debate should be focused on the solvency of that plan – will it work?
- Environmental laws – many of the EPA rules and regulations require that state projects submit plans and reviews to the federal government – especially if it’s going to affect national wildlife. So can a State ever really go it alone? For example, the Clean Water Act “requires municipalities and major industries to meet performance standards to ensure pollution control.” So if the states implement your plan they’d still have to meet the standards set by the EPA for the Clean Water Act – seems like the states are not really in control.
- Transportation policy – as I mentioned above and Dr. Kasle has in a comment on an earlier post – it seems domestic transportation policy is very ill-suited to a states counterplan. I asked Cindy Vigue, at the RCC camp, if it made sense for transportation infrastructure to be a “state policy” and she indicated that it did not. That the USFG and States are partners in infrastructure not different options. Indeed, her presentation discussed how the federal government and states work very closely together with infrastructure policy.
For an example states counterplan file here is one for the current high school policy topic. one of the popular cases is the change the earned income tax credit (the topic is on poverty). So, rather than the USFG act let’s have the states change their tax policy. You can see that the counterplan looks like this:
Next off: The EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit] Counterplan
CounterPlan Text: The 50 States, Washington D.C., and all relevant U.S. territories should all implement a substantially expanded Earned Income Tax Credits modeled on the Federal Earned Income Tax Credit
(INSERT RELEVANT ADVANTAGE SOLVENCY 1NC Cards)
Here is another file from last year’s high school topic. This file is much deeper and will give you an idea about the arguments that come up with a states counterplan.
Here are some video resources around the web.
Your thoughts? Is the States Counterplan a legitimate option this year?
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
I believe this would be considered artificially competitive in terms of banning the USFG. T or No T, it could technically be done with a plan that has the USFG as the agent. So the NEG could argue it is competitive by means of Net Benefits, and then the DA of FED bad, or so, may work; but I personally think it is splitting hairs. As I’m learning, much is managed by the MPOs and the States anyway. Feds may give the money, and may have a final stamp of approval, but the extent to which it matters isn’t clear.
Finally, because the USFG need only “reform” infrastructure, I don’t see why that can’t mean taking a step back (or out). If “reform” means to “improve” then one could argue that the USFG will do less, even a plan that abolishes the DOT, and if that is “reform” of the “infrastructure” (however you define that), then it is topical. For instance, if I am in a bad mood and I decide not to go to a party, or leave a party, because I think my bad mood would spoil the party, then I am removing myself in order to improve (reform) the overall mood of the party. Seems to me the way the Resolution is worded, USFG staying out of a situation could indeed be categorized as a “reform”.
Dr. Sydne:
Your points, as usual, are well-taken. For example, were I to get hit with the CP I set forth above, my first reaction would be to argue that the CP is topical because it obviously requires a Constitutional Amendment, and amending the Constitution can only be done by action of the USFG*. However, the same argument could be made against the traditional [sic] “States” CP PLUS the argument that all 50 States, acting in uniformity [as if that could ever happen], IS the USFG, no matter how artfully the Negative argues to the contrary.
However, a well-educated (particularly in law and government), well-researched debater, with careful explanation, (stop me when I get to far in to fantasy) could defeat the arguments you have set forth. I would prefer to explain how in a clinic, a journal article, or some other forum, because the necessary analysis (when was the last time you heard that term used in a policy debate context) is not conducive to the limited nature a message board.
Other points:
1. I am intrigued by your use of the term “artificial.” Speaking only for myself, I don’t care if an advocate meets her/his prima facie burdens in an “artificial” way, just so long as the argument is logical and based in fact. (This explains why I have such dificulties with things like “effects topicality”; to this shriveled old mind, if the Plan is topical, it’s topical** and if a CP is competitive, it’s competitive, “artificial” or not. – I don’t like to discriminate against people for arguing cleverly as long as it isn’t sophistry.)
2. I respectfully submit that this thread – as well as the other one on CPs in general – PLAINLY DEMONSTRATES THAT COUNTERPLANS CANNOT BE ARGUED SUPERFICIALLY. THE DEBATER WHO COUNTERPLANS IS PRESENTING AN ENTIRE NEGATIVE “CASE.” So when in comes to CP’s – please don’t toss one off in front of me in a minute or less and expect me to give it a lot of credence.
3. Similarly, the extra two minutes of speaking time given to the Affirmative by the NFA rules is all the more unfair and intellectually offensive in rounds in which the Negative seeks to CP. Equal burdens should result in equal speaking times!
*As a lawyer and political science instructor, I’ve got to remind everyone that THERE IS NO SUCH LEGAL ENTITY AS THE “U.S.F.G.” (“Federal Government” – national government in Washington D.C. The official title of that government is “The United States Government.”)
The term “USFG” comes from the world of high school and NDT/CEDA policy debate circa the late 1980′s. (If you doubt me, go back and look at the wording of the NDT topics 1947-1985.) And – irony of ironies – it was created to try to eliminate or reduce “States Counterplans.”
**The view springs from my ingrained conception that topicality limits are like the boundary lines in athletic events. I don’t care how or why the baseball came to land in fair territory, if it’s fair… it’s fair. There’s no such thing as an “effects” basehit. 
All very true and very helpful for us all. What do you think about the last bit, that if we view reform as an improvement then that could mean a back-out of an overarching policy by the “USFG”, or maybe more realistically the DOT or some other such Federal agency?
On a related topic, let me predict what you are likely to hear as a “States Counterplan” this year, especially if you judge on the “national circuit.” At the outset, assume that the following is being read from a piece of scratch paper, at a rate of 300+ words a minute, by a person who never once makes eye contact with the judge:
“Uh… Observation One is Counterplan.
“1. Do Plan, but do it through the States and local governments.
“2. Um… Funding and administration through normal means.
“3. Uh… I reserve the right to clarify Counterplan intent.
“Um… Observation Two is Kritik…”
To this decaying old veteran, that is not a very good Counterplan. In fact, it is psuedo-intellectual excrement. A collection of sentence fragments and bumper-sticker platitudes is not what “the Founders” had in mind when they created this as a “communication event” (WTF that means).
PLEASE – NFA-LD Community – prove me wrong.
A 50 states CP is funny.
Just as a small note to you making fun of the CP on the nat circuit: funding and administration through normal means is the perm. It means that the fed funds it and the states do it.
Most, if not all states CP will be normal means. The USFG does not own that many shovels and bulldozers that are not for military use. The USFG gives money to the states and the state DoT actually does the plan.
I would like to know what the difference between the USFG and 50 states really is on this topic. If it is a politics DA that you avoid from the 50sCP because the GOP doesn’t want spending then the USFG wouldn’t fund the 50sCP either. Another question is that if it is “an unpopular plan” then the states do it you lose solvency because all the states that it is “unpopular” with won’t do it, right?
50sCP seems like an epic fail this year, to me at least.
With so many obvious flaws and complications with the states CP, I am curious to see how much traction XO CPs pick up.
Most XOcps are not viable. Besides the obvious LD-Specific theory objections: topical/afirms the resolution and other things like that. They have a hard time proving solvency sometimes. I am not as up on XO’s (ask Nick) but there were some issues that Marc was telling us about (that I don’t really remember) that was leaning towards XOs not working.
Well, looks like I’ve been outed as an XO hack.
It’s a nice generic strategy when coupled with a politics disad if you have nothing more specific to read. But yeah, given the theoretical objections I won’t be quick to take it out of the tub against anyone who knows what they’re doing.
Nerdy: I just quoted – verbatim – what I heard last year. You inferred (correctly) that I was “making fun” of it.
For openers, a CP is not an “observation” – it’s a CP – in other words, allegedly an entire Negative case – and a K should be an entire Negative case as well… at least I think so. And each DA should take a least 2-3 minutes to develop and properly evidence if it is going to have any academic integrity. Speed is not velocity.
I know what’s en vogue today; but just because something is “the norm” doesn’t mean it’s right.
I look at NFA-LD (and each and every debate) as a chance to do something better… to reach a quality of persuasion that has yet to be reached… and that ain’t no bull. There is nothing mutually exclusive between good grammar, good manners, good acholarship and good fellowship on the one side and good argumentation on the other. I learned that in the courtroom, and “on the stump” in politics, as well as in debate rounds.
LAST GASP: If everyone here hasn’t watched David Zarefsky’s DVD course on Argumentation & Rhetoric [from the "Learning Company"] (2006), they should. Some things (and persons) really do stand the test of time. Zarefsky and Ziegelmueller fall within that category, as do Tribe, Unger, and a few others… and one thing they had in common is that they debated in grammatically-correct English sentences.
Aw, what’s the use?
I do not believe that a CP needs to be an entire case. That idea, to me, is rather foreign. A CP should be a part of the grander scheme. When one runs a CP it should be accompanied by a DA/K, possibly a T that show that the CP is not T, and some on case arguments.
A CP should take 2 minutes, tops, to read. A CP is more then plan text/planks. A CP is also solvency. Even the best solvency cards take about 45 sec at a ‘reasonable’ speed. Then, to show how the CP is competitive you need the K/DA. I do not believe that the Neg can win the round by saying, “Superior solvency vote Neg!” That falls to the permutation (test of competitiveness) which says that doing either is fine but a combination of the plan/CP still works. A good DA takes about 2-3 minutes in LD world. A good K takes about 3-5 minutes (not including alt).
The CP is an Observation. Everything that the Neg says is an observation. A DA is an observation. They are things the negative observes as reasons to vote neg are observations. My coach used to have “opposition remarks” because he didn’t want to recognize the on-case as being important (juxtaposition of on-case vs off-case). He graduated in 2k and still holds to that distinction. My affirmative is broken down into observations. The story, background, plan, solvency, ad 1, ad 2, and ad 3 are all observations to me. I think that observation and contention are synonymous in this situation. The use of contention is to reference that one contends that (X) is true. If one contends (Y) that is contention number (t), same idea.
I believe that my use of observation allows me to tell my story and win my ballot.
Dear Nerdy:
Thanks for your comments. My hope is that, when this post is finished, you will find that most – not all – of the “disagreements” we have are far more about nomenclature than about substance.
1. Should a CP be an “entire case?”
When I say yes, I DO NOT mean that a CP has to consume the entire Negative constructive. It might or might not, depending upon the preference of the Negative debater. However, not only my training but my interpretation of the current NFA-LD rules indicates to me that a CP cannot just be dashed off in a minute. Please realize that this is my “ideal” in terms of what I – as a judge – want to hear:
A. The Counterplan should be clearly stated.
B. The Negative should explain (with evidence, if possible) why the CP is NT!*
C. The Negative should explain (with evidence, if possible) why the CP is competitive – in other words, how/why it has all the positive elements of the Affirmative approach.
D. The Negative should explain (with evidence, if possible) why the CP cannot be “permmed”; in geezerspeak, why the P and the CP are mutually exclusive.
Now maybe you (and others) disagree, but I do not thiink that can be done in gramatically-correct English sentences, with evidence properly cited, and in language easily understood by a well-educated layperson in less than 3 minutes.
The Negative could then launch in T! S! DA! argumentation as he/she sees fit for the remaining four minutes.
2. I see no reason to run a K and a CP as separate concepts. My understanding is that K’s are essentially attacks upon the Affirmative’s infrastructure which do not necessary offer an alternative to the Affirmative Plan. Since the CP is an alternative, it strikes me as logical – and time-effective – to argue the two symbiotically. (My estimate is that this combination could be done in about 4 minutes, leaving 3 minutes for T! S! and/or DA!)
3. I more than agree that “Normal means” may be the average language used in debate, but don’y you want to be better than average? Morever, sincs the Negative is not bound by T! and/or XT! Do something innovative you can claim novel benefits from.
4. At the risk of stating the obvious, any time spent on direct refutation of the Affirmative case is a CP/K round is spuerfluous. My thought: you are already two minutes behind the Aff. because of the weird NFA-LD rules – you have none to waste.
5. Re: What is an “Observation?” – Here our differences are purely semantic. Larry Tribe did not (despite urban legend to the contrary) “invent the flowsheet.” David Seikel did not (despite urban legend to the contrary) invent “the spread.” However I was at least one of the debaters who created “observations” in policy debate. In 1969-70 I began using the term “Overall Observations” in 2NC – later reduced to “Observations” – to define what are now called “OFF-CASE” arguments: T! NT! Sub-Topicality (failure to justify all the relevant terms of the resolution) and Non-Prima-Facie Case were my specialities. As you can see, they are all “Voters.” Then I would launch into as many S! (had to have 100% impact) and DA! (had to outweigh Aff. advantages) arguments as I could cram in before the time ran out.
Thus, to me, and my generation (WTF that is), and all the debaters I coached between 1970-1983 and 2007-date a Case is a Case [the Affirmative's contentions and/or stated advantages], a Plan is a Plan [the Affirmative Proposa], a CP is a CP, a DA is a DA, etc. So to hear “Observation Number 1 is Plan” sends unpleasant electric shocks up my spine.
6. You conclude with “I believe that my use of observation allows me to tell my story and win my ballot.” Not to be snarky, I’m really confused by your use of pronouns. Advocates (debaters) tell stories; only judges have ballots. Which perspective are you speaking from?
This probably doesn’t address everything you wrote, but at least I tried.
Look forward to hearing from you (and others) on this fascinating thread.
*or a well-reasoned explanation (with evidence, if possoble) WHY a T! CP should even be considered.
the judges ballot is mine – I just need to remind them of why it is true
Edit:
sweet! emoticons rox my sox!
1 – I don’t see why grammatically correct is such a big deal. Grammar is different for each region and subculture. When you wish to see a specific style of grammar doesn’t that exclude others from their ability to express themselves? In a community that is about self expression that kinda sucks. I do agree with you almost entirely on the rest of it though.
2 – A debater should (usually) be able to win a K or a CP on their own merits. If one runs a CP, K, and a DA at the same time (Nick) the K has it’s own alt and the CP is it’s own solvency for the DA (in LD that is illegit acording to the rules). However, a debater could run a cp that solves both the K and the DA if they are really good. I was always taught, and still believe, that I should be able to win the round on any single argument I read. I should be able to with the CP because it is net ben, the K because it’s true, the DA cause your plan has issues, or T because I don’t do research.
3 – Word economy.
3.2 – If the neg is time skewed as badly as you say they are then they need those kinds of shortcuts.
4 – That does seem right, but it isn’t enough for some judges. Example: At the camp I ran a K, T, and DA. However, a judge at the camp decided that even though the K was all but droped s/he didn’t like the alternative so they didn’t vote there. The DA was fumbled all over the place, but bio-terrorism outbreaks that would destroy the country weren’t enough to outweigh a few hundred thousand people not getting away from a hurricane… Some judges just don’t buy it if you drop case. You have to go for case or risk a judge voting for the 1ac because there is not ink on it.
5 – So because someone else used the word ‘observation’ in a negative context 40 years ago I cannot have my, “Observation one is their story?”
6 – I jumped the gun on that one; I was hoping someone would let me say that, lol.
Special Labor Day Message To Everyone (via Nerdy):
Ya can’t please everybody. The best you can do is give a sound, logical reason (with evidence if possible) for your point of view. At the risk of stating the obvious, that’s why they call it “debate.” (“To thine own self be true… etc.”)
True story: during my last two years in college, half the college debate judging pool literally hated my guts; I gradually (1967-70) moved about 5% of them to change their opinions from negative to positive. It wasn’t easy. [Note: About 40% of them still hated my guts when I graduated. That's why Colby and I lost in Semis, BTW.]
During the first phase of my debate coaching career (1971-83), large numbers of people hated my guts, and accused me – in various terms (some profane) of “destroying debate”; I adapted, and my teams prospered.
Debate is one-half talking and one-half listening. These qualities are separate and co-equal. If you don’t master BOTH qualities, you’re gonna lose. And you might lose anyway. Life is not always fair.
Let me be clear – you don’t hafta sell out your principles – but you hafta listen. Then you hafta adjust, unless you’re satisfied with the role of being a martyr. I believe that Aristotle referred to this processs/art/science as “Rhetoric.”
And, contrary to popular opinion, “Rhetoric” is not a four-letter word. In fact, I think it’s kinda fun.
God bless all debaters/coaches/judges – whatever the format/forum. And HAPPY CHINCHILLA DAY (Google this phrase and then watch the video) to all. 
Laboring to luv and loving to labore,
MHM
I believe that “devolution” of transportation policy is debated robustly by the relevant intellectual authorities on transportation policy. To argue that the states counterplan and other mechanisms of devolution are not suited for this topic doesn’t seem correct given the vast amount of time devoted to that very topic by academics. I would suspect that a representative of the federal Department of Transportation might too quickly dismiss that debate, given her perspective.
Mind sharing any of those resources which support your point LD? My research so far has pointed to a very intertwined policy area where “going it alone” seems very far fetched. The amount of money involved, alone, makes it unlikely that states could go it alone – further, it does not seem like that is a much mentioned argument in my preliminary research in that I have not seen many states not wanting to participate in the federal program.
Furthermore, with environmental laws it does not seem even possible that states could go it alone without federal oversight and regulation. While I think the states counterplan works well with some topics it does not seem well suited to this year’s area.
“Congress should devolve transportation infrastructure funding and responsibilities to cities and states, ending federal grant programs and their accompanying restrictions. Cities and states have been open to privatization, and most would welcome the flexibility and freedom from costly federal regulations which devolution would give them. Devolving transportation funding would lead to more-productive investment, greater intermodalism, more innovation, and new capital from the private sector.”
Robert Poole – Reason Foundation
http://reason.org/news/show/defederalizing-transportation
I too believe that federal oversight and funding is probably required to employ effective transportation policy. I just wanted to make sure that the “devolution” argument wasn’t dismissed.
I’m not sure that the federal regulation argument is specific to transportation. Aren’t all state laws required to meet federal guidelines like environmental policy or non discrimination policy?
1st the perm:
Mutual exclusion, Textual competition, functional competition, and Philosophical competition all fail for the most part.
2nd the competitiveness:
I would like to see the competitiveness story you tell with it.
Federalism =/= competitiveness…
3rd the compliment:
Dope argument though
what am I still doing up?
I know about it.. also have answers on it. It just doesn’t seem to be a good argument to me. Devolution is NM is an easy argument. Look above to my initial responses on states CPs for those reasons. May favorite part about the shovels
At the end of the day, a states CP will be backed and financed by the USFG and the states will do the plan. How is that different from what we do now (or a plan text’s actions)?
devolution = normal means doesn’t make sense. The counterplan advocacy, which took less than 10 minutes to find, ends all federal funding and regulation of transportation. The counterplan will not be backed or financed by the USFG in a world POST the counterplan. Your general observations about the SQ do not apply to the world of the counterplan.
I agree that the traditional/general “all 50 states will do the plan” counterplan may fall prey to SOME of the arguments which you claim to be universally applicable to every devolution strategy, however, those arguments will not apply to all counter proposals.
My only point is to not rely on some general solvency args about states to defeat devolution or deregulation of transportation strategies which is ROBUSTLY debated in the literature.
If we run the “devo” CP, can we wear plastic flower pots on our Hedz?
Seriously, to-MAY-toe, to-MAH-toe (hereinafter “T,T”). The debate (at least for me) would likely turn on who did the more credible, scholarly and persuasive job of defining terms (an “old school” means of interpreting the topic).
I reserve the right to comment “on the merits” until I actually hear this CP argued… orally. (Obviously, I’m not a big fan of mantras.)
and the states will pay for their transportation needs with???
there goes the state budget for california, lol.
a lot of evidence says deficit spending during a recession is good for states.
but furthermore, almost all states already can’t balance their budget, so no impact, or linear at best.
i don’t understand what’s so difficult to grasp about the states paying for their own transportation projects?
“Cities and states have been open to privatization, and most would welcome the flexibility and freedom from costly federal regulations which devolution would give them. Devolving transportation funding would lead to more-productive investment, greater intermodalism, more innovation, and new capital from the private sector.””
Those two sentences outline a few arguments which answer the “but states don’t got funding” argument which this some on message board thinks is somehow a round winning argument.
a – federal regulations are costly
b – devolving = more cost effective and innovative solutions to transportation problems
c – devolving = greater collaboration with the private sector and their money.
you also make the assumption that to solve transportation problems it is required that the government builds new infrastructure.
example – assume the aff is to build additional lane capacity to solve congestion.
the counterplan could be devolution, with a solvency card that said states would implement high use tolls which would solve congestion. The net benefit could be a disad to building lane capacity, spending, federalism, or a myriad of other options.
I agree Mr. Miller that the counterplan may be topical, but that’s a debate fairly easy to prepare for. Especially given the general assumption among many that “extra and effects” topicality violations are necessary and good for limits and predictability.
I really don’t think the topical CP debate will be significant. In fact, if you look at the conflict paper on NFA’s site, it lists the division of responsibility between states and the Fed as one of the key educational points of this topic. of course, i hate to use the phrase “framer’s intent,” but I do believe states CPs have a legitimate place in this year’s expandos.
Specifically, from http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/nfa/2009-topic3.html
The broad themes of policy arguments that could be made include:
* conflicts between federal, state and local levels of government;
1st, it is against some state constitutions/laws to deficit spend. They are doing what they can to get as close as they can to the budget by cutting whatever they can. Now you would ask them to spend everything they just cut out. You would ask them to ignore all the compromises that the dems and gop made to solve the problems. I bet there aren’t cards out there, but that doesn’t seem a fair representation of the real world (which I know we ignore all the time, but damn thats a hard one to swallow).
2nd, it sounds like this is just a cover for privatization good (which would make WC happy). However, privatization is a bad thing to many people (me included). So I will enjoy seeing how this plays out in round.
fascinating discussion, thanks LD for the link, I will explore that more. I hope we can all continue to have productive discussions like this throughout the year =)
We may be giving too much credit to the topic paper. I get that it was written and accepted as a springboard for the Resolution. But the research listed is not impressive and the person who wrote it is not an expert in the field. This is a good example of why it is important to test evidence (from the other thread). I don’t think that the topic paper author is qualified to comment on the matter, and I do not think that the language of the paper should be used as evidence for how the States CP is mutually exclusive. Policy makers would look at how things are really done in the real world, not how they are described in a 3/4 page topic paper by someone who is not in the field of transportation planning/infrastructure.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think the better course would be a PPP (or Special Transportation Districts) Counterplan which EXCLUDES the USFG. In other words, combine State Governments, Municipal Governments, NGO’s, and Private Enterprise into groups specifically created, mandated and structured to deal with transportation issues.
1. If the CP excludes participation by the USFG, it would appear – at least on its face, to be NT!
(Indeed, a means of funding the CP might be the abolition of the DOT and severe reduction of Federal spending on transportation.)
2. Such a CP obviously addresses the same “issues” as the Affirmative. It is therefore competitive.
3. Frankly, it just makes sense; the USFG was created in 1787-89. It was never intended to deal with the transportation issues we have today. Moreover, I think it can be plausibly argued that as long as Congress is involved in transportation policy, decisions are going to be made according to the dictates of porkbarrel politics, not rational transportation needs, plans, and regulation.
4. Almost ALL of the research I have done indicates that transportation is a unique breed of issue which involves “regions” and/or “clusters,” not Congressional Districts or States.
5. You can’t “perm” a CP that says the involvement of the USFG in transportation policy is toxic per se.